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 X (Please read OP before posting)

johnnyskeleton

This is the tenth incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread, so Ive copied ACDs comments from the last thread to here. Same warnings etc still apply:

As we are approaching the critical end of March October 2019 period, 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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Charles Babbage

Sam Russell wrote: »

3. If imports from GB into NI only go through Dublin, then all inspections required are done in Dublin Port. Goods destined for NI would require inspection that they comply with SM and CU as much as necessary to comply with the GFA. Now that means imports cannot go through Larne or Belfast, unless inspected as per Dublin. Now that is not a biggie.

This most certainly is a biggie.

Now all that remains is the VAT regime. Currently, if goods are purchased in NI for export to Ireland VAT is paid in NI, or for registered traders, is paid in Ireland and reported on the VAT return. If the UK are out of the EU, that changes, and all taxpayers can claim VAT back on export, but if a personal export, will not be required to declare it on import (unless it exceeds a value).

The NI and Irish VAT systems have to remain in close couple to prevent VAT fraud, and keep rules closely coupled with information flowing to keep traders honest.

All in all, not a huge problem compared to a land border on or near the invisible border.

NI would need a seperate VAT territory and would probably need to be in, or effecively in, the EU VAT union. That is OK until GB decides to change their VAT rates or abolish VAT altogether.

[Deleted User]

briany wrote: »

I could imagine a London barstooler characterising the conflict as "Paddies fighting other Paddies over who's a Paddy."

Yep! That's why most people in the UK don't care about NI, it's only because of the Unionists propping up the current government that it has become an issue. A majority government would have probably accepted the border in the Irish sea.

briany

Deleted User wrote: »

Most people in the rest of the UK already considers them as Irish alresdy, so no change there.

I could imagine a London barstooler characterising the conflict as "Paddies fighting other Paddies over who's a Paddy."

[Deleted User]

Gintonious wrote: »

They don't want to be treated any differently from the rest of the U.K...which is tragic because the rest of the U.K would consider them Irish, and not British. :rolleyes:

Most people in the rest of the UK already considers them as Irish alresdy, so no change there.

Fionn1952

jm08 wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

You mean Victor Orban, not Recep Erdogan. The latter is president of Turkey which has no say in who is president of the European Commission.

Orban is the person I meant. Thanks for spotting that.

Aye, thanks for the clarification....Sunday mornings aren't my best thinking time, so the aul noggin was hurting trying to work out how Erdogan could veto anything!

Sam Russell

briany wrote: »

A border in the Irish sea would cut NI off from Britain, if only symbolically. But, y'know, symbols are big up that way.

I think we need to look a little bit more analytically at the pros and cons of a sea border vs. a land border because if an NI Unionist looks at this thread, the conclusion they'll draw is that we're saying 'land border=bad, sea border=good', rather than saying, in a more detached way, the reasons why one is better than the other.

We can say that a land border contravenes the GFA for the Nationalists. They can say a sea border contravenes it for the Unionists. We can say a land border would be bad for all-Ireland trade. They can say a sea border would be very bad for trade with the UK mainland. Round and around we go.

The border required by the exit of the UK from the EU can be considered in a few ways.

Assume the UK exits the EU SM and CU, which means that there must be a hard border somewhere between GB and Ireland, depending on the status of NI with respect to the SM and CU.

1. If the current checks at Larne and Belfast for agriculture products are maintained (and tightened up), and NI continues to maintain an all Ireland agriculture regime, them the current milk and meat regime can continue. That means milk lorries can continue to collect milk from both sides of the border, and pigs anfd lambs can continue to crisscross the border as of now. So everyone wins and no-one loses. That requires NI to remain in the CU and SM for agriculture. Not really a biggie for anyone in NI if it allows farming to continue as of now.

2. If exports from NI to GB can continue unhindered through either Dublin or Belfast, again no-one loses, so everyone wins. Sixty percent of those exports currently pass through Dublin.

3. If imports from GB into NI only go through Dublin, then all inspections required are done in Dublin Port. Goods destined for NI would require inspection that they comply with SM and CU as much as necessary to comply with the GFA. Now that means imports cannot go through Larne or Belfast, unless inspected as per Dublin. Now that is not a biggie.

Now all that remains is the VAT regime. Currently, if goods are purchased in NI for export to Ireland VAT is paid in NI, or for registered traders, is paid in Ireland and reported on the VAT return. If the UK are out of the EU, that changes, and all taxpayers can claim VAT back on export, but if a personal export, will not be required to declare it on import (unless it exceeds a value).

The NI and Irish VAT systems have to remain in close couple to prevent VAT fraud, and keep rules closely coupled with information flowing to keep traders honest.

