nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Rhineshark

kuro68k wrote: »

The British government is going to take it right to the cliff edge and hope that someone else compromises. Of course they have their excuses already lined up if no-one does, only real question is who they will blame.

1. The EU
2. Remainers
3. Ireland
4. Corbyn

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Shelga

It seems that what Brexiters really want is for the entire EU to disband, because while it exists, they can’t have what they want. I think that is dawning on them now. Well, tough.

Tell me how

blanch152 wrote: »

The whole point is that the nationalists from all constituencies are represented by Sammy Wilson and Gregory Campbell because there is nobody else willing to take up their seats.

Leaving aside what SF should do now, if the current crisis results in a general election on the issue of Brexit, both SF and the DUP should be made suffer by the NI electorate for their respective ways of dealing with the issue.

It is reasonable to suggest that SF voters made their choice fully expecting the practice of abstentionism to be upheld.

SF doing pretty much anything differently to prior practice would have further strengthened UK media claims that the Union is being under attack by the EU and the Irish government.

cml387

First Up wrote: »

Depends what duties if any apply in the EU-UK trade arrangements. Too soon to say.

But sterling is likely to plummet so there could be savings too.

There would be saving in the short term. In the long term increased inflation would push the price up again.

[Deleted User]

seamus wrote: »

Assuming no deal, then you will see a bit of a jump.

At the moment UK retailers who sell decent amounts into Ireland (think Amazon), charge our own rate of 23% VAT on the sale. But the goods are not subject to customs duties.

After a no-deal exit, the UK site will sell the product to you ex-VAT, but Irish customs will require that you pay duty + VAT on the item.

If the item costs less than €150, no duty will be collected on it, but VAT will be.

So, not a major issue for the typical kind of online sales, since most are probably under €150.

However, the package will be stopped and held by the carrier until you pay the VAT. So what was previously a simple transaction with a package that arrived 3 days later, now becomes a far more annoying transaction that may take two weeks to reach you.

For this reason alone, most people will switch to other EU suppliers for online shopping.

But equally sterling is likely to fall through the floor in the short term and thus make items priced in sterling much cheaper here.

First Up

Worztron wrote: »

When Brexit comes into effect - how will it change how we purchase items online from UK websites? Will the prices soar?

Depends what duties if any apply in the EU-UK trade arrangements. Too soon to say.

But sterling is likely to plummet so there could be savings too.

Nody

Worztron wrote: »

When Brexit comes into effect - how will it change how we purchase items online from UK websites? Will the prices soar?

Well with UK (not NI) outside of the Single market etc. there's going to mean it's treated as if imported from China, USA etc. in terms of additional fees. That will definitely add a cost to it all.

briany

Worztron wrote: »

When Brexit comes into effect - how will it change how we purchase items online from UK websites? Will the prices soar?

It'll be a sickener if the Pound tumbles further down, only to see the savings being nixed by the import fees.

We don't know what Brexit will look like yet, so it's impossible to say. If May's deal passes, then getting stuff from the likes of Amazon.co.uk shouldn't change much, if at all. It would put the UK in a customs union with the EU making the movement of goods between those jurisdiction tariff-free. Services would be a different matter, though.

If there's no deal, then I suppose it'll be like ordering something from China or Russia or any other 3rd country to the EU, except there won't be as much of a delay due to geographical proximity, but still more time taken because of customs checks. And if you've ever gotten something from Russia or China, you know how long a package can sit rotting in customs.

seamus

Worztron wrote: »

When Brexit comes into effect - how will it change how we purchase items online from UK websites? Will the prices soar?

Assuming no deal, then you will see a bit of a jump.

At the moment UK retailers who sell decent amounts into Ireland (think Amazon), charge our own rate of 23% VAT on the sale. But the goods are not subject to customs duties.

After a no-deal exit, the UK site will sell the product to you ex-VAT, but Irish customs will require that you pay duty + VAT on the item.

If the item costs less than €150, no duty will be collected on it, but VAT will be.

So, not a major issue for the typical kind of online sales, since most are probably under €150.

However, the package will be stopped and held by the carrier until you pay the VAT. So what was previously a simple transaction with a package that arrived 3 days later, now becomes a far more annoying transaction that may take two weeks to reach you.

