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 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

Bit cynical

Enzokk wrote: »

No, it is not making it hard to leave. The UK can leave but it cannot just forget its international obligations to the GFA. This is really simple and I have to wonder why we are getting stuck on this. If Hungary were to leave the EU it would be very simple because they have not signed an international treaty that maintains peace between two countries that relies on continued membership of the EU. They would negotiate the divorce bill and citizen rights and once that is done on the date of article 50 Hungary would leave and border would go up.

But the GFA is not a treaty between the UK and the institution of the EU. The EU should have no business enforcing agreements at the member state level if one member is leaving, particularly if it is to the potential detriment of one of the remaining member states.

To take your example, it could well be that that Hungary has some agreements with neighbouring countries and therefore leaving the EU might put those agreements under strain. But if the EU decided to use these agreements as a means of making life hard for Hungary, then we would not regard the EU as negotiating in good faith.

MrMusician18

road_high wrote: »

Definitely some agenda going on- either foreign influence or anti FG stuff or both. I couldn’t care less about the party, this is all far more important to the nation- the last thing needed is a so called national paper of record continually trashing the country and our positions.

The Indo is a populist rag not a paper of record

Fear sells.

Hurrache

This is just brilliant
https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1088695579293687810?s=19

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

Was it a poster on her, or maybe an interview posted on here, that said that the backstop wasn't the issue really.

The reason the deal was rejected, and so comprehensively, was that leavers were finally confronted with the truth about Brexit. That no matter what way you looked at it, it was a worse deal then they currently have and that to get things back would take many years and lots of hard work.

That went against everything they had sold the UK public and they were faced with the ramifications of that. SO the easiest thing to do was blame TM and EU rather than accept the reality.

Changing the backstop won't solve that fundamental problem

There's been way too much talk about the backstop. The idea that the entirety of Brexit and Britain's future for the next 30 years is dependent on a tiny clause in the 600 page withdrawal agreement is complete nonsense. Even if the backstop was ditched this afternoon, it's still very likely the UK would still be facing a huge political crisis and as divided as ever.

FreudianSlippers

Bit cynical wrote: »

But the GFA is not a treaty between the UK and the institution of the EU. The EU should have no business enforcing agreements at the member state level if one member is leaving, particularly if it is to the potential detriment of one of the remaining member states.

To take your example, it could well be that that Hungary has some agreements with neighbouring countries and therefore leaving the EU might put those agreements under strain. But if the EU decided to use these agreements as a means of making life hard for Hungary, then we would not regard the EU as negotiating in good faith.

It's a treaty between two Member States, your point is irrelevant.

blanch152

Shelga wrote: »

How has it come to this? How was an issue of this overwhelming complexity ever put to the people, with no plan whatsoever in the case of a Leave vote?

What I find so unfair is that Leave voters chose to impose their will on millions of innocent people; to have an immediate and negative impact on their everyday lives as they go about their normal business.

If you voted Yes in our referendum on the eighth amendment last May, your choice didn't have any impact whatsoever on the daily lives of the people who voted No. I know it's a totally different topic but it's the only recent parallel I can think of in our country. Same goes for the SSM referendum.

Does the average Brexit voter not care about the impact their vote is having on business people, British nationals who live all over the EU, future students, people who work in universities, people who benefit from EU funding, etc etc? I struggle to accept that they really think this is going to benefit them.

It was such an incredibly selfish, short-sighted, arrogant vote.

I don't buy that at all. We rejected the Nice proposals. That put us on a path to eventual Irexit, before we got sense and voted again to accept Nice.

I can accept that there was interference in the referendum. I can accept that people didn't understand the implications of what they were voting for. If we had followed through on the first Nice referendum, we would have been imposing the democratic will on all those who wanted closer ties with Europe. Also, the whole point of the Eighth Amendment was that those who opposed it believe that the unborn are fully human from point of conception, and they would very much argue that in repealing the Eighth, we were imposing our will on millions of future innocent people.

Strazdas

Hurrache wrote: »

This is just brilliant
https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1088695579293687810?s=19

It's been obvious from day one that Brexiteer objections to a second referendum have nothing to do with "democracy" or fairness. A bunch of hard right spivs have hijacked a referendum process and are telling anyone who gets in their way that they are undemocratic and traitors. Unfortunately though, it seems the Brexit voters share the authoritarian instincts of their leaders.

