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; } } }

Brexit Discussion Thread VI

johnnyskeleton

Hi folks, as Theresa May has won the vote of no confidence and we are heading into Brexit day early next year, I thought for the new thread people might give their summary of their views on Brexit to date before we get into the more day to day discussions.

So what do you think about what has happened so far? Who has come off well, who has come off badly?

Where do you think Brexit is going? What is going to be the likely impact on Ireland, Northern Ireland, the rest of the U.K. and the E.U. respectively?

Both this thread and the Mark V thread will remain open simultaneously for the next day or so and Mark V will be closed as it gets closer to the server busting 10,000 mark. Hopefully we can set down a solid foundation now for a top quality thread to come!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ThePanjandrum

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Leaving aside the fact that he referred to an Irish Prime Minister, which we don't have,

Then you'd better hold a referendum to change the Irish Constitution because it says there:

article 13
1 1° the President shall, on the nomination of dáil
Éireann, appoint the taoiseach, that is, the head
of the Government or Prime Minister.

But what do I know? I'm only a Brit.

ThePanjandrum

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

he suggested that the Taoiseach said something that he didn't say

JRM said "As the Prime Minister of Ireland said yesterday he was not going to impose a hard border," he later added, "If we left without a deal he had no plans to implement a hard border." As far as I can see from newspaper reports this is exactly what was said. Are you saying that Varadkar did say that he was going to impose a hard border.

ThePanjandrum

Sam Russell wrote: »

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

The GFA was founded on the fact that both sides were in the SM, and only if that continues will there be no problem. Anything that causes a deviation from SM both sides of the border is asking for trouble.

I dispute that. Are you saying that any deviation from a single market would have meant that there was no Belfast Agreement? If so, the current level of phytosanitary checks would disprove your point. There is currently a fairly open border but as far as freedom of movement of citizens between the two countries goes, that is because of the bilateral common travel area agreement which predated the various European organisations anyway.

ThePanjandrum

Sam Russell wrote: »

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

There are 300 crossings on that border.

I'd have thought that there were far more than that, that the border has never been successfully closed and never will be.

Strazdas

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

I dispute that. Are you saying that any deviation from a single market would have meant that there was no Belfast Agreement? If so, the current level of phytosanitary checks would disprove your point. There is currently a fairly open border but as far as freedom of movement of citizens between the two countries goes, that is because of the bilateral common travel area agreement which predated the various European organisations anyway.

Removal of customs posts and security installations was certainly a factor in the peace process. Nationalists could travel across the border into what they believed was the rest of their country without any hindrance.

It's hard to quantify what the atmosphere in the border counties circa 1998 would have been like if a hard border had still been in place.

ThePanjandrum

Strazdas wrote: »

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

nobody in Europe or anywhere else would give a toss whether Brexit Britain is being treated fairly or not, the current regime and its media are friendless in the world.

Yet the USA and other countries would like bilateral agreements with the UK and many of the parties to the TPP would like the UK to take up membership.

ThePanjandrum

prawnsambo wrote: »

Skipping gaily past the elephant in the room which is May, the UK generally and everyone who campaigned for Leave saying that there will be no problem with the border or the GFA. So much so, that they even put it on the statute books. But the EU done it to tie us up in knots says JRM, because something, something, uppity paddies.

Sorry, I don't have the faintest idea of what you are trying to say.

Nody

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Yet the USA and other countries would like bilateral agreements with the UK and many of the parties to the TPP would like the UK to take up membership.

And how does any of that mean UK will be treated fairly? Let's look at the actual deals struck so far.

1) USA - Worse terms than EU already (see flights deal)
2) South Africa dance trip - 4 billion in additional funding yet the countries can still reject the deal which would only be the same as they currently have through EU
3) Australia - Already stated the goal is to screw UK over based on what other countries manage to squeeze out
4) Japan - EU deal prohibits Japan from offering anything that impacts EU without EU permission; once again how do you read this to mean UK will get a better deal?
5) WTO - Multiple objections already out there (and that's before UK's utter failure in even changing currencies from euro to GBP in the taxation listed etc.)

Hence do by all means feel free to point out what country / countries are giving UK a better deal than what they have currently in EU; stating that country wants to trade with UK (as does the EU) does not mean that they are going to get a fair or favorable deal as it's only recognizing a potential market that can be bullied for better than current terms.

ThePanjandrum

Strazdas wrote: »

Removal of customs posts and security installations was certainly a factor in the peace process. Nationalists could travel across the border into what they believed was the rest of their country without any hindrance.

It's hard to quantify what the atmosphere in the border counties circa 1998 would have been like if a hard border had still been in place.

I'd agree with that.

prawnsambo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Sorry, I don't have the faintest idea of what you are trying to say.

It means that there are and have been lots of statements from the UK including statute law to prevent a hard border. If it didn't matter, why did they bother with it? But it's all the nasty EU playing games. Really? Accepted from the very beginning without exception until it got in the way of JRM and his ilk and their oh so hard brexit. Is that clear enough for you?

