Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

ancapailldorcha · 01-02-2019 11:34pm #1

This thread is for the discussion of the United Kingdom's upcoming exit from the European Union, known more popularly as Brexit.

Please bear the following in mind before posting:

Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary

fly_agaric · 01-02-2019 11:36pm

Crock Rock wrote: »

Any truth to this?

Well it is a what-if, but IMO plausible scenario if UK exit in March without an agreement with the EU.

There are various (interconnected) imponderables that affect how bad things would be for Ireland/whether it would be as much of a disaster as poster suggested like:

How long the rest of the EU would tolerate us not enforcing the border

How determined the UK would be in its course - a lot posting here seem to think UK would come back to the EU again later quite quickly and sign the current withdrawal agreement or something like it, maybe after change of govt.

How far and fast the UK starts to diverge from the EU rules and regulations

How committed FG are to keeping the border open vs. letting us drift into a "semi-detached" state for the sake of NI (transactions/goods trade involving Ireland start to not be trusted any longer by other EU states, we get taken to ECJ by the commission or another member state over not following EU rules properly).

eagle eye · 01-02-2019 11:39pm

Imreoir2 wrote:

The EU won't have to make any threats or turn against us, if the British fail to uphold the GFA then we will erect a hard border ourselves. The single market is our market, we have to protect it. The UK will also have to put up a hard border if they don't want to be flooded with cheep goods from all over.

We have to protect people first. A border caused chaos, we cannot have a border.

jm08 · 01-02-2019 11:51pm

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Interestingly, the Swedish Democrats have dropped demands for an in-out referendum from their political platform, and now want to reform EU institutions from within:

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/sd-byter-fot-vill-inte-langre-lamna-eu

Ironically, many Eurosceptic parties are moving closer to the centre, and joining the ECR, so if Cameron had held his nerve, the UK would have been in a rather more powerful position after May's elections.

What they want to do is take control of the European Parliament which is a thorn in the side of many of these right wing parties. The EP voted to censor both Hungary. It would suit all these countries if the control was kept within the Council of Minister where these authoritarian figures have a veto. The AfD in Germany have part of their policy the abolishment of the European Parliament.

road_high · 01-02-2019 11:57pm

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Interestingly, the Swedish Democrats have dropped demands for an in-out referendum from their political platform, and now want to reform EU institutions from within:

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/sd-byter-fot-vill-inte-langre-lamna-eu

Ironically, many Eurosceptic parties are moving closer to the centre, and joining the ECR, so if Cameron had held his nerve, the UK would have been in a rather more powerful position after May's elections.

The so called Eurosceptics are total moderates by UK standards!

Imreoir2 · 02-02-2019 12:03am

eagle eye wrote: »

We have to protect people first. A border caused chaos, we cannot have a border.

We will be left with no choice, a border with NI is bad, a border with the EU is a national disaster. The imposition of controls on the border is regretable, but unavoidable in a no-deal scenario. How they are implemented however is important. They should be implemented on an emergency temporary basis at makeshift checkpoints with no permenant phisical infastructure. While this is done, the government should also persue a unification policy and push for a referendum to end the need for checks on the border.

An Ciarraioch · 02-02-2019 12:06am

A Unionist/Conservative expresses disillusionment with the Irish rugby team due to Brexit - there would surely have been worse occasions in the Seventies/Eighties, but is this common among Ulster Protestants?

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/owen-polley-i-always-supported-ireland-in-rugby-but-less-so-now-due-to-the-anti-british-mood-over-brexit-1-8793083

Seth Brundle · 02-02-2019 12:08am

eagle eye wrote: »

We have to protect people first. A border caused chaos, we cannot have a border.

Do you read any of the replies to your posts? You have been told about what must happen along the border in order to protect Irish and EU trade which in turn protects livelihoods.

Capt'n Midnight · 02-02-2019 12:08am

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Interestingly, the Swedish Democrats have dropped demands for an in-out referendum from their political platform, and now want to reform EU institutions from within:

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/sd-byter-fot-vill-inte-langre-lamna-eu

Ironically, many Eurosceptic parties are moving closer to the centre, and joining the ECR, so if Cameron had held his nerve, the UK would have been in a rather more powerful position after May's elections.

Same in Italy , the populist Lega Nord per l'Indipendenza della Padania no longer want independence for Padania.

Milan and Turin, where all the Fix It Again Tomorrow's and big kitchen appliances come from. Stuff that the UK used to make a lot of.

