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

Chips Lovell

eagle eye wrote: »

I want the UK and EU to do whatever it takes to make sure the troubles don't start again in NI. I want them both to do whever it takes to ensure we don't end up in hard financial times again.

The issue here is that we can't force the UK into anything. They're a sovereign state. If they want to leave the EU, they can. If they want to reject the withdrawal agreement, they can. Ultimately, there's only so much we in the EU can do. Getting a workable solution requires co-operation from both parties though.

Leroy42

eagle eye wrote: »

Do you think I'm on their side or something?
I'm on the Republic if Ireland's side. I want the UK and EU to do whatever it takes to make sure the troubles don't start again in NI. I want them both to do whever it takes to ensure we don't end up in hard financial times again.
I might have a bit more compassion, not much, than the zero shown by almost all in this thread towards the UK because they have always(up to now) had our back during the common market era.
The only difference between me and the majority in this thread is that most of you are anti-UK and pro-Eu and seem to be willing to suffer the consequences to stick it to the UK. That makes no sense to me.

Because, IMO, you are failing to see the bigger picture.

Whether the UK leaves with a deal or not doesn't change what is ultimately the purpose of Brexit, to turn the UK into a direct competitor to the EU.

They have stated numerous times that they see future growth coming from outside the EU and thus they want to target that growth. Any growth they get over the EU obviously means that we miss out.

So if we give them too good a deal, then why would US FDI bother coming here if they can go to the UK with less regulations and still deal with the EU as they do now?

So short-term we will all feel like we have dodged a bullet but the UK will now have the only gun.

Joe_ Public

MPFGLB wrote: »

BBC Politics Live with Irish commentator O'Rourke blaming Irish for backstop and all the problems with Brexit deal and NI border

Was he? Was only half listening but didn’t pick that up, just IDS with some raimeis that they were going to get a deal from kenny until the upstart varadkar came in and scuppered it.

A Dub in Glasgo

eagle eye wrote: »

They want out, the backstop means they are not out.

They also say they want an open and frictionless UK border in Ireland, how do they do that if they also want out?

MPFGLB

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Was he? Was only half listening but didn’t pick that up, just IDS with some raimeis that they were going to get a deal from kenny until the upstart varadkar came in and scuppered it.

Prior to that when Neil and O Rourke said that the backstop intrangience will lead to a hard Brexit and a border anyway so what were the Irish doing as insisting on the backstop? Would mean they get what they dont want ...a hard border so why were they insisting on the backstop ?

The conversation missed the subtleties of all the issues and also the UK's role...seemed very much to suggest that the problem was the Irish

First Up

jmayo wrote:

It was meant to be an example how sometimes you can't just pull a ferry out of yer ar** at a moments notice. I know increased shipping links can work, but at a cost, over time. We all know how cr** some of our planning can be if state involved anywhere, so also expect delays.

Many ferries are chartered and switch routes according to commercial or seasonal demand.

trellheim

One of our research groups is throwing up extremely severe GDPR warnings for Brexit at the moment ; in the event of a No-Deal the UK does NOT fall in the list of approved GDPR countries

( means you cant send any personal data to the UK unless youve changed all your contracts - as in you are breaking the law if you do so )

see https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/third-countries/

VinLieger

eagle eye wrote: »

The only difference between me and the majority in this thread is that most of you are anti-UK and pro-Eu and seem to be willing to suffer the consequences to stick it to the UK. That makes no sense to me.

Without the backstop they will screw us, surely the last week is evidence enough of this?

Im not anti-UK im anti-brexit like the majority on here, why you are falling down the brexiteer rabbit hole of equating the two im not sure and is also why people keep replying to you as if you are pro-brexit because a lot of what you say is ripped straight from their talking points.

Calina

eagle eye wrote: »

If/When the UK leave what happens then. Germany and France have a long history of not getting on with each other. The UK was the other big brother in Europe so if they fall out now there is nobody to tell them they need to make up and get along.

The UK was not a founder member of the EU. France and Germany historically put the piece project together. The UK did not want to get involved. The stuff they want to do now they already tried with EFTA.

There are 25 other countries in the EU. They are not incapable of managing issues.

You definitely look at this through a pro-English lense.

Hurrache

Theresa May explains why there's a need for a backstop.
https://twitter.com/SquibbmeisterUK/status/1090667339488595968

eagle eye

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

They also say they want an open and frictionless UK border in Ireland, how do they do that if they also want out?

The first thing they have to do is internal as in find another supporter of government so they can get rid of the DUP.

The DUP is the disaster in all of this.

Shelga

eagle eye wrote: »

The only difference between me and the majority in this thread is that most of you are anti-UK and pro-Eu and seem to be willing to suffer the consequences to stick it to the UK. That makes no sense to me.

I don't think that's what it is- the UK have shown over the last several months exactly why the backstop is needed. If they won't agree to it, there's going to be a hard border anyway, so we may as well start adjusting to the new reality.

Does anyone think this will all lead to the rise of anti-NI sentiment in the UK- and they could be effectively forced out by people (people who had no clue about the north a couple of years ago) who think that NI is stopping their perfect Brexit?