Enzokk

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Yet the USA and other countries would like bilateral agreements with the UK and many of the parties to the TPP would like the UK to take up membership.

And I would like to be on friendly terms with Joe Schmidt but saying it doesn't mean it will happen. In any trade deal with the UK the question will always be what type of deal will the UK have with the EU as this will impact the deal the other country is negotiating.

Also, surely the recent deals the EU concluded with the likes of Japan makes it even harder for the UK to not have a very tight (read BRINO) deal with the EU as the options for the countries to bypass the UK should they have a trade deal with the EU that will introduce friction will be so much higher. Why would Japanese companies look to set up in the UK if they can set up in any of the other 27 countries and have access to the single market and the EU/Japan trade deal whereas they would have to wait and see what trade deal the UK will have with the EU and will then have to wait and see what trade deal the UK will have with Japan.

But the Moggster will sort this all out. I am sure you can provide examples where he has actually supported and suggested policies that benefits the whole of the UK and not just a small subsection of the populace?

A Dub in Glasgo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

I'm only a Brit.

Well the truth is very revealing sometimes

Imreoir2

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

I'd have thought that there were far more than that, that the border has never been successfully closed and never will be.

Which is why we can never alow a situation develop that would require us to try to close it. It would create a smugllers paradise which would fund paramilitary groups for the next 50 years.

Leroy42

Fundamentally, JRM was trying to assert that the Taoiseach was in agreement with his position based on the 'fact' that he said he wasn't planning on implementing a border.

It was pointed out to him that he was being disingenuous (which is what the Brexit debate is all about) and that saying he was planning for it is not the same as him having the position that the border was a non issue.

He was wrong, he was called out on it. And if more people did that then the UK wouldn't be in the chaos that it currently is.

I don't really care what he called him, although he should show the courtesy that the UK expects the rest of the world to extend to their monarch for example, but that is a side issue and I am more concerned by his misuse of a statement for his own ends.

What should be concerning is that the man who stands up telling everyone about taking back control has seemingly come to the conclusion that taking back control is only when it suits and they should actually completely break down all control in terms of one of their borders with Ireland. That a proud nation should turn its back on its freely entered into agreements and financial obligations.

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

What should be concerning is that the man who stands up telling everyone about taking back control has seemingly come to the conclusion that taking back control is only when it suits and they should actually completely break down all control in terms of one of their borders with Ireland.

Isn't that kind of hypocrisy a hallmark of the ultra-Brexiteers? The same logic applies to the DUP who want to be 100% aligned with Britain and all things British ... except when it doesn't suit their Biblical ideology.

Jim2007

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Yet the USA and other countries would like bilateral agreements with the UK and many of the parties to the TPP would like the UK to take up membership.

And why would they not want a trade deal with he UK? Everyone wants to sell them their stuff and the best time to get a deal is when the UK has zero deals and is floundering around trying to rebuild their trade strategy.

dr.fuzzenstein

Jim2007 wrote: »

And why would they not want a trade deal with he UK? Everyone wants to sell them their stuff and the best time to get a deal is when the UK has zero deals and is floundering around trying to rebuild their trade strategy.

Yes, I'm sure they get a very favourable deal when they go over there, cap in hand going "uhm, can we have a trade deal please? We're kinda desperate".

road_high

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yes, I'm sure they get a very favourable deal when they go over there, cap in hand going "uhm, can we have a trade deal please? We're kinda desperate".

Trade deals are a real sharks water and are always about one party selling to another on the best terms (for them) possible. Uk farmers will be first on the sacrificial altar of brexit, N Irish farming would be decimated by an influx of Australian and N and S American beef, sheep and dairy products. But too good for the donkeys as this is what they voted for.

I read an interview with a right wing Australian MP. He said "of course we want a FTA". He was asked why and said "we've got loads to export". When asked what he wanted to import from the UK he said "Land Rover Defenders. Oh you've stopped making them"

So there’s the sharks circling already.

briany

road_high wrote: »

I read an interview with a right wing Australian MP. He said "of course we want a FTA". He was asked why and said "we've got loads to export". When asked what he wanted to import from the UK he said "Land Rover Defenders. Oh you've stopped making them"

So there’s the sharks circling already.

Sounds like pub talk from that Aussie MP, just as bad as the bluffing from the UK's right wing MPs on Brexit. "Loads to export" isn't exactly a quantifiable statistic. It's barely even anecdotal, it's so vague.

road_high

briany wrote: »

Sounds like pub talk from that Aussie MP, just as bad as the bluffing from the UK's right wing MPs on Brexit. "Loads to export" isn't exactly a quantifiable statistic. It's barely even anecdotal, it's so vague.

They have tons of cheap dairy, beef and sheep to export- hardly a secret is it? It’ll be soon very quantifiable indeed if the uk are as desperate for a trade deal with all and sundry as they are indicating

Capt'n Midnight

Remember the drones over Gatwick ?

The French have bought the airport for £2.9Bn

“Just a few months ago we would not even have dreamed of being able to acquire an unlimited licence in the London airports system for less than 20 times core earnings,” he said on a conference call, referring to the price of the deal.