All in all, not a huge problem compared to a land border on or near the invisible border.

McGiver

volchitsa wrote: »

As for your attempt to blame Germany for Ireland's financial problems as an explanation for why Ireland should throw its lot in with the U.K. rather than the E.U., well, it beggars belief really.

And we really should get back on topic now.

Actually, it's not completely OT. All europhobes fascists, crackpots, populists etc in the whole Europe, from Ireland, through UK, France, to Italy, Poland and Hungary have one thing in common - German bashing. It's also distinctive feature in the Brexiteers narrative. The reason is very simple - Russian disinformation and leverage of nascent anti-German sentiments, they're really good at it. They will never get over German unification and how successful Germany ended up after them defeating them in the Ww2 and occupying quarter of the German territory for 40 years. They're definitely behind this. Follow the Russians, Cambridge Analytica, LeaveEU, Trump - they are involved in all this.
No conspiracy theory, this is a fact confirmed by investigative journalists and intelligence agencies (esp. in the Eastern part of the EU).

Irish Praetorian

Melanchthon wrote: »

Of course the mods will forgive you don't worry about that your on their side of the argument and I am at most quasi- Eurosceptic.

As someone who often gets to straddle both sides in quite a few Politics forum arguments, and has occasionally ventured onto the more euro-sceptic position in this debate, I'm not sure moderation is the biggest hurdle that such posters face.

There seems to be something of a pattern among what we might call the pro-Brexit posters in this debate which goes something like this; show up to the thread with the usual UKIP/Brexit party slogans and cliches, proceed to get called out by other posters and asked to elucidate their point on a more substantial level, either make a piss-poor attempt to defend their previous positions and/or stick religiously to the kind of cliche/vapid point they initially made, fall back on vague truisms or the blindingly obvious when pressed further (sure don't we all want a kinder/better governance), plead persecution when noone is taken in by their wet-paper arguments, devolve into an ad-hominen back and forth and then finally claim persecution and bias on the part of the mods when their behaviour is reprimanded.

As someone who came to this forum initially to make a very unpopular argument, more or less without any other poster's support, I have very little time for people claiming bias and persecution when they take on a very difficult argument and then decide to screw it up and get into flame wars. It's really not hard; stick to the substantial points of contention, content yourself with factual and plausible assertions, do not feel the need to respond to posts/comments that you feel fall beneath the mark (there is a rather helpful report function).

I actually got to thinking about this when I was pondering back over the body of Brexiteer arguments as expressed through things like Question Time. It is quite staggering to think about the utter lack of substantial data and evidence to support a move like the UK leaving the European Union. Again and again during the debate, vivid but vapid cliches about how 'French Vintners' and 'German Car Manufacturers' were going to ensure a free-trade deal, or how the majority of the worlds growth was outside the EU, or the atleast true but largely irrelevant claim of how significant the UK's economy is/was, were served up as though they constituted some enormous compelling body of evidence. And the cherry on the cake has been to see these arguments abandoned one by one with barely a whimper of protest, to the point that now the argument for going through with Brexit is that 'well of course people voted for it' - like an execution going ahead because 'well the jury voted for it' when it turns out the primary witness was a serial liar, the evidence was completely fabricated and victim who was supposed to have been cut into a thousand pieces turns out to be alive and well.

KildareP

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Brilliant point.
It sort of goes a good way to explain their mouthpieces like foster and Wilson saying it’s dublin tearing up the GFA.

End of the day though this decision on a border is faced entirely on the outcome of another decision made solely by the UK.

If a border has to go somewhere - which it does - then they can't say "No, sovereignty!" when objecting to a sea border but complain when ROI shouts "No, sovereignty!" in return for the land border.

Experience_day

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Barclay has signed that law that removes the EU rules come October 31st.
This is just showboat theatrics though right? To show the Eu they really mean it.

Doesn't really mean anything until they actually leave.

Stop moaning ffs

briany wrote: »

A border in the Irish sea would cut NI off from Britain, if only symbolically. But, y'know, symbols are big up that way.

I think we need to look a little bit more analytically at the pros and cons of a sea border vs. a land border because if an NI Unionist looks at this thread, the conclusion they'll draw is that we're saying 'land border=bad, sea border=good', rather than saying, in a more detached way, the reasons why one is better than the other.

We can say that a land border contravenes the GFA for the Nationalists. They can say a sea border contravenes it for the Unionists. We can say a land border would be bad for all-Ireland trade. They can say a sea border would be very bad for trade with the UK mainland. Round and around we go.