I'm assuming they can't just get rid of them- the only way NI could leave the UK is via a referendum on re-unifying with Ireland?

eagle eye

Calina wrote: »

The UK was not a founder member of the EU. France and Germany historically put the piece project together. The UK did not want to get involved. The stuff they want to do now they already tried with EFTA.

There are 25 other countries in the EU. They are not incapable of managing issues.

You definitely look at this through a pro-English lense.

I am looking at it through a Republic of Ireland lense.

Peace btw, not piece.

I don't care who comes out with a good deal or no deal. I want no troubles in NI and that doesn't happen if there is any border either between north and south or between NI and the rest of the UK. One starts the nationalists off, the other starts the unionists off.

I'm saying that as citizens of Europe that the EU has a responsibility to us to ensure peace and ensure good finance. If that means bending to the UK's wishes a bit then so be it. It'd certainly be a lot better for us in the Republic of Ireland.

BonnieSituation

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The former Greek finance minister was on Newsnight last night.

The guy with the name beginning with V that I can't spell.

He's a guy I'd rearly agree with but he made a great point that Brexit has been a lost opportunity for EU reform.

The way the British have handled the result has allowed the EU to avoid to he hard questions about why the result was Leave.

I was hoping after the referendum that the EU would look at itself and see what it was doing wrong, unfortunately the way it has worked out has meant that the EU can avoid the hard questions about the direction the European project is taking.

It's all well and good to be pro European now when it's in our favor but the landscape was very different 10 years ago when they were sticking it to us over the banking crisis.

There was a Spanish government minister also on the show and she was advocating greater European political cohesion.

That made me sad.

How could the EU look at improving itself when it's spent the last 2 and a half years dealing with a toddler that still won't tell us what they want?

VinLieger

eagle eye wrote: »

The first thing they have to do is internal as in find another supporter of government so they can get rid of the DUP.

The DUP is the disaster in all of this.

Thats not going to happen as weve seen both May and Corbyn are entrenched and putting party politics before country so whats the next viable solution?

10000maniacs

MPFGLB wrote: »

BBC Politics Live with Irish commentator O'Rourke blaming Irish for backstop and all the problems with Brexit deal and NI border

He wasn't saying that.
What he said was failing to prevent a hard border is not the same thing as causing it. And that in a hard Brexit situation, Ireland would have to implement it.
He also said that if Varadkar concedes on the backstop principle, any border between ROI and NI becomes permanent, whereas if we don't concede the backstop and there is a hard Brexit, this may turn out to be temporary as surely a hard Brexit is not the end of the story. And if its not the end of the story, they backstop is waiting there to be put in place.

Joe_ Public

MPFGLB wrote: »

Prior to that when Neil and O Rourke said that the backstop intrangience will lead to a hard Brexit and a border anyway so what were the Irish doing as insisting on the backstop? Would mean they get what they dont want ...a hard border so why were they insisting on the backstop ?

The conversation missed the subtleties of all the issues and also the UK's role...seemed very much to suggest that the problem was the Irish

The thing that struck me in that whole discussion was Neil talking about GFA and its line about “normalising “ the border between south and north ire and wondering why you just couldn’t have a normal border like you have between France and Italy. I know most English people have a very poor grasp of Irish affairs but you’d expect a bit more from a respected broadcaster like Neil.

Christy42

eagle eye wrote: »

VinLieger wrote:

So if you are saying the backstop holds them in you are admitting they are lying about being able to implement no border.

Do you think I'm on their side or something?
I'm on the Republic if Ireland's side. I want the UK and EU to do whatever it takes to make sure the troubles don't start again in NI. I want them both to do whever it takes to ensure we don't end up in hard financial times again.
I might have a bit more compassion, not much, than the zero shown by almost all in this thread towards the UK because they have always(up to now) had our back during the common market era.
The only difference between me and the majority in this thread is that most of you are anti-UK and pro-Eu and seem to be willing to suffer the consequences to stick it to the UK. That makes no sense to me.

What was the point of bringing up wars between the French and Germans then?

I agree on the hard border and not to end up in bad financial times.

If we leave without a feasible deal on the border it will be a hard border.

Right now the only workable suggestions that does not tank our economy is the backstop.

If the UK comes up with an idea on the border I will be right there screaming for the EU to go back to negotiate. The UK have not and their only issue with the agreement seems to be the part that stops a hard border. I have no interest in sticking it to the UK but any stance that does not want a border has to be anti UK. Their suggestions lead to a hard border while the EU's do not.

ancapailldorcha

eagle eye wrote: »

The first thing they have to do is internal as in find another supporter of government so they can get rid of the DUP.

The DUP is the disaster in all of this.

Who else is there?

The Lib Dems are openly anti-Brexit
As are the Greens who have one MP
Labour is still deciding its own stance and is arguably pushing for disaster socialism
The SNP are ardently pro-EU and are still waiting for an opening for Indyref2
Plaid Cymru are anti-Brexit and pro-Welsh independence

ambro25

Water John wrote: »

Juncker was attacked a number of times by Andrew Pierse Ass Ed The Sun on Sky Press Preview last night. Since Selmayr is now the driving force on the EU side will he be subjected to the same personal vitriol?