RobMc59

prawnsambo wrote: »

Can you stockpile? I'm guessing no by the quantity and frequency of deliveries, but it would seem to be the logical alternative.

No,we have a storage tank of 90,000 tonnes and use most of that weekly so would grind to a halt in a week-the driver said there's 3 tankers a day coming over as we're not the only company using the chemical so it's anyone's guess what will happen in the event of a hard brexit-we also use drum stock chemicals from France,Germany and Switzerland amongst others!

FrancieBrady

Bit cynical wrote: »

But the GFA is not a treaty between the UK and the institution of the EU. The EU should have no business enforcing agreements at the member state level if one member is leaving, particularly if it is to the potential detriment of one of the remaining member states.

To take your example, it could well be that that Hungary has some agreements with neighbouring countries and therefore leaving the EU might put those agreements under strain. But if the EU decided to use these agreements as a means of making life hard for Hungary, then we would not regard the EU as negotiating in good faith.

The EU has every right to ensure the agreement is upheld in the context of this

The EU and the United Kingdom, as a co-guarantor with Ireland of the Good Friday Agreement, should
continue to support peace, stability and reconciliation on the island of Ireland.

Have a read:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596826/IPOL_STU(2017)596826_EN.pdf

prawnsambo

RobMc59 wrote: »

No,we have a storage tank of 90,000 tonnes and use most of that weekly so would grind to a halt in a week-the driver said there's 3 tankers a day coming over as we're not the only company using the chemical so it's anyone's guess what will happen in the event of a hard brexit-we also use drum stock chemicals from France,Germany and Switzerland amongst others!

And I imagine that adding more storage on-site would not be a simple task. I don't know if this is a solution for you, but I remember years ago, a small heating oil supply company opened up near me and they started out storing their oil in old road tankers. They now have proper oil tanks, but I think this solution gets around planning permission and oher such lengthy processes.

Leroy42

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The EU has every right to ensure the agreement is upheld in the context of this

Have a read:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596826/IPOL_STU(2017)596826_EN.pdf

And the fact that the UK has stated, many times, that it fully intends to continue with the GFA.

The GFA is not some EU device to hold the UK hostage. No serious person is talking about changing or gettting rid of the GFA. The problem with it is that it forces the Brexitees into making a decision, a decisions are exactly the opposite of what Brexit is really all about.

It is an idea, a dream, a fantasy. GFA puts a big dose of reality into that and deflates the dream to a large extent.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

But the GFA is not a treaty between the UK and the institution of the EU. The EU should have no business enforcing agreements at the member state level if one member is leaving, particularly if it is to the potential detriment of one of the remaining member states..

It was Ireland's decision to have the back stop - not the EU's. Surely you agree that Ireland is sufficiently mature to decide its own interests- and that it does not require the EU to decide on its behalf?

Bit cynical wrote: »

To take your example, it could well be that that Hungary has some agreements with neighbouring countries and therefore leaving the EU might put those agreements under strain. But if the EU decided to use these agreements as a means of making life hard for Hungary, then we would not regard the EU as negotiating in good faith.

To repeat the unanswered questions I made earlier, an FTA needs unanimous consent of the EU members (just ask Canada or Wallonia) - why should Ireland be happy with the UK putting up a border- who would feel "railroaded" and aggrieved in that case at their concerns regarding a hard border not being listened to? Should the EU put the economic well-being of England above peace in the EU, on its borders and the interests of its member states?
What would the future attitude in Ireland to the EU be if the EU ignored Ireland's concerns about a hard border "ha ha ha- you are small, nobody cares about your concerns"?

Havockk

Mod Note:

Per the charter:

Articles from blogs, newpapers, magazines etc cannot be put up in full in the politics forum due to copyright reasons. You can provide a link to the article and quote the opening paragraph or one that provides a summary of the key points. When posting or linking to a video please provide a summary of the content as not everybody has access to video sites or the time to view them.

Leroy42

What an odd story in the FT.

