Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Bit cynical wrote: »

I disagree that it would solve nothing but we've got to be realistic about what can be achieved. A free trade deal where there are no tariffs on goods means an easier patrolled border. A border where there is no trade deal whatsoever requires intensive border infrastructure and monitoring.

Soooooooooo the Chequers plan? :rolleyes:

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

One day, perhaps after an election, another referendum, or a new Bronze Age in the former UK, there will be a deal between England and the EU. And it will include the backstop, as agreed in December 2017.

No good for us in that case. The idea of the backstop was that we would have the agreement concerning it in place when the UK left the EU. Also unlikely that if the UK came back it would be to continue the same negotiations that failed but that is a different issue.

Tell me how

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Tommie Gorman isn't a fan of the DUP.

Most definitely not.

But, his role is not to be a commentator but a reporter.
We complain about elements on Sky/BBC when they are obviously arguing for a particular direction, and we should hold our own media to account in the same manner.

I am not against opinions and informed opinions are obviously better than ignorant ones (as this thread shows) but if you are to be continuously able to take something a reporter states as fact then they have to remain impartial professionally.

Maybe the best reporters to do this would actually be ones with no interest in politics but then that would create issues as well probably as they would be sent around the houses if they were not clued in.

downcow

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Mod note:

Neither of these types of comments meets the standards of acceptable debate on this topic.

Mod note:

If you've an issue with a post, report it. Don't respond in kind and make a martyr of yourself on the thread.

I appreciate that response. That’s very fair.

lawred2 wrote: »

Would you not have said the same about a withdrawal agreement two and a half years ago?

A 'basic' trade deal would achieve nothing to solve the border issue in northern Ireland by the way.

A basic trade deal would likely still mean differing regulations and market controls ergo a hard border.

I'm not sure you're really aware of what's involved here

I disagree that it would solve nothing but we've got to be realistic about what can be achieved. A free trade deal where there are no tariffs on goods means an easier patrolled border. A border where there is no trade deal whatsoever requires intensive border infrastructure and monitoring.

We already have the CTA and reciprocal working arrangements between the two jurisdictions, so a trade deal even along the lines of Canada would solve many problems.

This is less desirable, however, than what was envisaged under the backstop, but it looks like the backstop is dead forever. It has only served to delay and complicate proceedings to Ireland's disadvantage.

I know people have said that the UK will surely realise the error of their ways within six months and come crawling back in humiliation to the EU, but remember that not too long ago we were pretty sure that they would accept any deal that was given to them. We now think they will come crawling back because that is the only hope we are left with.

Itssoeasy

Tommie Gorman isn't a fan of the DUP.

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

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.

One day, perhaps after an election, another referendum, or a new Bronze Age in the former UK, there will be a deal between England and the EU. And it will include the backstop, as agreed in December 2017.

Leroy42 wrote: »

What is the trade requires the UK to adhere to current and future EU regulations? You don't think that is going to cause an issue?

It's not a "what-if" even... PMQ last week:

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

TM just admitted that any deal with require regulatory alignment with EU on goods/services and regulatory legislation surrounding that.

The Brexit that people voted for is pointless and impossible.

Arbitration is another massive issue coming up.

The UK have been pretty clear that they want nothing to do with the ECJ, so whom to they propose deal with issues? The EU will not allow the UK have the say, so are the UK going to agree to a third party? And how does that fit in with 'taking back control'?

So anyone that thinks a trade deal will be easy is not paying much attention. Does anyone think that the current splits in UK politics around Brexit, are suddenly going to disappear come the 30th March. Dreamland.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

You think a trade deal between two parties is a magical thing? I don't think a basic trade deal is particularly controversial in the UK.

Have you ever read a trade deal? There are all sorts of things in there that would be controversial. Like standards, arbitration methods, visas, movement of people with goods. The list is endless. Trade is only one part.

Bit cynical wrote: »

You think a trade deal between two parties is a magical thing? I don't think a basic trade deal is particularly controversial in the UK.