Yes Italy isn't doing so well economically, but there's a huge black economy. Brexit just doesn't get a mention unless there is a significant event. Pretty much the same as UK news coverage of Italy.

briany · 02-02-2019 12:17am

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The UK will also have to put up a hard border if they don't want to be flooded with cheep goods from all over.

I thought one of the benefits cited by Brexiteers was that the UK could be opened up to other markets thanks to low tariffs, so an influx of cheap goods would be exactly what they are aiming for in that scenario.

Imreoir2 · 02-02-2019 12:21am

briany wrote: »

I thought one of the benefits cited by Brexiteers was that the UK could be opened up to other markets thanks to low tariffs, so an influx of cheap goods would be exactly what they are aiming for in that scenario.

It's easy to talk about the sunny uplands of unrestricted trade in the abstract, harder when the reality of it is driving UK manufacturing into the gutter. Not to mention that while the UK won't impose tarrifs on imports, that does not mean taffirs wont be placed on their exports, further crushing their manufacturers.

tuxy · 02-02-2019 12:22am

briany wrote: »

I thought one of the benefits cited by Brexiteers was that the UK could be opened up to other markets thanks to low tariffs, so an influx of cheap goods would be exactly what they are aiming for in that scenario.

Yes but they still would need tariffs on some good to prevent their own companies from going under. Also they couldn't just completely open the markets if they hope to do free trade deals with other countries.
It's more about having control over regulations and being able to lower the standard on what's acceptable. The UK will still need to have customs checks.

ancapailldorcha · 02-02-2019 12:29am

tuxy wrote: »

Yes but they still would need tariffs on some good to prevent their own companies from going under. Also they couldn't just completely open the markets if they hope to do free trade deals with other countries.
It's more about having control over regulations and being able to lower the standard on what's acceptable. The UK will still need to have customs checks.

The WTO's most favoured nation principle states that all countries must be treated as the nation which is "most favoured". Basically tariff increases and decreases must be applied equally to all nations.

They can open the markets to imports from outside the EU at the risk of decimating their own industries. There is also the weakening of Britain's position in trade talks to consider as a result. If India can export to the UK tariff free and maintain its own protectionist tariffs, why would it opt for an inferior alternative?

Umaro · 02-02-2019 12:30am

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Interestingly, the Swedish Democrats have dropped demands for an in-out referendum from their political platform, and now want to reform EU institutions from within:

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/sd-byter-fot-vill-inte-langre-lamna-eu

Ironically, many Eurosceptic parties are moving closer to the centre, and joining the ECR, so if Cameron had held his nerve, the UK would have been in a rather more powerful position after May's elections.

When Eurosceptic parties see the mess that's unfolding with Brexit its very hard to point to it and say "we should do that too".

Whatever way Brexit ends up, it'll kill off Euroscepticism for a few decades.

EdgeCase · 02-02-2019 12:41am

"The I" newspaper in the UK is apparently reporting that the Irish Government is being pressurised by the EU over the backstop.

I wouldn't necessarily give it much credence, given the wishful thinking coming out of UK media and rumour reporting.

Strazdas · 02-02-2019 12:42am

Umaro wrote: »

When Eurosceptic parties see the mess that's unfolding with Brexit its very hard to point to it and say "we should do that too".

Whatever way Brexit ends up, it'll kill off Euroscepticism for a few decades.

Most Eurosceptic parties only ever wanted reform of the EU from within (which is a perfectly fine strategy or aim to have).

UKIP under Farage and the British right wing press were very much at the extreme end of Euroscepticism, more like Europhobes who want the destruction of the EU.

Sand · 02-02-2019 1:06am

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Interestingly, the Swedish Democrats have dropped demands for an in-out referendum from their political platform, and now want to reform EU institutions from within:

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/sd-byter-fot-vill-inte-langre-lamna-eu

Ironically, many Eurosceptic parties are moving closer to the centre, and joining the ECR, so if Cameron had held his nerve, the UK would have been in a rather more powerful position after May's elections.

Given that European borders are often accidents of history with various ethnic minorities left on the wrong side, there is no replacement for a European Union of some description. There are dozens of 'Northern Ireland' scenarios between multiple European countries, where wars moved borders but people remained. The EU is a necessary solution to the incompatibility of narrow-minded nationalism with the historical reality across Europe, not just in Ireland. Ending a wrong-headed opposition to the EU will likely only boost the popularity of groups likes the SD.