Only a few lines in it reads

One of the Tory party’s leading fundraisers has told friends that after a successful year in fundraising, “January has been dry but not for alcoholic reasons”

So not really any problem with fundraising, merely a timing issue.

Professor Moriarty

Havockk wrote: »

Here you go.

Unsurprising when you consider that the incumbent Tory Foreign Secretary at the time, a certain Mr Boris Johnson, said last June "F**k business." when asked about BMW and Airbus's concerns over Brexit.

Bit cynical

fash wrote: »

Should the EU put the economic well-being of England above peace in the EU, on its borders and the interests of its member states?
What would the future attitude in Ireland to the EU be if the EU ignored Ireland's concerns about a hard border "ha ha ha- you are small, nobody cares about your concerns"?

I agree that Ireland has a legitimate concern about the border, however it is not the only concern. I think that Ireland unwisely allowed its legitimate concern to be taken advantage of by the EU to make life harder for the Brits but ultimately to the detriment of Ireland. I think Ireland on its own would have adopted a more flexible, pragmatic approach rather than the legalistic one taken by the EU.

First Up

Bit cynical wrote:

I agree that Ireland has a legitimate concern about the border, however it is not the only concern. I think that Ireland unwisely allowed its legitimate concern to be taken advantage of by the EU to make life harder for the Brits but ultimately to the detriment of Ireland. I think Ireland on its own would have adopted a more flexible, pragmatic approach rather than the legalistic one taken by the EU.

I think that is the most spectacularly innacurate piece of analysis I have seen for quite some time.

LuckyLloyd

Bit cynical wrote: »

I agree that Ireland has a legitimate concern about the border, however it is not the only concern. I think that Ireland unwisely allowed its legitimate concern to be taken advantage of by the EU to make life harder for the Brits but ultimately to the detriment of Ireland. I think Ireland on its own would have adopted a more flexible, pragmatic approach rather than the legalistic one taken by the EU.

Of course it would, because on its own it would have no clout or leverage. In Brexit negotiations, the EU have all the leverage and have acted accordingly.

Ultimately, Ireland would have been damaged anyway and in the long term it is better to expedite the kind of crazy leap the UK seems willing to take. We will never have a better foundation to deal with it than now.

Tell me how

Bit cynical wrote: »

I agree that Ireland has a legitimate concern about the border, however it is not the only concern. I think that Ireland unwisely allowed its legitimate concern to be taken advantage of by the EU to make life harder for the Brits but ultimately to the detriment of Ireland. I think Ireland on its own would have adopted a more flexible, pragmatic approach rather than the legalistic one taken by the EU.

Would you also think we would have been best to have decided to leave the EU at the same time so as not to complicate making a cosy deal with the UK while the EU 26 look on from the sideline?

Skelet0n

Bit cynical wrote: »

fash wrote: »

Should the EU put the economic well-being of England above peace in the EU, on its borders and the interests of its member states?
What would the future attitude in Ireland to the EU be if the EU ignored Ireland's concerns about a hard border "ha ha ha- you are small, nobody cares about your concerns"?

I agree that Ireland has a legitimate concern about the border, however it is not the only concern. I think that Ireland unwisely allowed its legitimate concern to be taken advantage of by the EU to make life harder for the Brits but ultimately to the detriment of Ireland. I think Ireland on its own would have adopted a more flexible, pragmatic approach rather than the legalistic one taken by the EU.

You mean we’d be easier to bend if we were on our own?

It’s almost as if being in a large union is beneficial.

seamus

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think Ireland on its own would have adopted a more flexible, pragmatic approach rather than the legalistic one taken by the EU.

Ireland on its own would have been threatened with blockades, punitive tariffs and starvation until it relented on the border issue.

That's not me being hyperbolic, that's basically what a number of UK politicians have inadvertently admitted.

Joining the EEC might be the single most important thing the country did since Independence. And this becomes more and more true every day that this rumbles on. If we were still hogtied economically to the UK, we'd be completely exposed to the whims of their politicians.

Professor Moriarty

seamus wrote: »

Ireland on its own would have been threatened with blockades, punitive tariffs and starvation until it relented on the border issue.

