Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

BluePlanet · 31-08-2019 12:43AM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The backstop is dead. It doesn't matter who proposed it. It was repeatedly voted down in the HOC including by Labour, Jeremy Corbyn and most of the opposition.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention lately?
It's not just the 'Backstop' that needs ditching now (according to the more hardline Tories), it's the entire Withdrawal Agreement.
Plus they already said they aren't paying the divorce bill.

So to summarize here, you want to:
Cave to the Tories on the Backstop, still loose the 42 billion and likely confine the WA agreement to the dustbin.

What's in it for us?

So you and fellow travelers can travel North and South un-hindered?

GM228 · 31-08-2019 01:01AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

VAT was invented by the EU, but many non-EU countries have adopted it. The UK would be free to abandon it after Brexit, but SFAIK there are no proposals to do so.

VAT was actually invented long before the EU by the French in 1954 as the TVA (Taxe sur la Valeur Ajoutée), and the EU adopted the system, it was the brain child of Maurice Lauré of the French General Tax Directorite.

He actually based it on an idea of taxatiom by German businessman Wilhelm von Siemens in his Veredelte Umsatzsteuer, published in 1919. Interestingly, whilst different in many respects Purchase/Production taxes and VAT were both derived from Wilhelm's same idea.

The International Fiscal Association award a Prize in his name each year for scientific work on international indirect taxation - I'm not so sure the general public would share their enthusiasm for his "invention"

fash · 31-08-2019 01:14AM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The backstop is dead. It doesn't matter who proposed it. It was repeatedly voted down in the HOC including by Labour, Jeremy Corbyn and most of the opposition.

That is brexiter kool-aid and lies. The vast majority of the parliament are perfectly happy with the backstop (and the people of NI want it and to remain in the EU).
If it were the case, why did the house of commons vote in favour of the backstop by 600 to 24 when the Baron amendment was put to it?
(Seriously 600 in favour and only 24 against the backstop - talk about an overwhelming majority).
So why concede to something to the Brextemists who have already said that even if you concede under no circumstances will they accept and if you don't concede, it causes the inevitable collapse of the UK and resolves everything in our favour?

Infini · 31-08-2019 01:17AM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

What on earth are you talking about?

This thread has gone a bit bizarre.

There are people saying they are against a border but have no problem with border posts going up because that's what the EU want.

Let's be absolutely clear here, none of us WANT the border we'd rather maintain the status quo hence the reason for the backstop, it's a fallback position to maintain trade and cross border functionality by using the natural boundary the sea as a border and funnelling traffic between the 2 island's through port's and airports where traffic can be monitored and sub quality produce can be filtered out of both the Island and the Greater EU SM/CU as a whole. It's a basic maintaining of services while more permenent arrangements are made with trade deals etc.

The whole problem in all of this of course has been the sheer arrogance, stupidity, igorance and utter incompetence of the Conservative Party for causing this mess to begin with then when they lose their thin majority because they can't compromise with their own party members they bring in the Dumbass Unionist Party a group so incompetent, short sighted and foolish unfit to even run a county council who proceed to ignore the majority views of their own province because flegs and unions are more important than economic security and financial stability (Let us not forget that one of the reasons Unionism came about apart from representing a protestant community was the fact that a century ago Belfast was the economic centre of Ireland). The fact is they're untrustworthy because they can't keep their word and they've been seen on record as such. Hence they have to be MADE to live up to their agreements because they've already stated they intend not to keep their word.

We came about an agreement which included the backstop which was a BRITISH idea as a way of allowing Britain to leave and allow NI to have the best conditions the situation have until Arlene decides to throw a spanner in the works because Ideology > Common Good. Then the fools of the conservative party decide "oh we can't agree to that" so now we have the risk of a hard border coming about not because of the EU or anything we do but because Britain can't have it's own way and be treated special outside of the EU because it politicians right now are incapable of pragmatic and reasonable thinking only trying to get their own way. The refusal to agree to the backstop is an excuse it's a wedge to try and open other item's and the rest of the EU have been warned by Ireland of this tactic and have such will not reopen this because as far as were all concerned this has been agreed to and only if the UK drops it's red lines can the EU really move to change things.

