Folkstonian wrote: » Just because both of you contribute very frequently to these threads (you must have posted hundreds of times?) often submitting apparently learned analyses of contemporary British politics and society - I simply assumed that given your clear enthusiasm for Brexit politics, you’d know Yvette Cooper was a member of the Labour Party And to satisfy you, yes a tiny hint of British exceptionalism as well.
J Mysterio wrote: » I've been very impressed with her throughout this whole debacle, particularly in the committee's. I like Hilary Benn too for the same reason. While Starmer seems a decent fellow, his closeness to Corbyn has almost tainted him.
prawnsambo wrote: » In the case of a hard brexit, that is unavoidable unfortunately. Both the UK and the EU would require it, no matter the posturing coming from certain sections of the UK establishment. No border checks means industrial scale smuggling.
johnnyskeleton wrote: » Traceability is a regulatory matter and can be enforced just the same as any other regulation. What you describe in terms of no means of establishing the origins is something that has already arisen in the context of the EU:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_horse_meat_scandal In 2013 French abatoirs were selling horse meat falsely declared as beef. That happened within the EU. In relation to products that get processed and are re-exported, that too is something that happens in Europe. A recent example is that bicycle parts were being imported into Europe, assembled and sold as European bikes. So the EU passed regulations in relation to these:http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/march/tradoc_156658.exemptions.en.L79-2018.pdf If there was a problem with a perception of poor food being imported from the UK into Ireland, that too could be resolved by regulation.
briany wrote: » Just to help me get this straight - May's plan B is to take her current plan and open it to amendments from the HoC?
bilston wrote: » Cross Channel Freight Trade could drop by up 87% for 3-6 months according to a leaked Border Force document on Sky News tonight in a No Deal Brexit. That means a lot of empty supermarket shelves, shortage of medicines, fuel price rises, and a lack of parts for manufacturing meaning factories closing and lots and lots of jobs being lost. That might explain why British Army reservists are getting their call up papers over the next few weeks...
prawnsambo wrote: » Guarding the stockpiles apparently. Hard to imagine that this level of security is needed or that things would get so broken as to require it.
johnnyskeleton wrote: » You haven't already explained that to me, but do you think that the scale of it is larger than enforcing a hard border with Northern Ireland? Over 200 border crossings vs. a handful of ports! Even leaving the logistics aside, it's certainly far less politically charged. Regarding calling into question the integrity of all our exports, what you are fundamentally trying to suggest is that the EU would not accept exports from Ireland if there was an open border with the U.K. But lets look at the reality of the situation. No border is completely impenetrable. Drugs, for example, get into the EU and circulate amongst member states all the time. Likewise with non duty paid cigarettes from outside the E.U. There is no way of absolutely stopping these things, all you can do is impose checks. If the E.U. was satisfied with an arrangement , they can hardly complain about it at the same time. We aren't dealing with good choices. We are dealing with a catastrophic hard brexit or finding some kind of practical solution. Let's not be like the British and pick battles we cannot win. We want to avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland at all costs. This means we will need to find compromises in other areas or else accept the mutually assured destruction of no deal. Which is probably what is going to happen in any event.
SimonTemplar wrote: » How safe is May in her position. I mean she survived a vote of no confidence as did her government. Is it now impossible to force her out if she doesn't resign?
Eric Cartman wrote: » all those post apocalyptic films might come in handy soon enough. When the kegs and cigarette machines run dry thats when itll kick off.
prawnsambo wrote: » I think somebody is already selling Brexit survival packs. Fairly sure I saw it mentioned on Twitter where they had already sold 600 of them at £300 a pop or thereabouts.
Folkstonian wrote: » I agree that Hillary Benn is clearly an astute, principled man. And a great orator as well, something Corbyn most certainly isn’t. I always think back to his speech in parliament before the Syria vote, a candidate for the most compelling address to the house this century. Starmer is just another of Corbyn’s lackeys. Unwilling to stand with the likes of Benn and Cooper against a man doing terrible damage to the party
SimonTemplar wrote: » CNN's headline is 'May's Brexit Plan B is Plan A again'. It is a total national embarrassment.
Akrasia wrote: » There will be a HOC amendment next week that will demand either an extension to A50 or a revocation of A50 if no withdrawal agreement is passed before 29th of March
Enzokk wrote: » I think you are being harsh on Starmer. I have seen nothing to suggest he is a Corbyn lackey and he is actually in direct opposition to Corbyn on Brexit. You have to remember that Corbyn doesn't actually have enough supporters in the party to fill all of the shadow cabinet positions with yes men so he has to have those with opposing views in the shadow cabinet. As for standing against Corbyn, he was only elected in the 2015 election and thus would have only been a MP for a few weeks in the first leadership bid. He also backed Andy Burnham for leadership. It was only a year later when Corbyn was challenged again and he would have been an MP for only a little more than a year at that as well. His views on the EU is in stark contradiction of those of Milne and McDonell as well so he is at least in my eyes in no way a Corbyn lackey. I would think if there was a new leadership challenge he would have more to think about in terms of standing this time as he has had experience for a few years now at least. She is safe because the DUP will back her as they know she is their backdoor to power and the Conservatives will always put party ahead of country.
johnnyskeleton wrote: » We wouldn't have to be party to any UK trade deals, and we would not have to accept US goods for sale in Ireland. We are talking about where you physically check the goods. And we have made it a political priority that those checks do not take place anywhere near Northern Ireland.
Mezcita wrote: » Curious as to why nobody has tried to push Corbyn out yet though. Surely they must be getting worried with Labour being behind in the poles despite the Tories being so useless.
10000maniacs wrote: » If it gets that bad in the UK after a hard Brexit, I don't see it being any different here. Tesco's/ Dunnes/ Boots and Supervalu shelves are in the mainstream stocked from the UK. And Aldi/LIDL stock comes via the UK. The UK are dragging us down with them.
correct horse battery staple wrote: » UK accounts for 9% of our good exports as per last CSO figures (down from 20) We would have to bear the costs and delays making us less competitive checking 91% exports.
e whole idea is nonsense it be like Alaska having to check all their trade to mainland US to keep Canada happy.
Hurrache wrote: » FG agree to nothing, it's the EU they're dealing with.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Why would there be pressure if No Deal is off the table? Theresa's deal suits us fine as does revoking Art 50
johnnyskeleton wrote: » https://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/externaltrade/2018/trade_oct2018.pdf This document? Which shows good exports to the UK at 13.1bn jan-oct 2017 and goods exports to the eu for the same period at 45.2bn? We would not bear the costs as the EU has guaranteed to support Ireland financially if there are brexit related losses. This applies all the more so if we take one for the team.