This is Brexit in a nutshell, as the pound falls UK assets become cheaper for those who have Dollars or Euros. Expect more foreign control, like the way the Water Companies were snapped up.

#takebackcontrol :rolleyes:

EdgeCase

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Remember the drones over Gatwick ?

The French have bought the airport for £2.9Bn

This is Brexit in a nutshell, as the pound falls UK assets become cheaper for those who have Dollars or Euros. Expect more foreign control, like the way the Water Companies were snapped up.

#takebackcontrol :rolleyes:

Well, it's always been about the disaster capitalism and asset stripping.

I think the UK is going to end up being owned by so sorts of investors, thanks to deflated assets, weak sterling and drastically weakened regulation.

It'll be a lot worse if they've a genuine economic blow out and have to start selling assets (they have very few state assets left). You could easily see chunks of the NHS going private, motorway privatisation etc etc, particularly if they end up with situation that requires IMF assistance or similar intervention.

johnnyskeleton

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Then you'd better hold a referendum to change the Irish Constitution because it says there.

The article uou quoted makes it clead that the title of the head of the Irish Government is the Taoiseach. So no referendum needed.

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

JRM said "As the Prime Minister of Ireland said yesterday he was not going to impose a hard border," he later added, "If we left without a deal he had no plans to implement a hard border." As far as I can see from newspaper reports this is exactly what was said. Are you saying that Varadkar did say that he was going to impose a hard border.

He has been saying that for some time:

https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/varadkar-a-nodeal-brexit-would-make-it-very-difficult-to-avoid-a-hard-border-37536285.html

Quote]The only way we can avoid a hard border is by an agreement, an agreement that covers customs and regulations.[/quote]

The specific statement JRM was misquoting appears to be in relation to him not expecting a hard border because he believes there will be a deal.

listermint

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Remember the drones over Gatwick ?

The French have bought the airport for £2.9Bn

This is Brexit in a nutshell, as the pound falls UK assets become cheaper for those who have Dollars or Euros. Expect more foreign control, like the way the Water Companies were snapped up.

#takebackcontrol :rolleyes:

That does seem incredibly cheap

lawred2

listermint wrote: »

That does seem incredibly cheap

Did they increase holdings or purchase 50.01% for 2.9Bn?

listermint

lawred2 wrote: »

Did they increase holdings or purchase 50.01% for 2.9Bn?

hard to make out from the Article tbh. Could be increase could be entire percentage holding

prawnsambo

listermint wrote: »

hard to make out from the Article tbh. Could be increase could be entire percentage holding

Looks to me like it's the full 50.01%. Also reported in The Guardian.

ambro25

Yesterday's Home Office tweet confirming EUinUK will have to register through the UK's settled portal -and pay £65 a head, 50% for minors- to remain in the UK (and their homes, jobs, etc.) post-transition period.

Classy.

I just wish there was a realistic way of making Leave voters (particularly those who consistently claimed that "nothing would change" for EUinUK) pay those fees and any further costs and disbursements arising from the HO's inevitably catastrophic handling of the thing: that's a required processing through-rate of circa.29,000 EU27 applicants per week between the start live date and by the deadline...but the current live trial of the system is reportedly shambolic at a processing through-rate of 2,000 per week.

EDIT - Lest we forget:

During the EU referendum campaign, Tory Vote Leavers repeatedly stated that EU citizens living in Britain had nothing to fear from Brexit. As Boris Johnson and Priti Patel, said on June 1: “There will be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK. These EU citizens will automatically be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK and will be treated no less favourably than they are at present.”

Igotadose

ambro25 wrote: »

Yesterday's Home Office tweet confirming EUinUK will have to register through the UK's settled portal -and pay £65 a head, 50% for minors- to remain in the UK (and their homes, jobs, etc.) post-transition period.

Classy.

I just wish there was a realistic way of making Leave voters (particularly those who consistently claimed that "nothing would change" for EUinUK) pay those fees and any further costs and disbursements arising from the HO's inevitably catastrophic handling of the thing: that's a required processing through-rate of circa.29,000 EU27 applicants per week between the start live date and by the deadline...but the current live trial of the system is reportedly shambolic at a processing through-rate of 2,000 per week.

Allow the registrants to apply for a refund of their fees in a years time or so. That'll bring it home for the Leavers. And, once the UK screws that up, have some of the registrants sue the entire system into oblivion.

29,000/week is a very large number, need a fair bit of infrastructure there. One wonders how they check 'criminality' - if someone ticks a check box that says 'nope, not me I've never committed a crime', how do they cross-check? Even more infrastructure, and wait till they start screwing up the name matching.

My brief experience using UK websites run out of UK sites, is that they're dreadfully bad, poorly done and unreliable. Haven't had to use a UK gov website fortunately.

An Ciarraioch

Somewhat ironic to read Scottish Tory MPs writing to the Times that a second referendum could break the Union, when in 2014 that same Union was going to safeguard Scotland's Eropean identity! If anything, the present crisis is hastening the break-up of the UK, as national priorities diverge - ironically, an independent Scotland could well have completed accession talks by now!