If a border is ultimately put up it will only be for one reason: Because BRITISH politicians cannot compromise and agree to whats on the table. It's the UK putting it up because they have no interest in the region they only want their unicorns and fairies and to hell with those in Ireland and their livelyhoods. The irony is that this kind of ignorant stupidity will ultimately bring an end to the border because when you wreck people's lives like this first they'll look for someone to blame (DUP) and 2nd they'll start questioning if there's alternatives (United Ireland becomes viable option for many and the most workable option for multiple reasons).

In addition the truth is that if there's a border to be enforced it will not mean long term custom's posts and such only short term solutions because while this will hurt Ireland well not only have the support of the other 26 EU members but the UK will be utterly crippled by the tariffs and the enforced customs checks with mainland EU. NI is the side show the main event will be in Dover and such will become an utter mess of a situation and they won't have the options we'll have as an EU member to go around them to maintain our trade and such. This will ultmately force the UK back to the table in a far less favourable position and the backstop will be be at the top of the list not to mention there will be ALOT of pissed off EU member's who won't be in the mood to entertain the UK's delusions this time around.

Bit cynical · 31-08-2019 01:42AM

fash wrote: »

That is brexiter kool-aid and lies. The vast majority of the parliament are perfectly happy with the backstop (and the people of NI want it and to remain in the EU).
If it were the case, why did the house of commons vote in favour of the backstop by 600 to 24 when the Baron amendment was put to it?
(Seriously 600 in favour and only 24 against the backstop - talk about an overwhelming majority).
So why concede to something to the Brextemists who have already said that even if you concede under no circumstances will they accept and if you don't concede, it causes the inevitable collapse of the UK and resolves everything in our favour?

I'm not sure rejection of the Baron amendment can be construed as support for the backstop. Labour, the biggest opposition voting bloc, would have voted against it anyway because it was not part of the Brexit Labour sought.

Pedro K · 31-08-2019 02:30AM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Proposed by lame Duck Theresa May and with no mandate.

Its amazing how few people understand why tge backstop was never going to get through the HOC.

May could have proposed anything but unless it passed the HOC it was useless. But still people cling to the failed backstop.

Its dead, move on.

What alternative do you propose?

Tell us, ToBeFrank, what actually does have a mandate, when it comes to brexit?

J Mysterio · 31-08-2019 02:49AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Telegraph reporting an old customs post in Lifford has been turned in to a construction site

(paywalled)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/30/fears-rise-hard-border-ireland-brexit-old-customs-post-turned/

Thanks, interesting. Surprisingly good, honest reporting, though I did think he misread Merkels comments.

Kermit.de.frog · 31-08-2019 03:35AM

Brexit in a nutshell

Limpy · 31-08-2019 03:44AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Brexit in a nutshell

Include lucrative weapon sale's and the second chart Will be more colourful.

fash · 31-08-2019 05:28AM

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm not sure rejection of the Baron amendment can be construed as support for the backstop. Labour, the biggest opposition voting bloc, would have voted against it anyway because it was not part of the Brexit Labour sought.

Is it more, less or equally true to the statement from ToBeFrank123 that Labour, Corbyn and most of the opposition specifically voted against "the backstop" when voting against May's WA ? And if one actually believes that indeed it specifically was the "backstop" that attracted Labour ire (and not as you suggest a general "that's not my brexit, it is too fluffy" voting pattern), would you agree that this behaviour is inconsistent?

Enzokk · 31-08-2019 07:04AM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The backstop is dead. It doesn't matter who proposed it. It was repeatedly voted down in the HOC including by Labour, Jeremy Corbyn and most of the opposition.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Do you actually know who proposed and who voted against the backstop?

Theresa May proposed it. Corbyn voted against.

If he and most of Labour voted for it, happy days, WA would have passed.

So if you want to point fingers you could start with him. Johnson certainly wouldn't be leader now if he'd supported it. Like others he wasn't happy with the deal including the backstop. Pity that.