What is the trade requires the UK to adhere to current and future EU regulations? You don't think that is going to cause an issue?

lawred2

Bit cynical wrote: »

You think a trade deal between two parties is a magical thing? I don't think a basic trade deal is particularly controversial in the UK.

Would you not have said the same about a withdrawal agreement two and a half years ago?

A 'basic' trade deal would achieve nothing to solve the border issue in northern Ireland by the way.

A basic trade deal would likely still mean differing regulations and market controls ergo a hard border.

I'm not sure you're really aware of what's involved here

Professor Moriarty

Bit cynical wrote: »

You think a trade deal between two parties is a magical thing? I don't think a basic trade deal is particularly controversial in the UK.

How long do you think it will take for the trade deal to be concluded?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

But what happens between WA and magical trade deal?
What happens if the EU doesn't capitulate to every whim and fancy of the UK and no trade-deal is reached for years?

You think a trade deal between two parties is a magical thing? I don't think a basic trade deal is particularly controversial in the UK.

Enzokk

Bit cynical wrote: »

The backstop was prematurely introduced into the negotiations in a way which has proved unhelpful.

If the backstop is a problem the timing of it is not the issue. If you introduced it at the very end and the UK has a problem with it then it will still not be supported by Brexit MPs. I fail to see how the timing of it was a problem.

Also, the first negotiations was done to set down what will be discussed and what the sequencing would be. David Davis proclaimed it would be the fight of the summer before giving in to the EU before the day was done. Surely the fault is with the UK on this one.

Bit cynical wrote: »

I believe that what would have been better for Ireland would have been to not suggest the backstop to the EU but instead encourage the best possible trade deal in as flexible a manner as possible. The best possible trade deal is also the one in which the most can be done to minimise the impact of the border on this Island.

The reasoning behind this is: 1. The UK also wanted a good trade deal and 2. The UK wants to minimise the impact of the border.

The EU would still have its own considerations but this approach would have worked out better for us.

And what if the UK decides it would rather go for the trade deal with the US and their regulations instead of the EU? What about the border then?

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

I believe that what would have been better for Ireland would have been to not suggest the backstop to the EU but instead encourage the best possible trade deal in as flexible a manner as possible. The best possible trade deal is also the one in which the most can be done to minimise the impact of the border on this Island.

The reasoning behind this is: 1. The UK also wanted a good trade deal and 2. The UK wants to minimise the impact of the border.

The EU would still have its own considerations but this approach would have worked out better for us.

You seem to not understand what the WA is for. It's not for a trade deal. That will take much longer. What happens in the interim?

lawred2

Bit cynical wrote: »

I believe that what would have been better for Ireland would have been to not suggest the backstop to the EU but instead encourage the best possible trade deal in as flexible a manner as possible. The best possible trade deal is also the one in which the most can be done to minimise the impact of the border on this Island.

The reasoning behind this is: 1. The UK also wanted a good trade deal and 2. The UK wants to minimise the impact of the border.

The EU would still have its own considerations but this approach would have worked out better for us.

Future relationship/trade deal talks start after Brexit Day. And there's no knowing how long they'll take. At all.

So what's your solution for the border during the duration of the WA?

Bit cynical wrote: »

I believe that what would have been better for Ireland would have been to not suggest the backstop to the EU but instead encourage the best possible trade deal in as flexible a manner as possible. The best possible trade deal is also the one in which the most can be done to minimise the impact of the border on this Island.

The reasoning behind this is: 1. The UK also wanted a good trade deal and 2. The UK wants to minimise the impact of the border.

The EU would still have its own considerations but this approach would have worked out better for us.

But what happens between WA and magical trade deal?
What happens if the EU doesn't capitulate to every whim and fancy of the UK and no trade-deal is reached for years?

A time-limited backstop makes zero sense.

lawred2 wrote: »

Great. How would you have squared the circle?

I believe that what would have been better for Ireland would have been to not suggest the backstop to the EU but instead encourage the best possible trade deal in as flexible a manner as possible. The best possible trade deal is also the one in which the most can be done to minimise the impact of the border on this Island.