Considering that much of what Juncker has 'done' over the past couple of years, was actually Selmayr's doing in the shadows; that Selmayr is German (rather than Luxembourgish); and much less 'personable'' (in a facetious/self-deprecating sense) than Juncker...

...you can bet your bottom dollar, and take it to the bank, that the vitriol will be significantly worse.

I wasn't aware that he'd formally taken charge of Brexit for the Commission very recently. That is very bad news for the UK indeed. He's a master geopolitician, and won't bat an eyelid at letting the UK crash out. If the UK thought the EU, Barnier, Juncker (hand-puppeted by Selmayr) and Verhofstadt were bad...they're about to get a very rude awakening.

Calina

eagle eye wrote: »

I am looking at it through a Republic of Ireland lense.

Peace btw, not piece.

I appreciate the autocorrect correction. Most kind.

You have not addressed the substance of my post. Could you perhaps explain why I should believe the UK is absolutely essential to prevent war when what actually helps are the economic ties that bind? This was the underlying idea behind ECSC. The industries concerned were deliberately selected. The UK stood aside then as it is standing aside now.

For Forks Sake

Raab getting his arse handed to him by Sylvia Hermon, turns out he hasn't read the GFA.

https://twitter.com/GPDoran/status/1090739338474860545?s=19

10000maniacs

MPFGLB wrote: »

Prior to that when Neil and O Rourke said that the backstop intrangience will lead to a hard Brexit and a border anyway so what were the Irish doing as insisting on the backstop? Would mean they get what they dont want ...a hard border so why were they insisting on the backstop ?

The conversation missed the subtleties of all the issues and also the UK's role...seemed very much to suggest that the problem was the Irish

I think you are misrepresenting what O'Rourke was saying. See my previous post to find out what he actually said on the subject.

CrabRevolution

eagle eye wrote: »

If/When the UK leave what happens then. Germany and France have a long history of not getting on with each other. The UK was the other big brother in Europe so if they fall out now there is nobody to tell them they need to make up and get along.

Name one occasion since 1973 when France and Germany have come into conflict (military, political, financial or otherwise) only for the UK to single handedly diffuse the situation.

I've a feeling it'll be up there with the 0 occasions that "the EU has always capitulated at the last second".

Call me Al

eagle eye wrote: »

I am looking at it through a Republic of Ireland lense.

Peace btw, not piece.

I don't care who comes out with a good deal or no deal. I want no troubles in NI and that doesn't happen if there is any border either between north and south or between NI and the rest of the UK. One starts the nationalists off, the other starts the unionists off.

I'm saying that as citizens of Europe that the EU has a responsibility to us to ensure peace and ensure good finance. If that means bending to the UK's wishes a bit then so be it. It'd certainly be a lot better for us in the Republic of Ireland.

Right, so playing our your red line (no threat to the peace agreement at any cost):
We accept a temporary backstop but thereafter the plethora of technological solutions are found not to work on the border.,, the UK enter a FTA with the US for any crumbs the US will throw their way, compromising the integrity of anything coming from the 6 counties into our EU 26 counties.
What does the Irish government do then?

Call me Al

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Raab getting his arse handed to him by Sylvia Hermon, turns out he hasn't read the GFA.

https://twitter.com/GPDoran/status/1090739338474860545?s=19

Yes indeed, but he's "delved in" to it calling it a "reference tool".
I suppose that's what the experts are needed for, or not if you're a Brexiteer.

Leroy42

Call me Al wrote: »

Yes indeed, but he's "delved in" to it calling it a "reference tool".
I suppose that's what the experts are needed for, or not if you're a Brexiteer.

TBF, how many people would have read it from cover to cover. He agreed he didn't read it and said he focused on the key areas.

Our own politicians didn't read the Lisbon treaty whilst asking us to vote for it.

Raab is a terrible politician but this isn't an area to bash him on. Rather than asking, IMO, point scoring questions such as this, she should be demanding that he detail out his solution, based on his clear understanding of GFA and the red lines.

Exactly what would he have done differently in the deal and why could he not stop TM from continuing a path that is so terrible.

An Ciarraioch

The Daily Telegraph continues its descent towards Express-level quality standards:

http://twitter.com/PropertySpot/status/1090946448303239168

Call me Al

Leroy42 wrote: »

TBF, how many people would have read it from cover to cover. He agreed he didn't read it and said he focused on the key areas.

Our own politicians didn't read the Lisbon treaty whilst asking us to vote for it.

Raab is a terrible politician but this isn't an area to bash him on. Rather than asking, IMO, point scoring questions such as this, she should be demanding that he detail out his solution, based on his clear understanding of GFA and the red lines.

Exactly what would he have done differently in the deal and why could he not stop TM from continuing a path that is so terrible.

Its 35 pages long... 35!
Take a look on the dfa.ie website.

An Ciarraioch

Call me Al wrote: »

Its 35 pages long... 35!
Take a look on the dfa.ie website.

Indeed, it was thin enough that every home in the Republic was posted a copy before the referendum.