Deleted User wrote: » Watching Blair talk about Brexit there.. That man is tarnished by Iraq, but there is a pragmatism in Blair and Major that is totally lacking in British politics nowadays. Maybe it's their position now that allows them to speak like this, but the UK really needs one, just politician who could be a PM who can lead. When I watch the Commons, I see various faces who speak well and seem sensible. I don't understand the nuances enough to see how Boris could ever be above them politically. Has it been too easy for the last 20 years? Those two men dealt with serious issues (perhaps badly) and it seems to have grounded them in reality.
judeboy101 wrote: » Cabinet reportedly split between Norway plus, referendum and no deal.
Bit cynical wrote: » Although the member states will go along with the current May deal, they would be reasonably happy with a comprehensive trade deal if it is also acceptable to Ireland. My view is that it is primarily the EU leadership which is using Ireland and the backstop as a means of forcing the UK to choose between no deal on the one hand or humiliation on the other with Ireland taking the hit in the case of no deal.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » The BBC news has reported that while Britons will not have to apply for visas to visit EU countries, they will have to apply for a €7 ETIAS document which allows for infinite entries and exits within a 3-year period for short stays. Story here:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46564884
Christy42 wrote: » Finally the open border is a pretty big part of the lack of violence. British troops on the border will not be taken well and they couldn't police it the last time.
fash wrote: » Firstly, so what. Worst case scenario, the UK doesn't agree, falls of the EU and eventually comes back looking for some form of deal - likely within months. At that point of time, Ireland can soften its stance if it really needs to - which is unlikely as a crash out will mean a change in UK government and likely a government with a strong mandate. So what if we take a temporary economic hit - Some things are more important than economics - if it has taught us anything, brexit should have taught us that. Don't forget that Theresa May and all of the UK government signed off on stage 1 of the WA discussions and were happy with it and this followed months of guarantees to the same effect that no border would be allowed - it was only afterwards that they changed their minds. Aside from anything else, why should we show them to back out of the "political" commitment? I think you are wrong about the EU insofar as I think that insofar as the UK says no border, Ireland says no border, the EU won't be the first to move to say "ha, ha - border". Only if the UK openly said "actually we need a border", and Ireland said "that's ok" would the EU move forward on that basis. But the time for that discussion was during phase 1 of the WA process- not now when the WA is drafted. Instead what the border issue is to the EU is and was was the rock of reality upon which the delusions of Brexit would crack open in one direction or another. At that point, the UK chose "no border" (or more correctly preferred to keep the delusion afloat a little longer and the nearest rock was the border issue due to sequencing by Ireland and the EU).
J Mysterio wrote: » Nissan basically told its employees that Brexit could make operations in Sunderland difficult for them. They were like turkeys voting for christmas. And they still raced to announce the result so they could beat Newcastle. Ridiculous.
British aerospace firm Rolls-Royce is pressing ahead with plans to stockpile parts and move some regulatory approvals to Germany as it prepares for a possible hard Brexit. Rolls-Royce on Wednesday said it is in talks with the European Aviation Safety Agency to transfer design regulatory approvals for large jet engines away from the UK. The company already deals with German regulators for business jet components. Aerospace manufacturers in the UK face the prospect of their regulatory permissions on safety standards being invalidated in EU countries if there is no Brexit deal. Rolls-Royce said the transfer was a “precautionary and reversible technical action”, and added that no jobs are expected to move as a result.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Crazy a few years a go to think we would be where we are. Let's assume Brexit proceeds and Britain leaves. It strikes me that the leverage Ireland has now is not temporary - it's permanent. If Ireland remains part of the EU that would seem to imply that (as Channel 4 puts it) Ireland is the more "powerful" of the islands simply due to being in the EU. The whole dynamic is completely changed. I expect a lot more UK PM visits to Ireland rather than Taoisaigh having to go to London all the time. If you had suggested this 3 years a go it would have been absurd. So how does it change the dynamics between London and Dublin? It's fascinating.
Sam Russell wrote: » A UK crash out no deal would be a small problem if it followed a two year transition where new customs facilities were built and staffed, new procedures for customs documentation were put in place at exporters by extensive training and additional staff. New facilities were provided for stock keeping to cover for loss of JIT deliveries of needed production inventory. Of course, it would increase cost of production, increase staff costs, and reduce flexibility for the economy, but it would be doable - costly but doable.