For this reason alone, most people will switch to other EU suppliers for online shopping.

Leroy42

lawred2 wrote: »

Could you imagine the response from little Englanders were Irish nationalists to start playing hurler on the ditch?

SF are doing the exact right thing keeping their head's down on this.

I think one only has to look at what is actually happening in the HoC to see how littel impact, and thus pointless, SF taking their seats up would be.

The government has just lost a vote and thus been branded as in contempt of parliament. Soon after it lost another vote which effectively means TM loses control of Brexit process if she loses the upcoming vote.

However, no sooner had that vote been passed then government ministers and ex minsters (Leadsom and Raab) were on message telling people that any vote in parliament was just political and No 10 would have the final saw and what it really wanted.

TM has not only lost the majority, she has now lost the coalition partners (or whatever term they used) so she is effectively trying to ram home her pwn personal agenda without the support of the majority of the house.

What makes anyone think that a few SF votes are going to suddenly bring an end to the madness.

blanch152

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Wow, we didn't make it past the second day since this nonsense was previously put down.

Must be a record!

---

As stated above, the whole point of standing on an abstentionist policy is to not turn up.

Also, the way people seem to think SF are doing a disservice to their non-voters is incredible.

Any concern for the poor Nationalists who get to be represented by the bigoted and racist Sammy Wilson and Gregory Campbell?

The whole point is that the nationalists from all constituencies are represented by Sammy Wilson and Gregory Campbell because there is nobody else willing to take up their seats.

Leaving aside what SF should do now, if the current crisis results in a general election on the issue of Brexit, both SF and the DUP should be made suffer by the NI electorate for their respective ways of dealing with the issue.

lawred2

Could you imagine the response from little Englanders were Irish nationalists to start playing hurler on the ditch?

SF are doing the exact right thing keeping their head's down on this.

Worztron

When Brexit comes into effect - how will it change how we purchase items online from UK websites? Will the prices soar?

BonnieSituation

Seth Brundle wrote: »

My point was that if they won't interfere in a foreign parliament as they claim then why stand in their elections?
It's for another thread though.

Wow, we didn't make it past the second day since this nonsense was previously put down.

Must be a record!

---

As stated above, the whole point of standing on an abstentionist policy is to not turn up.

Also, the way people seem to think SF are doing a disservice to their non-voters is incredible.

Any concern for the poor Nationalists who get to be represented by the bigoted and racist Sammy Wilson and Gregory Campbell?

lawred2

Seth Brundle wrote: »

They do. They stand in its elections

Sigh.

cml387

lawred2 wrote: »

Sinn Fein do not partake in Westminster politics. The end.

Agreed, this is a tired argument which drags the thread off topic.

Seth Brundle

lawred2 wrote: »

Sinn Fein do not partake in Westminster politics. The end.

They do. They stand in its elections

lawred2

RobMc59 wrote: »

The unfolding situation at the HoC has given the Scottish MPs an opportunity to rip into a beleaguered TM ,which is being viewed in many countries-have SF missed a golden opportunity to partake in what is arguably a once in a lifetime event?

Sinn Fein do not partake in Westminster politics. The end.

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

I didn’t suggest they should rescue the British.I asked if they have missed an opportunity in the current situation.

Apart from standing on a platform of abstentionism, Sinn Féin's major political ambition is a United Ireland. The DUP-Tories are doing a great job of making that a more likely likelihood than ever before, so SF have nothing more to gain.

The very first woman elected to Westminster was the SF candidate, Countess Markievicz, who never took her seat. That could also have been considered a missed opportunity in the situation at the time, but it didn't diminish her other contributions to the history of Ireland.

zapitastas

Seth Brundle wrote: »

My point was that if they won't interfere in a foreign parliament as they claim then why stand in their elections?
It's for another thread though.

Is the same question you could ask of the myriad of Irish parlimentarians since the 19th century that held that position. It was a valid political position to take then as it is now.

LeinsterDub

zapitastas wrote: »

It is not Sinn Fein's place to ride in to rescue the British from themselves. As a party who exist on the basis that the British should have no say in Irish affairs it would be a little hypocritical to then interfere in British affairs. Added to that their presence would cause further chaos in an already chaotic situation.

And to add their votes wouldn't make any difference.