Did I suggest the border was of our doing?

I am not clear, is that the Withdrawal Agreement that Johnson voted against or for? Because he has done both of those so I don't know if he supports it or not.

I agree with you that he cannot bring it back politically as he has demonized the agreement and said he would not support it, and yet he did all those things before as well and still voted for it so we know his political positions is flexible at the very least.

Has he laid down in front of the bulldozers yet to stop Heathrow's 3rd runway? He is PM now, I must have missed his big speech about scrapping the idea entirely. I would like to see him face his voters when Momentum floods his constituents with that fact, when that is what got him elected in Uxbridge.

listermint · 31-08-2019 07:11AM

Limpy wrote: »

Include lucrative weapon sale's and the second chart Will be more colourful.

'Lucrative' weapons sales have minimal impact on GDP, nor real jobs. They bear no reality on the map view.

Did you pick the up off twitter?

Nody · 31-08-2019 07:14AM

Limpy wrote: »

Include lucrative weapon sale's and the second chart Will be more colourful.

Except the minor thing that said weapon sales tend to include components from EU which no longer will be available (pesky third party rules etc.) and of course US will not provide said components if they can sell directly either, oops...

mickoneill31 · 31-08-2019 07:20AM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

There are people saying they are against a border but have no problem with border posts going up because that's what the EU want.

I see statements like that a few times. How do you counter simply it for people who obviously don't know why there are borders? I suspect that, like the UK trying to blame remainers, the Irish, the EU etc. etc., people posting this are trying to deflect blame to the EU. A few people will fall for it, unfortunately there's always some.

If you spend more than a minute thinking about it most people can come to the conclusion that if the UK leaves the SM and then has its weird and wonderful deals with Trump et al and the UK doesn't manage to come up with an alternative to the backstop then there's some kind of border required. We either go along with the UK and leave the SM too or we act like a normal country and control our border.

This would be the case if we weren't part of the EU. Every country requires it unless they just want to be subject to the goods / standards of their neighbouring countries. Why does this basic stuff have to be explained these days?

Calina · 31-08-2019 07:33AM

mickoneill31 wrote: »

This would be the case if we weren't part of the EU. Every country requires it unless they just want to be subject to the goods / standards of their neighbouring countries. Why does this basic stuff have to be explained these days?

TBH in some ways it always had to be explained but on a small scale, pubs up and down the land.

The other point is stuff like this didn't affect people's day to day lives so much as far less travel and trade.

It's worth remembering btw that the first to actually implement customs on the border back in the day was our side of it because we were basically broke. But that hardly mattered to most people because they lived well away from it.

Now, we have far more media, and far more echo chambers, and we cross borders more and we personally do a lot more international trade via amazon and other online stores. The impact of stuff here has increased but the understanding less so.

The decentralisation of media makes it hard to fix as does the lack of trust in state. Any government information project generates as much mistrust as clarity. There isn't a will to admit the need to learn and people rarely admit they are wrong.

murphaph · 31-08-2019 07:41AM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Try telling that to people who commute across the border daily.

Throwing your fellow Irish man under the bus, great solution.

This mess is of the EU and UKs making. Leave them at it. But throwing up border posts and inconviencing our own people so we can please the EU is rash and foolish.

Jesus Christ. There'd be no jobs to commute to if Ireland was thrown out of the single market for failing to protect it.

Nobody likes this. It's the least worst option.

CelticRambler · 31-08-2019 07:42AM

mickoneill31 wrote: »

This would be the case if we weren't part of the EU. Every country requires it unless they just want to be subject to the goods / standards of their neighbouring countries. Why does this basic stuff have to be explained these days?

That question was answered in a Guardian comment piece last weekend:

there seems to be a common assumption that the absence of checks on goods crossing frontiers is the default state of the world and that the existence of border controls is a weird aberration.

The assumption is false. As even a cursory glance at border arrangements across the globe reveals, border controls are entirely normal: it is their absence that is the aberration. Physical borders are to be found even along those frontiers that have been pointed out by Brexiters as examples to follow, most notably those between Norway and Sweden, Canada and the United States, and Switzerland and France.