That's not me being hyperbolic, that's basically what a number of UK politicians have inadvertently admitted.

Joining the EEC might be the single most important thing the country did since Independence. And this becomes more and more true every day that this rumbles on. If we were still hogtied economically to the UK, we'd be completely exposed to the whims of their politicians.

Not always inadvertently. Here is Jacob's suggestion last May speaking in the context of pressurising the EU during negotiations:

"If Britain trades on WTO terms, we could potentially slap tariffs of up to 70 per cent on Irish beef. That could bankrupt Ireland, who export £800million of beef to us every year."

Bit cynical

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Yep. Fully Irish. I don't really know about my own personal right to remain. The Common Travel Area, as I learned in Tony Connelly's Brexit & Ireland, doesn't actually exist beyond a litany of vague references in the two countries' legislation and bilateral agreements. There is no bilateral CTA treaty.

Yet this, paradoxically, is perhaps the reason for its success. The CTA and the arrangement whereby nationals of the two countries can vote in each other's general elections have no international treaty behind them yet they persist. Of course they will not last forever; nothing does, but they have already outlasted the backstop (stillborn) and will probably outlast the GFA, the reason being that they rely on common interest and good will to keep them going.

Harry Palmr

The swivel eyes loons and fantasists seems to becoming quite prominent in the media right now, and that's not a shock as time starts to run out and Brexiteers fear some sort of extension or worse.

Mark Francois the Member of Parliament (MP) for Rayleigh and Wickford, giving it large to the "hun"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V7FF7ldDVs

The tone is only going to become more hardline and febrile.

El Weirdo

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The swivel eyes loons and fantasists seems to becoming quite prominent in the media right now, and that's not a shock as time starts to run out and Brexiteers fear some sort of extension or worse.

Mark Francois the Member of Parliament (MP) for Rayleigh and Wickford, giving it large to the "hun"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V7FF7ldDVs

The tone is only going to become more hardline and febrile.

Teutonic arrogance? The cheek.

megaten

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think Ireland on its own would have adopted a more flexible, pragmatic approach rather than the legalistic one taken by the EU.

The current approach is one we dictated to EU. The only difference is alone we wouldn't have had the muscle to enforce our position.

Havockk

El Weirdo wrote: »

Teutonic arrogance? The cheek.

Personally I thought D-Day was the highlight of this sketch.

EdgeCase

El Weirdo wrote: »

Teutonic arrogance? The cheek.

It's far more like straight talking Teutonic logic and pragmatic assesment of economic reality vs dogmatic, illogical, imperial British arrogance and exceptionalism.

What exactly does he expect Airbus to do? Go bankrupt on a matter of someone else's principles?!

The company is one of the textbook and best examples of a pan European supply chain. It's massively exposed and operates in a highly complex and competitive market.

It has very little choice but to make hard decisions to protect itself from political chaos.

Bit cynical

megaten wrote: »

The current approach is one we dictated to EU. The only difference is alone we wouldn't have had the muscle to enforce our position.

Initially we did hold that the WA should contain a clause guaranteeing no hard border. However, where the flexibility was needed was down the line when it became clear that the backstop as it was worded was a non-runner. Once the EU had picked it up, however, it would have been very hard for Varadkar to advocate a softer line while still maintaining the appearance of influence within the EU. We had no choice after that but to allow the EU to use the backstop, not to help Ireland, but as a weapon against the UK.

josip

RobMc59 wrote: »

I work in a Chemical facility and we use chemicals only available from Holland or Germany,we have tanker deliveries twice a week via Harwich of around 50,000 tonnes-I asked the Dutch driver what's been said to them about Brexit and he said the border customs at harwich said there maybe changes after 29th march but can't tell them anymore than that!-frightening!The driver predicts massive gridlock at the ports...

RobMc59 wrote: »

No,we have a storage tank of 90,000 tonnes and use most of that weekly so would grind to a halt in a week-the driver said there's 3 tankers a day coming over as we're not the only company using the chemical so it's anyone's guess what will happen in the event of a hard brexit-we also use drum stock chemicals from France,Germany and Switzerland amongst others!

Rob, are you sure it's tonnes? It seems a bit much for one driver to transport, even if he's Dutch?