The main ire of the nationalist/populist (and socialist) groups has been that the EU is captured by neoliberal interests. But ironically, European elections are more open to fringe interests due to a lack of voter engagement. UKIP were able to get representation in the EU elections that was simply impossible in UK domestic elections. Should the nationalist/populist parties secure significant victories in EU elections this year you can expect their view of the EU to change. You can also expect the views of their opponents to change regarding the EU interfering in domestic politics of member states to enforce vague 'European values'.Whereas they generally support the EU repressing the governments of Poland, Hungary and Italy they will not support the EU repressing the neo liberal governments of France and Germany.

At the end of the day, the EU is a vehicle, not a destination. But Cameron and the Tories would never have common cause with parties like the SD.

eagle eye · 02-02-2019 1:37am

Seth Brundle wrote:

Do you read any of the replies to your posts? You have been told about what must happen along the border in order to protect Irish and EU trade which in turn protects livelihoods.

You are talking about money, I'm talking about people's lives. Which is important?

nemefuria · 02-02-2019 2:05am

eagle eye wrote: »

You are talking about money, I'm talking about people's lives. Which is important?

But isn't that like saying let's set all speed limits to 20km/h so you'd have zero fatalities on the roads...we're talking people's lives here! By your rationale that would be the right thing to do?

Nody · 02-02-2019 4:30am

eagle eye wrote: »

You are talking about money, I'm talking about people's lives. Which is important?

Then you fully support Ireland to become a vassal of UK then to avoid a hard border at any cost. At the same time there should be an outright ban on all alcohol and tobacco sales as well know sources for premature death. All fast food, chippers etc. will need to change over to healthy food only, mandatory exercises for the whole population weekly to maintain fitness obviously. Because we are talking about people's life here which according to you trump's everything.

jochenstacker · 02-02-2019 8:01am

eagle eye wrote: »

You are talking about money, I'm talking about people's lives. Which is important?

Your posting style is confusing, since you seem argue on various sides of the argument and your aims of what you want to argue seem vague and muddled.
Either you are confused about what you want to argue, or you are deliberately arguing merely for the purpose of riling people up.
I don't buy your fake concern for one second.

woohoo!!! · 02-02-2019 8:40am

It is brinkmanship. The EU will blink, solve the issues at the 11th hour. This is the thinking from folk like Boris. May knows full well that this is rubbish but she'll pretend and go along with it. Her whole strategy is run the clock down until a woefully unprepared HoC finally realised that negotiations are done. The only reason for ditching the backstop is to stay in the CU. So choose.

After Brexit day and should they crash out, then there will be no transition period, they're out. The trade talks will take years, and won't start at all until 39 billion and backstop are ratified. Elections, border poll, reversal of red lines, revolution, anything is possible should they crash out. I do think it's going to take 2 election cycles minimum, before politics begins to normalise there.

An Ciarraioch · 02-02-2019 9:56am

EdgeCase wrote: »

"The I" newspaper in the UK is apparently reporting that the Irish Government is being pressurised by the EU over the backstop.

I wouldn't necessarily give it much credence, given the wishful thinking coming out of UK media and rumour reporting.

Not much different from the Irish Times a few days ago - there "may" be pressure put on Ireland, "if" May can put a convincing case to Brussels:

https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/dublin-faces-pressure-from-eu-to-help-find-compromise-on-backstop-to-save-theresa-mays-brexit-deal/

20silkcut · 02-02-2019 10:06am

https://youtu.be/zPXm5VtxEOg

Brexiteer humiliated here.How anyone could think Brexit is a good idea after watching this is beyond the beyond.

Just highlights how good the likes of Jacob Rees mogg and Nigel farage etc are at obfuscation and how they have carried the ridiculous brexit argument by the force of their will and charisma over the last 2 years.
When an ordinary brrxiteer argues brexit he gets destroyed.
In fairness the presenter and other guests seems well informed.

eagle eye · 02-02-2019 10:08am

nemefuria wrote:

But isn't that like saying let's set all speed limits to 20km/h so you'd have zero fatalities on the roads...we're talking people's lives here! By your rationale that would be the right thing to do?

No, it's not the same thing. We know that a border will start the troubles again. There has already been a shot fired across the bow with the bomb in Derry. This isn't just about NI, these troubles will spread across the border. Once they start they might never stop again.
Maybe I'm just more into saving the lives of innocent people than most because I'm also in favour of very low speed limits in school and shopping districts.

ancapailldorcha · 02-02-2019 10:28am

eagle eye wrote: »

No, it's not the same thing. We know that a border will start the troubles again. There has already been a shot fired across the bow with the bomb in Derry. This isn't just about NI, these troubles will spread across the border. Once they start they might never stop again.
Maybe I'm just more into saving the lives of innocent people than most because I'm also in favour of very low speed limits in school and shopping districts.