Bit cynical wrote: » Christy42 wrote: » There is but how much will continue to suit us over time? I'm not saying a trade deal would suit Ireland forever but it may be all we can resonably expect in the long run. It may be that an agreement that effectively permanently binds the UK into a backstop may not be realistic. How much will we pay for hanging our own out to dry? How much will we pay in blood if violence returns? The open border isn't the only thing preventing violence. Measures such as prisoner release, Ireland's relinquishment of its claim to the North played a part in gaining peace. A border which is no longer open but provides reasonably free movement may put a strain on the GFA, but less so, I would argue than a no deal which would impose the hardest of borders. We have to try and there is decent odds of the UK giving up given the cliff edge they are on. So long as we recognise that this is the calculation we are making. If we genuinely believe that there is a good chance either of the May deal being accepted or A50 being revoked, then the current strategy is correct. If on the other hand, there is not such a good chance, then the strategy is incorrect and we are actually doing more harm to the prospects of peace as well as economic prosperity. Your solution is simply saying the EU will give up everything if you hold out for long enough. Although the member states will go along with the current May deal, they would be reasonably happy with a comprehensive trade deal if it is also acceptable to Ireland. My view is that it is primarily the EU leadership which is using Ireland and the backstop as a means of forcing the UK to choose between no deal on the one hand or humiliation on the other with Ireland taking the hit in the case of no deal.
Christy42 wrote: » There is but how much will continue to suit us over time?
How much will we pay for hanging our own out to dry? How much will we pay in blood if violence returns?
We have to try and there is decent odds of the UK giving up given the cliff edge they are on.
Your solution is simply saying the EU will give up everything if you hold out for long enough.
Bit cynical wrote: » A border which is no longer open but provides reasonably free movement may put a strain on the GFA, but less so, I would argue than a no deal which would impose the hardest of borders.
zapitastas wrote: » I would say that Blair played his part in the brexit referendum being passed. The immigration crisis that engulfed Europe around the time of the vote certainly had its genesis in the second gulf war.
Bit cynical wrote: » Personally, I don't think any open-ended backstop would be agreed by any Parliament. Corbyn, for example, doesn't agree with it. Whoever replaces May won't agree to it. They would agree to rejoin the EU sooner than agree to the backstop and they are not going to rejoin the EU. Why? Because the backstop is an open-ended commitment that the UK can't get out of unilaterally. Other commitments (such as membership of the EU) only exist while both parties wish them to continue but this goes on forever.
Bit cynical wrote: » My view is that it is primarily the EU leadership which is using Ireland and the backstop as a means of forcing the UK to choose between no deal on the one hand or humiliation on the other with Ireland taking the hit in the case of no deal.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Watching Blair talk about Brexit there.. That man is tarnished by Iraq, but there is a pragmatism in Blair and Major that is totally lacking in British politics nowadays. Maybe it's their position now that allows them to speak like this, but the UK really needs one, just politician who could be a PM who can lead. When I watch the Commons, I see various faces who speak well and seem sensible. I don't understand the nuances enough to see how Boris could ever be above them politically. Has it been too easy for the last 20 years? Those two men dealt with serious issues (perhaps badly) and it seems to have grounded them in reality.
Bit cynical wrote: » I'm not saying a trade deal would suit Ireland forever but it may be all we can resonably expect in the long run. It may be that an agreement that effectively permanently binds the UK into a backstop may not be realistic.
Bit cynical wrote: » So long as we recognise that this is the calculation we are making. If we genuinely believe that there is a good chance either of the May deal being accepted or A50 being revoked, then the current strategy is correct. If on the other hand, there is not such a good chance, then the strategy is incorrect and we are actually doing more harm to the prospects of peace as well as economic prosperity. Although the member states will go along with the current May deal, they would be reasonably happy with a comprehensive trade deal if it is also acceptable to Ireland. My view is that it is primarily the EU leadership which is using Ireland and the backstop as a means of forcing the UK to choose between no deal on the one hand or humiliation on the other with Ireland taking the hit in the case of no deal.
