Brexit Discussion Thread VI

blanch152 wrote: »

There is no more high level trade issue than having a border to prevent smuggling of illegal goods.

However you can't know what sort of border you need until you know what the trading relationship is going to be. That is the normal order of consideration. Countries that want minimal border need to ensure that trade is free enough that minimal border is needed.

FreudianSlippers

Bit cynical wrote: »

However you can't know what sort of border you need until you know what the trading relationship is going to be.

Which is the point of the backstop.

downcow

prawnsambo wrote: »

Unfortunately that doesn't even make sense. So if you had a point to make, it was lost in the rush to get yourself banned. Or whatever your motivation was. It certainly wasn't to have a discussion on the matter.

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

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think I have answered it. The questioner assumed that I thought that there might be a better version of the backstop. My position is that the backstop is the wrong approach for the reasons given.

Well no you didn't. Because the post I questioned said that "the backstop as it was worded was a non runner". Hence my asking you if you had a better version.

So you now seem to be saying that no backstop is needed and it's not a matter of wording?

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

I'm sorry, are brexiteers a community now?

downcow wrote: »

Fixed that for you! But I mightn’t be around long because what’s good for the goose dare not be said about the gander I fear

“Let’s be honest while we can be flexible what was needed with these southern irish fools was complete clarity because this entire debate from them is nothing more than opinionated whataboutry and evasive smoke and mirrors when confronted with cold facts. 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. Theyre of the same league as the the rest of the southern Irish .

The sad truth is the Irish are utter idiots of the moat dangerous kind because theyre too incompetent and stuck in their blinkered views of the world to actually be rational and this isnt counting the likes of mary-Lou or Michelle who likely have ulterior motives. Theres no negotiating or flexibility with those types you have to strongarm them legally so they cant weasel out of their commitments without consequence.”

This what passes for neutrality now? Old fashioned anti Irish racism?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Which is the point of the backstop.

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.

megaten

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think I have answered it. The questioner assumed that I thought that there might be a better version of the backstop. My position is that the backstop is the wrong approach for the reasons given.

That's not good enough, the backstop is Ireland and the EU's position because its tangible and enforceable. Any UK proposal has to be one they can actually implement.

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.

Great. How would you have squared the circle?

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well no you didn't. Because the post I questioned said that "the backstop as it was worded was a non runner". Hence my asking you if you had a better version.

So you now seem to be saying that no backstop is needed and it's not a matter of wording?

In truth I think that the basic approach of the backstop was misguided. Perhaps it was well intentioned initially.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

FreudianSlippers

A time-limited backstop makes zero sense.

FreudianSlippers

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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

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?

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.