I think if you're truly "into saving the lives of innocent people" then you should be calling for the cancellation of Brexit.

The UK voted for this. It's that simple. It's their mess to resolve. All the Irish government can do is prepare for the worst outcome.

First Up · 02-02-2019 10:30am

eagle eye wrote:

No, it's not the same thing. We know that a border will start the troubles again. There has already been a shot fired across the bow with the bomb in Derry. This isn't just about NI, these troubles will spread across the border. Once they start they might never stop again. Maybe I'm just more into saving the lives of innocent people than most because I'm also in favour of very low speed limits in school and shopping districts.

If you think cutting Ireland out of the Single Market is going to save innocent lives, you are looking at the wrong problem.

prawnsambo · 02-02-2019 10:33am

eagle eye wrote: »

No, it's not the same thing. We know that a border will start the troubles again. There has already been a shot fired across the bow with the bomb in Derry. This isn't just about NI, these troubles will spread across the border. Once they start they might never stop again.
Maybe I'm just more into saving the lives of innocent people than most because I'm also in favour of very low speed limits in school and shopping districts.

Maybe you'd want to think of the ramifications of having a wide open border between two different customs jurisdictions. Because what happens then is rampant smuggling and a massive financial boost to those who don't care what sort of border is in existence and just want 'brits out'. And there will still be financial implications for law abiding businesses who will be faced with massive tariffs on agri-food. So you're creating the conditions for inequality on either side of the border and handing a financial incentive to those who want to exploit it.

shesty · 02-02-2019 10:39am

Picked up thread on the main page.Strip away all the crap and the absolute most straightforward solution to all of this is for NI to become part of the Republic.

Likelihood of it happening in my lifetime....slim to non-existent.Mind you, the more the UK slip into the abyss, the more attractive a solution it might become.Assuming it will not happen though, a previous poster is correct-all we can do is prepare on our side of the border.We just don't have jurisdiction to do anything else.Erecting a hard border would be a total disaster, but the fact that it (apparently) never even occurred to the UK that the only hard border they have with the EU is here, shows exactly how little we or NI matter to them.

I would like to think that it will end up at another referendum, although a bit of me thinks they have gone too far now for that. Either way, I wouldn't want Theresa May's job for all the money out there.If they crash out I think we will feel the effect of it in many ways.

Water John · 02-02-2019 10:54am

My sympathy for Teresa May is gone a long time ago.
She now is in the worst possible position as a negotiator. The other side don't trust her to deliver. She has welched on her own deal.

eagle eye · 02-02-2019 10:55am

ancapailldorcha wrote:

I think if you're truly "into saving the lives of innocent people" then you should be calling for the cancellation of Brexit.

The British people voted on it and decided to leave. I don't think they've changes their minds either despite what some quarters would try and make you believe.
I'd be happy if they never made that decision but we are long past that now.

First Up wrote:

If you think cutting Ireland out of the Single Market is going to save innocent lives, you are looking at the wrong problem.

I don't want us out of the single market.
The difference between me and you and many others is that I'm willing to give the UK a deal where they have control over who is allowed come and live in their country. We can still have no border but they control immigration to the UK.

prawnsambo wrote:

Maybe you'd want to think of the ramifications of having a wide open border between two different customs jurisdictions. Because what happens then is rampant smuggling and a massive financial boost to those who don't care what sort of border is in existence and just want 'brits out'. And there will still be financial implications for law abiding businesses who will be faced with massive tariffs on agri-food. So you're creating the conditions for inequality on either side of the border and handing a financial incentive to those who want to exploit it.

I'm talking lives and you are talking money.
I've been poor before, as a child in the 70's and early 80's and I went through the hard times up to recently because we saved the banks. I'd much rather live in tough financial times than to see innocent lives lost.

ancapailldorcha · 02-02-2019 11:02am

eagle eye wrote: »

The British people voted on it and decided to leave. I don't think they've changes their minds either despite what some quarters would try and make you believe.
I'd be happy if they never made that decision but we are long past that now.

No, we're not. The ECJ ruled that the UK can unilaterally revoke the notice to trigger Article 50.