The reasoning behind this is: 1. The UK also wanted a good trade deal and 2. The UK wants to minimise the impact of the border.

The EU would still have its own considerations but this approach would have worked out better for us.

20silkcut

road_high wrote: »

For them they were the UKs glory days, their high water mark of moral and social superiority. A huge swath of them are still stuck there, hence Brexit

Reality is, it was far from their glory days.
Their Empire was destroyed. They emerged from the war a broken weakened world power. Their standing in the world was drilled home to them with the embarrassment at suez in 1956.
Now it is being drilled home to them again. It’s the same hubris.

Frank Bullitt

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.

Thats the longest, most roundabout way I have ever seen someone call another person a Nazi without actually saying it.

Sam Russell

Bit cynical wrote: »

Unfortunately it is too crude an approach to trade. It presupposes that the UK will forever remain, in full or in part, in some form of customs union. It may be that the UK will opt for something less than that but in such circumstances it is still in the interest of both sides to minimise the impact of the border to the greatest extent possible.

The backstop was prematurely introduced into the negotiations in a way which has proved unhelpful.

That is down to TM and her many red lines.

Lose the red lines and lose the need for a back stop. Keep to agreements made and gain respect - gainsay agreements already made, and lose that respect and instead get tight legal text.

Hmm .... last December there was an agreement that was immediately repudiated by the UK side with the lead negotiator for the UK (David Davis) saying he did not realise what it meant, and it took nearly a full year to get back to that point. Now there is an agreed text that cannot get through the HOC.

Bad faith is certainly one commodity not in short supply in the UK side.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

Unfortunately it is too crude an approach to trade. It presupposes that the UK will forever remain, in full or in part, in some form of customs union. It may be that the UK will opt for something less than that but in such circumstances it is still in the interest of both sides to minimise the impact of the border to the greatest extent possible.

The backstop was prematurely introduced into the negotiations in a way which has proved unhelpful.

The backstop was initially an agreed path for both sides. Yes it presupposed partially what would come down the line with a future relationship, but that was on the basis that there would be some form of maintenance of the CU or SM post brexit. The UK still hadn't decided what it actually wanted and in a rush to get to the political part of the WA, breezed past the backstop as a necessary hurdle to be got over. That they have now decided that it's a millstone they would prefer to drop is only their own fault. And it has to exist to comply with UK law. You do remember that an open border was locked down in an Act of Parliament?

There is no squaring that circle with a wave of the hand and wishful thinking. Both sides accept that they are tied to an open border. One side has actually put that commitment on their statute books.

Misguided because it didn't end up with the UK agreeing to it? Is that what you mean?

But what other approach was there? To allow the Irish border to be put on the long finger (as it has been) throughout the transition and then we are faced with exactly the same issue coming up to December 2020. Nothing will have changed, except the UK are hoping they will be in a stronger position.

johnnyskeleton

Infini wrote: »

The WA would have passed with no issue had the Dumba'ss Unionist Party not been able to become the spanner in the works and been able to mess things up....

The sad truth is the Brexiteers are utter idiots

downcow wrote: »

Brexit would have passed with no issue had the Dumba'ss Sinn Fein Party not been able to become the spanner in the works and been able to mess things up....

The sad truth is the Irish are utter idiots

Mod note:

Neither of these types of comments meets the standards of acceptable debate on this topic.

downcow wrote: »

Why would that get me banned. I was just replicating one example of the endless stream of very derogatory stuff directed at my community which see to be completely acceptable on here

Mod note:

If you've an issue with a post, report it. Don't respond in kind and make a martyr of yourself on the thread.

Unhelpful to whom? The Irish border needs to be dealt with by the UK given that they are changing the situation.

The EU, rightly it seems, deemed that the UK would try to use the border issue to pressure Ireland, and thus the EU, into giving the UK special treatment such that they would keep the benefits of the EU without the obligations.

Even two years after the UK have failed to offer any workable solution to the problem. The only thing that have come up with is that they don't like the position the EU has put forward.

But that is not a solution. That is just complaining. What plan have the UK got, apart for not obeying WTO rules, to deal with the situation?