Peregrinus

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I didn't suggest that they should turn up to HoC.

No, you suggested that they shouldn't stand in elections if they weren't going to take their seats.

But that would deprive voters of voting for candidates who reject the legitimacy of British rule in Ireland - an opportunity which, in a number of constituencies, a plurality of voters choose in preference to voting for a candidate who will take the seat.

SF see value in standing for election as a mechanims for registering their rejection of British rule, and for demonstrating popular support for that rejection. And there clearly is a fair amount of popular support, given the degree of electoral success they enjoy.

Seth Brundle

murphaph wrote: »

SF riding into the HoC at this time would bring nothing but chaos and might indeed make others reconsider their voting intentions.

I didn't suggest that they should turn up to HoC.

cml387

Teresa May on BBC Today at the moment.
Twice offered the opportunity to deny she is going to delay the vote on Tuesday she skirted the question.

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

As it says in my post-an opportunity to rip into TM at a time events in the HoC are headline news.

You don't have to take a seat in the House of Commons to criticise the Tory Brexit. Nicola Sturgeon seems to manage just fine.

But, more to the point, Sinn Fein's reason for existing is not really to rip into Teresa May, or indeed to take any role in British politics. From SF's point of view, taking seats in the House of Commons (and swearing an oath of allegiance to the crown!) in order to rip into Teresa May would be compromising a central and enduring political principle for the sake of a short-term opportunity to garner some attention in relation to a matter than they are not terribly interested in.

You don't have to agree with Sinn Fein's abstentionism to see that, on its own terms, it make no sense whatsoever for Sinn Fein to abandon abstentionism in order to secure a higher profile for their criticism of May.

murphaph

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So why then do they stand in "foreign" elections?
I don't want this thread to become a SF bashing thread but SF by being absent are depriving NI people from having their voices heard. Stand down from their MP seats and let someone who will actually do the job take it

I don't like SF but they have been clear on abstentionism for a hundred years. The people still vote for them knowing this, which is indeed not very nice for SF MP's constituents who do not vote for them but that's the way it is.

SF riding into the HoC at this time would bring nothing but chaos and might indeed make others reconsider their voting intentions.

RobMc59

Peregrinus wrote: »

An opportunity to do what?

As it says in my post-an opportunity to rip into TM at a time events in the HoC are headline news.

Seth Brundle

zapitastas wrote: »

You must not be very familiar with the history of abstention in this country. Reaches all the way back to the young irelanders in the 19th century. They stand in elections held in their own country but to a foreign parliment. Anyone who cast a vote for SF could hardly say they are surprised that they then didn't take their seats in Westminster. Not taking the seats is kind of the whole point in abstentionist policy

My point was that if they won't interfere in a foreign parliament as they claim then why stand in their elections?
It's for another thread though.

Enzokk

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So why then do they stand in "foreign" elections?
I don't want this thread to become a SF bashing thread but SF by being absent are depriving NI people from having their voices heard. Stand down from their MP seats and let someone who will actually do the job take it

I think this is one of those rare situations where their decision makes absolute sense if you look at the reason and history of it, but right now at this moment they could have offered so much more to their voters and the people of NI.

I am not advocating that they should go to the HoC, just that in this moment of time it is a shame that NI has no representation other than the DUP.

Peregrinus

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So why then do they stand in "foreign" elections?
I don't want this thread to become a SF bashing thread but SF by being absent are depriving NI people from having their voices heard. Stand down from their MP seats and let someone who will actually do the job take it

It's not Sinn Fein that prevents other candidates from representing the constituency; it's the voters. Sinn Fein can only take the seat in, in fact, they win the election. If Sinn Fein candidates offer themselves on an abstentionist position and are elected on that basis, I don't see any argument for saying that they should stand down.

zapitastas

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So why then do they stand in "foreign" elections?
I don't want this thread to become a SF bashing thread but SF by being absent are depriving NI people from having their voices heard. Stand down from their MP seats and let someone who will actually do the job take it

You must not be very familiar with the history of abstention in this country. Reaches all the way back to the young irelanders in the 19th century. They stand in elections held in their own country but to a foreign parliment. Anyone who cast a vote for SF could hardly say they are surprised that they then didn't take their seats in Westminster. Not taking the seats is kind of the whole point in abstentionist policy