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't want us out of the single market.
The difference between me and you and many others is that I'm willing to give the UK a deal where they have control over who is allowed come and live in their country. We can still have no border but they control immigration to the UK.

This is unworkable. The UK wants full access to the single market without any responsibility to abide by its rules. What you're advocating is the destruction of the single market.

I support the UK doing a trade deal with the EU that is both politically feasible and as advantageous as possible. Full access is impossible as that requires free movement.

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm talking lives and you are talking money.
I've been poor before, as a child in the 70's and early 80's and I went through the hard times up to recently because we saved the banks. I'd much rather live in tough financial times than to see innocent lives lost.

It's a shame that the pro-Brexit side care so little for the people of Ireland. We knew there'd be difficulties beforehand but they simply did not care to learn.

First Up · 02-02-2019 11:06am

eagle eye wrote:

I don't want us out of the single market. The difference between me and you and many others is that I'm willing to give the UK a deal where they have control over who is allowed come and live in their country. We can still have no border but they control immigration to the UK.

You don't need a border to control immigration.

PokeHerKing · 02-02-2019 11:09am

An Ciarraioch wrote:

Not much different from the Irish Times a few days ago - there "may" be pressure put on Ireland, "if" May can put a convincing case to Brussels:

I really can't see any instance that would make Leo and Co. backdown on the border. We either get one by bending over or we get one by staying tough. That's really the only two options if the UK BREXIT in its purist form. Or we Irexit..

Why should we suffer the most? Hard border and no deal is much more preferable then hard border and some sort of deal which really only has benefits for the UK and the continent.

Or am I missing something?

lawred2 · 02-02-2019 11:12am

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm talking lives and you are talking money.
I've been poor before, as a child in the 70's and early 80's and I went through the hard times up to recently because we saved the banks. I'd much rather live in tough financial times than to see innocent lives lost.

How did the bank bailout affect you personally?

The increase in taxation was moderate really given the scale of the issue but I'm strugging to see how the bank bailout itself caused hard times..

The bank bailout didn't happen in a vacuum... It was a consequence.

Surely the economic collapse was the issue.. it's not like things would have been tickety boo had the banks not been bailed out. Arguably worse to be honest. We'd have been international pariahs like Argentina.

And maybe like the UK are soon to be if they welch on that 39Bn divorce bill.

prawnsambo · 02-02-2019 11:18am

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm talking lives and you are talking money.
I've been poor before, as a child in the 70's and early 80's and I went through the hard times up to recently because we saved the banks. I'd much rather live in tough financial times than to see innocent lives lost.

No, I'm not. I'm talking about creating the conditions for a resumption of violence, border or no border. Because not having border controls does not dispense with the actualities of a border. You just refuse to acknowledge that those who continue to espouse violence will have a greater reason to continue that campaign and will have increased funding as a result of that. You'd have to be very naive to think that physical border infrastructure is the only thing that would increase the visibility of the border in people's everyday lives. Unless you somehow think that both the UK and Irish authorities will completely waive their international obligations, no matter how 'softly' they do that.

RobMc59 · 02-02-2019 11:27am

Just going back on a post by the capt'n yesterday about obtaining an Irish passport- if you have an Irish parent it's quite simple and inexpensive but if it's irish grandparents you have to apply for Irish citizenship,then you can apply for an Irish passport-with full certificates that can cost as much as 500 euros.

amacca · 02-02-2019 11:46am

Water John wrote: »

My sympathy for Teresa May is gone a long time ago.
She now is in the worst possible position as a negotiator. The other side don't trust her to deliver. She has welched on her own deal.

And in addition to that it can be argued that she put herself in that position with a number of poor decisions beforehand imo.

Enzokk · 02-02-2019 11:51am

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't want us out of the single market.
The difference between me and you and many others is that I'm willing to give the UK a deal where they have control over who is allowed come and live in their country. We can still have no border but they control immigration to the UK.

Well there isn't a deal that keeps us in the single market, has no border between us and NI and also allows the UK to have control over immigration and trade. Add in the new caveat of not having any deviation between NI and the UK then you have to acknowledge that this is impossible.

The main problem with giving the UK a sweetheart deal is that they will exploit this to their advantage down the line. You cannot solve their problem for them now and expect them to be happy in the future if there is one thing that they aren't happy with. If you indulge them now you will pay for it for decades. Look at how the rebates and opt-outs worked out for the EU, the UK has the best deal of all the countries in the EU and they still want out. How is giving them what they want at the detriment to the other members not going to work out the same way?