Brilliant point.
It sort of goes a good way to explain their mouthpieces like foster and Wilson saying it’s dublin tearing up the GFA.

jm08

Calina wrote: »

You mean Victor Orban, not Recep Erdogan. The latter is president of Turkey which has no say in who is president of the European Commission.

Orban is the person I meant. Thanks for spotting that.

Calina

jm08 wrote: »

The power struggle in the EU is between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. The biggest supporters of the Council of Ministers retaining power are the UK, Poland and Hungary. Juncker (a former PM of Luxembourg) was selected by the European Parliament and Cameron & Erdogan were the only two European Leaders who opposed his appointment. The Poles and Hungarians in particular do not want the European Parliament to have more power because its full of liberals who tend to object and censure these countries over the rule of law, corruption etc. Erdogan and Kaczyński could veto any such censure at Council level.

You mean Victor Orban, not Recep Erdogan. The latter is president of Turkey which has no say in who is president of the European Commission.

briany

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

The majority of people in Northern Ireland want the border placed in the sea. This keeps trade going and stops thousands of job losses and business closures.
The ones against the border in the sea? The DUP. Because somehow it cuts them off from Britain and ruins their British cosplay notions.

When will this bunch of homophobic throwbacks be made to pay for trying to wreck Northern Ireland and the GFA?

https://twitter.com/suntimesireland/status/1162996866109366272

A border in the Irish sea would cut NI off from Britain, if only symbolically. But, y'know, symbols are big up that way.

I think we need to look a little bit more analytically at the pros and cons of a sea border vs. a land border because if an NI Unionist looks at this thread, the conclusion they'll draw is that we're saying 'land border=bad, sea border=good', rather than saying, in a more detached way, the reasons why one is better than the other.

We can say that a land border contravenes the GFA for the Nationalists. They can say a sea border contravenes it for the Unionists. We can say a land border would be bad for all-Ireland trade. They can say a sea border would be very bad for trade with the UK mainland. Round and around we go.

Frank Bullitt

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Oh I’m we’ll aware of that, they take their british cosplay intensely seriously.
However, the majority of people in the north seem to be normal and rational and pragmatic (in a bit of a shock to myself I have to say) so how is it the DUP are ignoring their own base and farmers and industry and insisting on this nonsense?
They arent listening to or representing their own people. It’ll never cease to amaze me unless and until they’re taken down at the next election

The DUP only have a very narrow agenda to keep to. They were effectively against peace in the North, against any form of progression on civil rights (I can imagine the meetings they are going to have in relation to abortion and gay marriage). Not only that, but they landed themselves in a very nice position in Westminster when May came calling to get their help to form a government.

They aren't even in touch with their own base because they are permanently stuck in the past.

Stop moaning ffs

Barclay has signed that law that removes the EU rules come October 31st.
This is just showboat theatrics though right? To show the Eu they really mean it.

Stop moaning ffs

Gintonious wrote: »

They don't want to be treated any differently from the rest of the U.K...which is tragic because the rest of the U.K would consider them Irish, and not British. :rolleyes:

Oh I’m we’ll aware of that, they take their british cosplay intensely seriously.
However, the majority of people in the north seem to be normal and rational and pragmatic (in a bit of a shock to myself I have to say) so how is it the DUP are ignoring their own base and farmers and industry and insisting on this nonsense?
They arent listening to or representing their own people. It’ll never cease to amaze me unless and until they’re taken down at the next election

Frank Bullitt

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

The majority of people in Northern Ireland want the border placed in the sea. This keeps trade going and stops thousands of job losses and business closures.
The ones against the border in the sea? The DUP. Because somehow it cuts them off from Britain and ruins their British cosplay notions.

When will this bunch of homophobic throwbacks be made to pay for trying to wreck Northern Ireland and the GFA?

https://twitter.com/suntimesireland/status/1162996866109366272

They don't want to be treated any differently from the rest of the U.K...which is tragic because the rest of the U.K would consider them Irish, and not British. :rolleyes:

jm08

Melanchthon wrote: »

Whats the point of the European Parliament then in your view and as you said this is already the direction it is heading in, so presumably you oppose this?

The power struggle in the EU is between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. The biggest supporters of the Council of Ministers retaining power are the UK, Poland and Hungary. Juncker (a former PM of Luxembourg) was selected by the European Parliament and Cameron & Erdogan were the only two European Leaders who opposed his appointment. The Poles and Hungarians in particular do not want the European Parliament to have more power because its full of liberals who tend to object and censure these countries over the rule of law, corruption etc. Erdogan and Kaczyński could veto any such censure at Council level.