Bit cynical wrote: » The open border isn't the only thing preventing violence. Measures such as prisoner release, Ireland's relinquishment of its claim to the North played a part in gaining peace. A border which is no longer open but provides reasonably free movement may put a strain on the GFA, but less so, I would argue than a no deal which would impose the hardest of borders.
road_high wrote: » For all the endless whining from our own useless left here about how terrible our own government are, to my mind they are on a different planet of actual competence compared to the idiots over in England. Never appreciated our own independence as a nation (not part of the UK) as much as I’ve done the past while. Even if the loons take the plunge off that cliff we still will be ok as we are a pretty well run, pragmatic nation with alliances all over the world. The uk will eventually come to its senses but make take a bit of tough love to get there at this stage
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » Crassus and his fire fighting scam is probably the role model for JRM & Co.
road_high wrote: » How many more dramatic dashes to Brussels is t May going to do? The EU leaders seem pretty exasperated at this stage- the issue is in the UK parliament not Brussels, just get on with the vote so we can all plan for no deal.
Bit cynical wrote: » Christy42 wrote: » Ireland's priority has always been the border. It is the way a lot of trade goes through. It also affects a large number of people very directly on the land as well as inviting back violence to those regions. As we have seen from the US trade deals are subject to change. A backstop is a far more permanent win. The UK has already signed up to a soft border I would also point out. They tried to take it back as soon as they were out of the negotiation room but they did. They have promised technological solutions which should assure them the backstop is not needed permanently. Finally you have to wonder if the UK Parliament would accept any serious deal. It is well over two years since the vote and we have not gotten past Brexit means Brexit. If they ever get a position sorted out negotiations could happen. Personally, I don't think any open-ended backstop would be agreed by any Parliament. Corbyn, for example, doesn't agree with it. Whoever replaces May won't agree to it. They would agree to rejoin the EU sooner than agree to the backstop and they are not going to rejoin the EU. Why? Because the backstop is an open-ended commitment that the UK can't get out of unilaterally. Other commitments (such as membership of the EU) only exist while both parties wish them to continue but this goes on forever. Like I said in an earlier post, us wanting something badly does not make it reasonable in the eyes of others. It is true that the backstop is a permanent win...if it is won. But only if it is won. A trade deal is not permanent but can be achieved. Though its terms may change in time, there's generally a mutual interest in keeping it going.
Christy42 wrote: » Ireland's priority has always been the border. It is the way a lot of trade goes through. It also affects a large number of people very directly on the land as well as inviting back violence to those regions. As we have seen from the US trade deals are subject to change. A backstop is a far more permanent win. The UK has already signed up to a soft border I would also point out. They tried to take it back as soon as they were out of the negotiation room but they did. They have promised technological solutions which should assure them the backstop is not needed permanently. Finally you have to wonder if the UK Parliament would accept any serious deal. It is well over two years since the vote and we have not gotten past Brexit means Brexit. If they ever get a position sorted out negotiations could happen.
Imreoir2 wrote: » Sky news did a report on the Irish governments preparations for Brexit and the information and funding being made available to business so that they can plan, invest in alternative markets, new product lines and logistics to get them "Brexit ready". It was stressed again and again that nothing like that is happening in the UK. I won't pretend to be an expert on the response to Brexit in the UK business community though from the reports I have read it seems that there is a huge amount of heads being buryed in the sand. Most businesses have done very little to prepare, those that have tried are hampered by the fact that they really don't know what to preare for and even if they did know what a no-deal Brexit would really look like for their business, they can't justify investing in implementing a contengency plan because it would be a huge waste of money should it not happen. While the problems of Brexit can be planned for and mitigated by Irish business in large part by securing alternative supply lines or shifting to alternative markets, these solutions are not really available to business based in the UK. They can't invest in alternative markets because a no-deal Brexit creates new barriers for all of their markets at the same time. They can't sort out alternative supply lines because the roads between their premises and the ports will become the worlds longest truck park. Those UK businesses that are big enough and rich enought to invest in proper contengency plans seem to be focusing on getting out of the UK in part or in some cases compleatly. Their contengency plans look like opening new EU based subsiduaries and moving some staff and operations to EU based branches. Many other businesses, in a no-deal Brexit, will simply cease trading, there is no plan that could save them.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)