I still think even in no deal you will have a side deal that ensures the UK keeps to their commitments of the GFA. Yes there will be violence from unionists but in no deal there is violence either way. It will be about how you can control that the best and dealing with it only in NI is better than having to deal with violence on either side of the border from republicans and breaking an international treaty and showing your country to be an unreliable trading partner. As bad as it sounds it will be about what is the most manageable problems to deal with.

This weeks Remainiacs podcast, Remainiacs podcast latest episode, they have a guest who worked for Vote Leave. That would be Oliver Norgrove who offered some very interesting discussion points. He has rightly pointed out that no-one ever campaigned for no deal and those that says that now is lying. But that is exactly what I mean above, those leavers got what they wanted by campaigning on a EEA type of deal but are now going for a complete break. This is how it works if you don't stand up to those leavers like JRM and Farage and Hannan.

Tony Connelly has posted this weeks take on what happened.

Brexit's Brady Amendment: Game Changer or Phony War?

It is a very good summation of what happened and the reaction we have from the EU. I will take a quote from the article from Sabine Weyand, deputy chief negotiator to Barnier, to show that what the UK wants and what you are proposing is offered is not available.

"The idea of a unilateral escape route, a time limit," Sabine Weyand, Michel Barnier's deputy chief negotiator, told an audience during a rare public appearance on Monday, "these were discussed during weeks, nights, weekends… The problem with the Brady amendment is, it doesn't spell out what those alternative arrangements are. We haven’t found them, and the UK negotiators have not been able to explain what they are. And that’s no criticism. It’s because they don’t exist.

"We looked at every border on this earth, every border that the EU has with a third country. There is simply no way you can do away with checks and controls."

As for what she has gotten at least according to the EU is not much,

"Yes, she has a mandate to talk to us," says a senior EU source, "but she doesn't have a very crystal clear mandate on what to talk about, which is the eternal problem with the Brits. So, it's not a solid mandate. Nor is it a precise one."

Beyond the sense of anger at Mrs May apparently reneging on prior promises,officials in Dublin believe this is now a matter of trust and this in turn reinforces the need for a backstop.

"That’s what it comes down to," says a senior Irish figure. "That’s why we need the legal guarantee. It's one of those points that are self-evident. There's incredulity that she can just whip her party to vote against the thing she has said for the last two weeks is the only plan available. And there's the irony of the context of the issue itself: it’s all about trust."

So we are no closer to getting a solution at all as the EU doesn't really trust the UK if May keeps throwing her own deals under the bus and what she wants is still not defined or even available if she could define it.

It is a long article but it makes for interesting reading.

Water John · 02-02-2019 11:53am

With the tight vote of 52/48, the first move should be a consensus build. Instead she triggered Art 50 and gave us Red Lines.

Enzokk · 02-02-2019 11:57am

Water John wrote: »

With the tight vote of 52/48, the first move should be a consensus build. Instead she triggered Art 50 and gave us Red Lines.

There is a belief that the UK political system is adversarial. It is about one party shouting down the opposition and the press behaves this way as well. It is the way it has always been and they will be reticent to change it, to their own detriment. A country stuck in the past.

black forest · 02-02-2019 11:58am

Kate Hayward once more shows the reality of a N/S border in IE. Her first graphic shows the flow of persons, cars and HGV´s in N/S and E/W direction. Where would a border be more effective and easier to implement? And this should be valid for a backstop as well as for a hard border.

Her seven questions show the currrent situation in a very clear light. May be some Brexiteers can see it as well.

https://twitter.com/hayward_katy/status/1091468143632044033?s=21

Dr. Katy Hayward reads at the Queens University in Belfast. She is a political sociologist and you can find her articles in the Guardian and others.

EdgeCase · 02-02-2019 11:59am

If we are seriously discussing Ireland leaving the single market over this, I guess I better consider emigration again as it would be economic suicide.

I'm fed up to the back teeth with this stupid Brexit nonsense. I barely got though the 2008 recession and now this!

Just when you think everything's going well along comes a bunch of ultra nationalist morons to destroy it all.

Between morons in the UK generally who voted for this and more morons up north who on one hand are the DUP voters and on the other seem to want to blow things up rather than come up with sensible solutions. Meanwhile they can't even get their act together and open their own assembly and government at the one time when it's utterly essential. I don't know that I want to live on these insane islands anymore.

I guess it's time to brush up my French and German and pack the bags. Although I'm not going near France given the likelihood of Le Pen and all the toxic politics there too.