The only region of the world where you will find sovereign states coexisting without border checks on the trade between them is the EU.

The article concludes:

many in the UK claiming that the backstop, which de facto keeps Northern Ireland in the customs union and single market for goods, is not required to avoid a hard border in Ireland; that in a no-deal scenario you wouldn’t need one anyway; that if there are checks on UK goods at Calais this will constitute “punishment” by the EU; and so forth.

While many making such claims are just being dishonest, there are probably others who are genuinely confused. And one reason for that is that they’ve so internalised the EU’s greatest success that they assume it is the natural state of affairs.

Borderhopper · 31-08-2019 08:00AM

BKtje wrote: »

To be totally honest I don't care much about the North, or rather I care as much about the North as I do Liverpool. It's a place with people onto which I wish no ill.

The people who cross the border daily are a casualty of the idiocy of the UK as a whole who wish to partake in Brexit. I do not feel as the North is any more part of "Ireland" (the republic, not the Island) as Manchester or Yorkshire. While i respect the people who have fought (not killed!) for their ideals it remains a foreign concept to me this wish to "unite" the country as it hasn't been united for centuries.

If the Northern Irish, much like the rest of the UK, wish to remain part of the EU it is up to them to protest in mass and show us. Up to now they haven't so while I feel sorry for them it's no more or less than I feel for the rest of the UK.

I realise this point of view will annoy some but honestly it's how I've always felt. I feel no link to the north apart from the slight economic one so this talk of "uniting" our country is totally foreign to me.

Personally I find this post insulting. I’m an Irish citizen, I speak Irish, my kids are fluent Irish speakers, play football and hurling at the local clubs but because you feel no “affinity” with me, I’m not really Irish? Catch yourself on. I may not feel an “affinity” with people from Dublin, but I don’t deny their Irishness. In the same vein, people from Donegal have more in common with me than people in Dublin or Cork. Does that make “real” Irish citizens not actually Irish in your view?

It’s a good thing your opinion isn’t the deciding factor in who is Irish and who isn’t. And on the subject of protests in the north, politically divisive ones have rarely turned out well. With the current lot installed in London, I dread to think what could happen.

lawred2 · 31-08-2019 08:04AM

Borderhopper wrote: »

Personally I find this post insulting. I’m an Irish citizen, I speak Irish, my kids are fluent Irish speakers, play football and hurling at the local clubs but because you feel no “affinity” with me, I’m not really Irish? Catch yourself on. I may not feel an “affinity” with people from Dublin, but I don’t deny their Irishness. In the same vein, people from Donegal have more in common with me than people in Dublin or Cork. Does that make “real” Irish citizens not actually Irish in your view?

It’s a good thing your opinion isn’t the deciding factor in who is Irish and who isn’t. And on the subject of protests in the north, politically divisive ones have rarely turned out well. With the current lot installed in London, I dread to think what could happen.

Not sure what that poster means by not united for centuries either... Ireland was partitioned in the 20th century.

Stop moaning ffs · 31-08-2019 08:19AM

maynooth_rules wrote: »

I listen to lbc a little bit, but the comments on their Facebook posts would really make you believe that the UK needs to disastrous hard Brexit as a wake up call for some people. But then again, if that happens the EU would still get blamed.

Just on that. It’s emerged Boris (Cummings) has employed MAGA bots on twitter. So it’s safe to assume he has on FB too and for sure on forums like these. I regularly read the LBC comments too on Fb and there’s no way most of those people are real. Not a chance.

Thread with a breakdown. It’s terrifying seeing it all being so manipulated and made toxic

https://twitter.com/marcowenjones/status/1167162506135121926?s=21

InTheShadows · 31-08-2019 08:50AM

#stopthecoup &#55357;&#56834; seriously is that a thing now ffs

Stop moaning ffs · 31-08-2019 08:53AM

InTheShadows wrote: »

#stopthecoup �� seriously is that a thing now ffs

People have a democratic right to protest.

You are here regularly saying that democracy must be respected.