It would be a step in the right direction of having a more functional EU parliament with more principled MEP's, the fact this was blocked previously was a disgrace and the lack of outcry highlights how disengaged Europeans are from the Parliament

The UK packs the European Parliament with self serving members (UKIP/Brexit) whose only interest is disruption. People tend to get the politicians they deserve (by voting for them). How could anyone elect Ann Widdecombe to anything is just beyond me. Compare her to Marian Harkin, Mairead McGuinness or Guy Verhofstad.

Balls to that its not like current commissioners tend to be the cream of the crop in being experts tends to be a patronage appointment, your making an argument against democracy as a whole there, in many countries ministers are selected from politicians who have stood in election and that functions as a system.

Thats a load of waffle. Any country with any sense sends their best people to the Commission. Are you trying to say that appointing Peter Sutherland to EU commissioner was some sort of a patronage thing? Or perhaps Chris Patten. These are substantial people.

Go to google there is plenty of good analysis of the flaws of CAP and you know it if your as interested in the EU as you say.

There are plenty of flaws with CAP, but it is reformed every couple of years. The only countries which seems to have a difficulty with CAP are those with little agriculture who are dependent on food imports (i.e., England who would prefer a lot more EU money going into Science research etc).

Ok a couple of things, Germany actually has low investment in infrastructure and its causing issues, again something you would know if your as knowledgeable as you say, in fact with its current slow down there is talk of using badly needed infrastructure projects as an stimulus package.

All those surpluses over the last few years (supposedly breaking EU law) will come in very handy now.

volchitsa

riddles wrote: »

Our economy is currently in a position of strength. We are still borrowing a lot of money to fund day to day expenditure. A downturn linked to Brexit will be difficult for us to absorb given our level of indebtedness. Is our political system capable of anything other than reaction?

Of course there’s no link between this and Brexit.

We all know that Brexit is a problem for Ireland, nobody denies that. It was Britain's decision and they made it without a second's thought for Ireland's best interests. Which is their right of course, but let's not pretend Ireland's priorities would be any higher up their list tomorrow or on Nov 1st.

As for your attempt to blame Germany for Ireland's financial problems as an explanation for why Ireland should throw its lot in with the U.K. rather than the E.U., well, it beggars belief really.

And we really should get back on topic now.

devnull

Gina Miller's seen legal advice that says that MPs must have a chance to discuss No Deal even if Parliament is prorogued and must be allowed to hold the government to account.

https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1163000083073380353

That would leave the Tories with the option of an election tactic to make No Deal happen and stop Parliament stopping them the better one for them, not that it is a good one for the people of the UK.

riddles

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

There’s probably a good debate to be had about this in a different thread though. Don’t really see how it relates to brexit?

Our economy is currently in a position of strength. We are still borrowing a lot of money to fund day to day expenditure. A downturn linked to Brexit will be difficult for us to absorb given our level of indebtedness. Is our political system capable of anything other than reaction?

Of course there’s no link between this and Brexit.

Stop moaning ffs

The majority of people in Northern Ireland want the border placed in the sea. This keeps trade going and stops thousands of job losses and business closures.
The ones against the border in the sea? The DUP. Because somehow it cuts them off from Britain and ruins their British cosplay notions.

When will this bunch of homophobic throwbacks be made to pay for trying to wreck Northern Ireland and the GFA?

https://twitter.com/suntimesireland/status/1162996866109366272

Stop moaning ffs

riddles wrote: »

“For a country, it all depends on how the borrowing is used. All too often (not just in Ireland) it has been exploited by politicians to "buy" popularity and thus votes”

I think our level of national insolvency confirms this point.

There’s probably a good debate to be had about this in a different thread though. Don’t really see how it relates to brexit?

riddles

volchitsa wrote: »

I won't bother with the rest (you are so egregiously misrepresenting what happened that I don't see the point - you can lead a horse to water and all that). Anyway people have already pointed out problems with your post.

However just on the bit in bold above: while the Thatcherite notion of running a country's economy just like a family's income is intuitively pleasing, it fails on examination - because a family which borrows in order to spend more is always at risk of storing up trouble for itself, since the money spent is lost to that family. Whereas a country which borrows to spend on its economy can get much of that back through increased spending by its citizens. A trickle-up effect if you like, or maybe trickle-around . (Unlike the trickle-down effect, which has been shown not to work.)

My point being that staying out of debt is not in itself a solution for a country, because an urban family doesn't have the means to invest in its own production.
For a country, it all depends on how the borrowing is used. All too often (not just in Ireland) it has been exploited by politicians to "buy" popularity and thus votes. That's why the Keynesian view was discredited, not because it was fundamentally mistaken.

“For a country, it all depends on how the borrowing is used. All too often (not just in Ireland) it has been exploited by politicians to "buy" popularity and thus votes”

I think our level of national insolvency confirms this point.

volchitsa

riddles wrote: »

You can live in cookoo land all you want but the fact is Ireland with a gdp of 1.2% of the EU total has paid over 40% of the cost of the banking crisis. I’m not trying to defend the fact we are a nation of morons. The fact remains German and belgium banks who could not avail of the credit party in their own countries poured money in here. They lost but still won. We have this debt nationalised now and are only staying afloat on borrowed dime.

I think it’s a fact we have never had more people in employment. Even with that we are borrowing 14 million a day.

Brexit offers no potential upside for us. Anyone delusional enough to think otherwise needs to grow up! Tax harmonization will be a big topic post brexit. Add in the decline of the beef industry there are a lot of challenges. Staying out of debt is the key. Something as a nation we are too stupid to realise.

I won't bother with the rest (you are so egregiously misrepresenting what happened that I don't see the point - you can lead a horse to water and all that). Anyway people have already pointed out problems with your post.

However just on the bit in bold above: while the Thatcherite notion of running a country's economy just like a family's income is intuitively pleasing, it fails on examination - because a family which borrows in order to spend more is always at risk of storing up trouble for itself, since the money spent is lost to that family. Whereas a country which borrows to spend on its economy can get much of that back through increased spending by its citizens. A trickle-up effect if you like, or maybe trickle-around

. (Unlike the trickle-down effect, which has been shown not to work.)

My point being that staying out of debt is not in itself a solution for a country, because an urban family doesn't have the means to invest in its own production.
For a country, it all depends on how the borrowing is used. All too often (not just in Ireland) it has been exploited by politicians to "buy" popularity and thus votes. That's why the Keynesian view was discredited, not because it was fundamentally mistaken.

Stop moaning ffs

Enzokk wrote: »

You could make an argument that if all of this was staged that Johnson should not have promised to leave by the 31st October if he knew what the damage would be. I think it is more likely that forces outside of No.10 is working hard to try and get it through to the papers and the people how crazy this would be. That is why you get leaked documents and talking points "left" behind.

Good point. It is more likely there are elements in the civil service working to undo some of the stupidity

Enzokk

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Yellowhammer apparently is an anagram of Orwell Mayhem.
Can’t be accidental can it?

With Cummings now involved it’s hard to take any of the stories coming out at face value. Between things like this and Boris leaving his script in a pub, it’s just seems rather staged in my view.

You could make an argument that if all of this was staged that Johnson should not have promised to leave by the 31st October if he knew what the damage would be. I think it is more likely that forces outside of No.10 is working hard to try and get it through to the papers and the people how crazy this would be. That is why you get leaked documents and talking points "left" behind.

Valhallapt

riddles wrote: »

You can live in cookoo land all you want but the fact is Ireland with a gdp of 1.2% of the EU total has paid over 40% of the cost of the banking crisis. I’m not trying to defend the fact we are a nation of morons. The fact remains German and belgium banks who could not avail of the credit party in their own countries poured money in here. They lost but still won. We have this debt nationalised now and are only staying afloat on borrowed dime.

I think it’s a fact we have never had more people in employment. Even with that we are borrowing 14 million a day.

Brexit offers no potential upside for us. Anyone delusional enough to think otherwise needs to grow up! Tax harmonization will be a big topic post brexit. Add in the decline of the beef industry there are a lot of challenges. Staying out of debt is the key. Something as a nation we are too stupid to realise.

If you are paying over 50% tax in all likelihood you have worked a full year for nothing since the crash. We took a large one up the Swiss without even the courtesy offer of a reach around in return. Seems like a lot are okay with that.

The bank guarantee was a purely Irish idea, it horrified everyone in the EU, today we still pay the price for that catastrophic miscalculation.

fash

riddles wrote: »

You can live in cookoo land all you want but the fact is Ireland with a gdp of 1.2% of the EU total has paid over 40% of the cost of the banking crisis. I’m not trying to defend the fact we are a nation of morons. The fact remains German and belgium banks who could not avail of the credit party in their own countries poured money in here.

[Offtopic]
I assume you accept that Ireland had no obligation to guarantee all bond holders and did so without prior approval by or even prior notification of the EU bodies/other EU countries - a real "I'm alright Jack" all approach.
I assume you also accept that there was no necessity to do so, that Ireland did it entirely voluntarily and that even if Ireland felt it important to do so to ensure funding of banks, a state guarantee could have been limited to future bond holders - which would have been far more effective and cost a fraction of the bailout
[/Offtopic]