I'm really starting to regret not having gone to Australia or Canada or maybe NZ back in 08. I'm probably 10 years too late now.

I think I'll have to stay off political forums to keep my own stress levels down. Utterly fed up with all of this.

J Mysterio · 02-02-2019 12:14pm

Enzokk wrote: »

Well there isn't a deal that keeps us in the single market, has no border between us and NI and also allows the UK to have control over immigration and trade. Add in the new caveat of not having any deviation between NI and the UK then you have to acknowledge that this is impossible.

The main problem with giving the UK a sweetheart deal is that they will exploit this to their advantage down the line. You cannot solve their problem for them now and expect them to be happy in the future if there is one thing that they aren't happy with. If you indulge them now you will pay for it for decades. Look at how the rebates and opt-outs worked out for the EU, the UK has the best deal of all the countries in the EU and they still want out. How is giving them what they want at the detriment to the other members not going to work out the same way?

I still think even in no deal you will have a side deal that ensures the UK keeps to their commitments of the GFA. Yes there will be violence from unionists but in no deal there is violence either way. It will be about how you can control that the best and dealing with it only in NI is better than having to deal with violence on either side of the border from republicans and breaking an international treaty and showing your country to be an unreliable trading partner. As bad as it sounds it will be about what is the most manageable problems to deal with.

This weeks Remainiacs podcast, Remainiacs podcast latest episode, they have a guest who worked for Vote Leave. That would be Oliver Norgrove who offered some very interesting discussion points. He has rightly pointed out that no-one ever campaigned for no deal and those that says that now is lying. But that is exactly what I mean above, those leavers got what they wanted by campaigning on a EEA type of deal but are now going for a complete break. This is how it works if you don't stand up to those leavers like JRM and Farage and Hannan.

Tony Connelly has posted this weeks take on what happened.

Brexit's Brady Amendment: Game Changer or Phony War?

It is a very good summation of what happened and the reaction we have from the EU. I will take a quote from the article from Sabine Weyand, deputy chief negotiator to Barnier, to show that what the UK wants and what you are proposing is offered is not available.

As for what she has gotten at least according to the EU is not much,

So we are no closer to getting a solution at all as the EU doesn't really trust the UK if May keeps throwing her own deals under the bus and what she wants is still not defined or even available if she could define it.

It is a long article but it makes for interesting reading.

You seem to contradict yourself here.

"I still think even in no deal you will have a side deal that ensures the UK keeps to their commitments of the GFA."

How is this possible wheb you accept that No Deal resorts in a hard border and thus disenfranchises nationalists, and removes their rights?

fash · 02-02-2019 12:19pm

eagle eye wrote: »

The British people voted on it and decided to leave. I don't think they've changes their minds either despite what some quarters would try and make you believe.
I'd be happy if they never made that decision but we are long past that now.

I don't want us out of the single market.
The difference between me and you and many others is that I'm willing to give the UK a deal where they have control over who is allowed come and live in their country. We can still have no border but they control immigration to the UK.

I'm talking lives and you are talking money.
I've been poor before, as a child in the 70's and early 80's and I went through the hard times up to recently because we saved the banks. I'd much rather live in tough financial times than to see innocent lives lost.

For Ireland to do that, it would need to leave the EU and rejoin or effectively rejoin the UK - there is no way of doing that while remaining part of the single market and customs Union.
Have you ever seen the chart of "poorest regions in Northern Europe" - 9 of 10 of them are in the UK - and that if with EU membership protecting the regions and strengthening their economy. What treatment could Ireland expect as a region of the UK? Especially a jingoistic and xenophobic UK?
How much business is in Ireland because of our. EU membership?
Even if you still think it is a good idea, how do you get there from here? How long to set up a referendum in Ireland, to get. UK agreement etc. ? How does that fit with the article 50 process?

Enzokk · 02-02-2019 12:26pm

J Mysterio wrote: »

You seem to contradict yourself here.

"I still think even in no deal you will have a side deal that ensures the UK keeps to their commitments of the GFA."

How is this possible wheb you accept that No Deal resorts in a hard border and thus disenfranchises nationalists, and removes their rights?

Maybe using the phrase deal in the event of no deal is not the right phrasing but the EU has already indicated it will have plans in place to ensure some areas are still able to operate and it will not create absolute chaos if there is no deal. Areas like air travel and financial services where the EU will give up to 12 months for companies to sort out themselves to ensure they have everything they need to keep operating in the EU (basically)

EU no-deal Brexit plan: UK citizens' rights, flights, and no mention of Irish border

Under the plan, the European Union will allow UK-based financial operators to continue to access European markets for 12 months under a “temporary and conditional equivalence” period to prevent disruption.