You can’t object to it when it doesn’t suit you.

devnull · 31-08-2019 09:00AM

Boris apparently is no longer speaking to Channel 4 and will now select which media outlets he speaks to.

There's also talk from Adam Boulton on Sky that certain people in the Conservative party are now setting pre-conditions on interviewing any of their MPs which broadcasters must agree to or nobody will appear on them.

Sounds very reminiscent of Donald Trump. I wonder how long it will be before Johnson is speaking about Fake News and the Mainstream Media.

Stop moaning ffs · 31-08-2019 09:09AM

devnull wrote: »

Boris apparently is no longer speaking to Channel 4 and will now select which media outlets he speaks to.

There's also talk from Adam Boulton on Sky that certain people in the Conservative party are now setting pre-conditions on interviewing any of their MPs which broadcasters must agree to or nobody will appear on them.

Sounds very reminiscent of Donald Trump. I wonder how long it will be before Johnson is speaking about Fake News and the Mainstream Media.

This comes after the head of channel 4 saying Johnson is a liar. He has demonstrably lied. And media in the uk needs to start calling these politicians liars when they lie.

C4 invited to Biarritz along with all UK media and then refused time with Johnson.

Trump playbook page 3.

InTheShadows · 31-08-2019 09:28AM

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

People have a democratic right to protest.

You are here regularly saying that democracy must be respected.

You can’t object to it when it doesn’t suit you.

I'm sorry where did I say I objected? I simply asked is it a thing now.

InTheShadows · 31-08-2019 09:30AM

devnull wrote: »

Boris apparently is no longer speaking to Channel 4 and will now select which media outlets he speaks to.

There's also talk from Adam Boulton on Sky that certain people in the Conservative party are now setting pre-conditions on interviewing any of their MPs which broadcasters must agree to or nobody will appear on them.

Sounds very reminiscent of Donald Trump. I wonder how long it will be before Johnson is speaking about Fake News and the Mainstream Media.

Boris is right. Sky media have a huge vested interest in subverting democracy and stopping Brexit.

prawnsambo · 31-08-2019 09:32AM

InTheShadows wrote: »

I'm sorry where did I say I objected? I simply asked is it a thing now.

Somewhere in that acronym is complete agreement with the sentiment I presume?

InTheShadows wrote: »

#stopthecoup �� seriously is that a thing now ffs

Igotadose · 31-08-2019 09:33AM

On a different note, does the Conservative party actually have an agenda other than 'Brexit?' Did they put forward any non-Brexit legislation of consequence in this Parliamentary session? Like, dealing with Grenfell Tower? NHS? Poverty? Crime? And can we expect, should Parliament prorogue, that the speech in October will be full of detail about non-Brexit issues?

Not trying to wind anything up here, just overloaded with the Brexit car-crash atop the daily Trump car-crashes.

Stop moaning ffs · 31-08-2019 09:37AM

Igotadose wrote: »

On a different note, does the Conservative party actually have an agenda other than 'Brexit?' Did they put forward any non-Brexit legislation of consequence in this Parliamentary session? Like, dealing with Grenfell Tower? NHS? Poverty? Crime? And can we expect, should Parliament prorogue, that the speech in October will be full of detail about non-Brexit issues?

Not trying to wind anything up here, just overloaded with the Brexit car-crash atop the daily Trump car-crashes.

All the Brexit pods I listen to have all said at different stages the nothing is being done. Brexit is sucking up all the political oxygen to use their phrase.

prawnsambo · 31-08-2019 09:37AM

Igotadose wrote: »

On a different note, does the Conservative party actually have an agenda other than 'Brexit?' Did they put forward any non-Brexit legislation of consequence in this Parliamentary session? Like, dealing with Grenfell Tower? NHS? Poverty? Crime? And can we expect, should Parliament prorogue, that the speech in October will be full of detail about non-Brexit issues?

Not trying to wind anything up here, just overloaded with the Brexit car-crash atop the daily Trump car-crashes.

I assume we'll hear all about it in the Queen's speech on 14th October.

Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Comments