Europe will allow British flights to continue to access the “Single European Sky” air traffic control area for 12 months and extend some aviation licences for nine months after 29 March.

There will also be measures to allow UK firms temporary access to the EU emissions trading market and new customs regulations to oversee trade with Britain as an outside party.

These will be to ensure disruption is less for the EU. It is not for the UK and if they see benefit from these plans (not deals apparently) it is not intended but a byproduct. So I can see a situation where such a plan is done to ensure both countries keep to their promises of the GFA. Wishful thinking I know but it is all I have not to get an ulcer stressing about the return to violence for people on this island.

murphaph · 02-02-2019 12:26pm

eagle eye wrote: »

We have to protect people first. A border caused chaos, we cannot have a border.

I don't want a visible border either but if we fail to protect the single market then we will essentially find ourselves outside it as our goods will need to be checked when they arrive in the protected single market.

That consigns our country to a 1930s level of dependence on the crazies next door.

We should strive to provide a sane alternative option for the people of Northern Ireland. We can only do that with a sound economy based on membership of the single market. This great thing is what ultimately raised our country out of its economic slumber.

We have to hold our nerve but I agree with Francie that Brexit essentially breaks the GFA. We can do our best with the remnants and try to actively pursuade unionists to vote for a united Ireland. The invisible border was for the benefit of nationalists. Unionists got a guarantee that NI remains in the union so long as a majority are in favour.

The carrot given to nationalists is about to be turned into a stick, which is completely unfair.

Leroy42 · 02-02-2019 12:28pm

EagleEye has previously explained that their solution is simply to ignore it.

So rather than getting the UK to abide by an internationally recognised peace agreement they want Ireland to actively break the rules of the EU.

Curly Judge · 02-02-2019 12:31pm

eagle eye wrote: »

The British people voted on it and decided to leave. I don't think they've changes their minds either despite what some quarters would try and make you believe.
I'd be happy if they never made that decision but we are long past that now.

I don't want us out of the single market.
The difference between me and you and many others is that I'm willing to give the UK a deal where they have control over who is allowed come and live in their country. We can still have no border but they control immigration to the UK.

I'm talking lives and you are talking money.
I've been poor before, as a child in the 70's and early 80's and I went through the hard times up to recently because we saved the banks. I'd much rather live in tough financial times than to see innocent lives lost.

Your worries are somewhat academic, if I may say so.
WTO rules will compel the UK to secure a border even if the EU turned a blind eye to us not implementing one.

Folkstonian · 02-02-2019 12:31pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think if you're truly "into saving the lives of innocent people" then you should be calling for the cancellation of Brexit.

The UK voted for this. It's that simple. It's their mess to resolve. All the Irish government can do is prepare for the worst outcome.

That’s deeply unsettling though. Cancelling Brexit because of the threat of a return to violence would be bending to the will of terrorists.

Should we really allow democratic decisions to be held hostage by armed nutters who don’t like the outcome of this vote, or any future vote?

Better to identify, arrest and prosecute anyone who is inclined to use violent tactics to thwart Brexit

ancapailldorcha · 02-02-2019 12:41pm

Folkstonian wrote: »

That’s deeply unsettling though. Cancelling Brexit because of the threat of a return to violence would be bending to the will of terrorists.

Should we really allow democratic decisions to be held hostage by armed nutters who don’t like the outcome of this vote, or any future vote?

It's not cancelling Brexit to cater to the whims of terrorists. It's cancelling Brexit because it can't be enacted without destabilising a region which underwent decades of internecine warfare which cost thousands of lives until it can be thought through and enacted with a workable plan for the Irish border.

I'd also question your use of the term "Democratic decisions". Virtually everything promised by the official Leave campaign was based on deceit from Turkey joining the EU to £350 million a week for the NHS to the easiest trade deal in history.

The people made their will known in 2016. Now they must shut up about it for good and return to the usual voting regime where a party wins 40% of the vote and forms a government.

Folkstonian wrote: »

Better to identify, arrest and prosecute anyone who is inclined to use violent tactics to thwart Brexit

Who is suggesting violent tactics to thwart Brexit? The Irish nationalists' goal is a United Ireland. The Unionists goal is to maintain perpetual unity with Great Britain.

Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments