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 XI (Please read OP before posting)

Quin_Dub

This is the eleventh incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread,

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

ToBeFrank123

Hurrache wrote: »

That's an odd analysis of the reality to the situation.

Which part? All sides are just making daft demands and proposals at this stage. The double majority one was the latest. The EU aren't even bothering to consult with Ireland it seems before making pronouncements like this. Or consult NI parties.

They make a proposal and then are shocked to find NI parties shoot it down. How about consulting NI parties first next time?

Hurrache

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Which part? All sides are just making daft demands and proposals at this stage.

What daft demands do you think Ireland or the EU are making?

farmchoice

NotToScale wrote: »

I have ordered a few things recently, which I have subsequently discovered are coming from UK suppliers (via retailers) and due for delivery in November and none of them seemed to be in the slightest bit concerned that these orders could be significantly disrupted by Brexit or suddenly become subject to tariffs. Although, looking at the EU tariffs on them, it looks like the product in question only hit a 2-3% charge.

There's a really worryingly laid back attitude both in Ireland and in the UK, where most people are just assuming this is all political nonsense with no real world impact. There's still a sense (which may yet be proven to be correct) that the whole thing will amount to nothing in the end and somehow it will all just continue on as if nothing's changed.

It's also very obvious that even if Brexit does not happen, the UK has caused enormous stress and expense for a lot of businesses and logistics companies and I can't really see them trusting the British regulatory environment for a very long time. Regardless of what the outcome is politically, I think the UK is going to spend at least a decade rebuilding its reputation.

i think they are right, despite all the high drama and politics everything about the process so far points to this being the case.
boris was right when he said the chances of a no deal were a million to one because what he knew was the chances of him implementing a no deal were a million to one.

everything else has been talk aimed at the right wing of his own party, nothing else, he thought he would get his election in early October but i think he reckons he can live with an election in December where he spins the letter he sent as the fault of Parliament and the EU.

ToBeFrank123

Hurrache wrote: »

What daft demands do you think Ireland or the EU are making?

Double majority was always going to be immediately shot down by the DUP. Sinn Fein have also come out against as have other parties.

NI is the main focal point of Brexit at the moment so at least attempt try to negotiate directly with NI parties and get some kind of buy in from them.

Instead of suggesting something without even bothering to consult them.

lawred2

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Which part? All sides are just making daft demands and proposals at this stage. The double majority one was the latest. The EU aren't even bothering to consult with Ireland it seems before making pronouncements like this. Or consult NI parties.

They make a proposal and then are shocked to find NI parties shoot it down. How about consulting NI parties first next time?

Nope. The EU has had the same position for nearly 3 years now.

I see you've gone for the Trumpian "fine people on all sides" tactic. Won't work on here though. This is probably one of the most informed Brexit discussions there is. Throwaway remarks like that won't wash I'm afraid.

Hurrache

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Double majority was always going to be immediately shot down by the DUP. Sinn Fein have also come out against as have other parties.

NI is the main focal point of Brexit at the moment so at least attempt try to negotiate directly with NI parties and get some kind of buy in from them.

Instead of suggesting something without even bothering to consult them.

That's one 'demand'' as opposed to the 'demands' you claim. Firstly, it wasn't a demand from anyone, and secondly, where do you think the source of such a suggestion came from?

Hurrache

Johnson going for the Trump tie tying technique
[url]

https://twitter.com/LeoVaradkar/status/1182265087920353280?s=19[/url]

fash

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

. The EU aren't even bothering to consult with Ireland it seems before making pronouncements like this. Or consult NI parties.

They make a proposal and then are shocked to find NI parties shoot it down. How about consulting NI parties first next time?

Except that the proposal didn't come from the EU - so it is beyond silly to blame them- it presumably came from an "unofficial source" in either the EU or UK flying a kite (either to get the DUP to admit they want a unionist veto and would not accept the shoe being on the other foot - or for some other purpose).

CelticRambler

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The double majority one was the latest. The EU aren't even bothering to consult with Ireland it seems before making pronouncements like this.

The EU didn't make any such pronouncement. What you're referring to was an idea floated by a British journalist based on supposed "EU sources". Bear in mind that as an MEP, Nigel Farage would fall into that category ...

J Mysterio

Hurrache wrote: »

Johnson going for the Trump tie tying technique
[url]
https://twitter.com/LeoVaradkar/status/1182265087920353280?s=19[/url]

Pretty secret meeting seems like.

LeinsterDub

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Double majority was always going to be immediately shot down by the DUP. Sinn Fein have also come out against as have other parties.

NI is the main focal point of Brexit at the moment so at least attempt try to negotiate directly with NI parties and get some kind of buy in from them.

Instead of suggesting something without even bothering to consult them.

There is no evidence that "demand" came from the EU

NotToScale

I'd hope it would actually put Northern Ireland into the rather beneficial position of being a halfway house between the UK and EU systems. So, it would potentially open up a lot of new opportunities and expand businesses, rather than just being disadvantaged with higher costs etc, on the edge of the UK jurisdiction, you'd suddenly be a bridge between two jurisdictions.

From a Northern Irish purely financial perspective, something that maintains the status quo would be absolutely ideal.

It could be a huge boost for what has been a region that's suffered a lot from lack of investment and the legacy of the troubles.

prawnsambo

funkey_monkey wrote: »

I'm based in NI working indirectly for an English company in the services sector.
If there is a sea border between NI and GB how will that affect my job?
Will there be increased barriers which will make it less attractive to use NI.
As we would be using the EU regulations will NI be viewed differently and how so?

How likely is it that GB will make things more awkward and expensive for us? i.e. we already pay more as it is for deliveries from GB, etc.
In terms of EU funding we already get funding - but it mainly goes to peace funding ('Community Groups') which don't seem to benefit most of us.

I'm just trying to see the reality of where it would leave me professionally as most of my work is done with companies trading into GB. If we are following different rules and regs then where will I be?

Best guess would be that goods coming into NI would need to be SM compliant and would be checked for compliance. Especially agri-food products obviously. The other direction would likely be pretty seamless as UK standards would seem to at least be expected in the short term to match EU standards and in the longer term to be below them at worst. So no real change except perhaps slight delays for goods entering NI and possible passport checks at the ports. In short, not much different. There should be no customs tariffs either way.

mrbrianj

funkey_monkey wrote: »

I'm based in NI working indirectly for an English company in the services sector.
If there is a sea border between NI and GB how will that affect my job?
Will there be increased barriers which will make it less attractive to use NI.
As we would be using the EU regulations will NI be viewed differently and how so?

How likely is it that GB will make things more awkward and expensive for us? i.e. we already pay more as it is for deliveries from GB, etc.
In terms of EU funding we already get funding - but it mainly goes to peace funding ('Community Groups') which don't seem to benefit most of us.

I'm just trying to see the reality of where it would leave me professionally as most of my work is done with companies trading into GB. If we are following different rules and regs then where will I be?

They are the very questions the DUP should have put in their Metro ad before the referendum.
I see and understand your problems - as many did before only to get drowned out in Brexit sound bites.

Imreoir2

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Double majority was always going to be immediately shot down by the DUP. Sinn Fein have also come out against as have other parties.

NI is the main focal point of Brexit at the moment so at least attempt try to negotiate directly with NI parties and get some kind of buy in from them.

Instead of suggesting something without even bothering to consult them.

Where did the idea of a double majority come from? I only ever saw it reported in British newspapers, the EU said it never made such a proposal.

It seems to me that the British are literally making enough stupid unworkable proposals for both sides.

ToBeFrank123

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Where did the idea of a double majority come from? I only ever saw it reported in British newspapers, the EU said it never made such a proposal.

It seems to me that the British are literally making enough stupid unworkable proposals for both sides.

Well good job it didn't come from them! It was always a non runner.

The main EU backing is for a permanent backstop, even though it was May who initially proposed it. That too proved a non runner as it was voted down 3 times by the HoC. It could be brought back again in the next couple of weeks to the HoC but will also likely be voted down.

The EU will reject anything the UK proposes, and the UK is likely to reject anything the EU proposes.

So its either No Deal, Boris asks for extension, then likely a general election where Boris comes back stronger, but with less remainers and No Deal advocates in his party. And the possibility if that is the case the extension lapses in January without a deal.

As there is little or no common ground between the two sides at this point and its only a case of point scoring and winning the blame game, neither of which contribute anything of substance to the situation.

Panrich

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Well good job it didn't come from them! It was always a non runner.

The main EU backing is for a permanent backstop, even though it was May who initially proposed it. That too proved a non runner as it was voted down 3 times by the HoC. It could be brought back again in the next couple of weeks to the HoC but will also likely be voted down.

The EU will reject anything the UK proposes, and the UK is likely to reject anything the EU proposes.

So its either No Deal, Boris asks for extension, then likely a general election where Boris comes back stronger, but with less remainers and No Deal advocates in his party. And the possibility if that is the case the extension lapses in January without a deal.

As there is little or no common ground between the two sides at this point and its only a case of point scoring and winning the blame game, neither of which contribute anything of substance to the situation.

I guarantee that the EU would not reject the UK staying in the SM/CU. Apparently the UK didn't like the political aspects of the EU and just wanted the common market.

Quin_Dub

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Well good job it didn't come from them! It was always a non runner.

The main EU backing is for a permanent backstop, even though it was May who initially proposed it. That too proved a non runner as it was voted down 3 times by the HoC. It could be brought back again in the next couple of weeks to the HoC but will also likely be voted down.

The EU will reject anything the UK proposes, and the UK is likely to reject anything the EU proposes.

So its either No Deal, Boris asks for extension, then likely a general election where Boris comes back stronger, but with less remainers and No Deal advocates in his party. And the possibility if that is the case the extension lapses in January without a deal.

As there is little or no common ground between the two sides at this point and its only a case of point scoring and winning the blame game, neither of which contribute anything of substance to the situation.

No, no it's not!!!!

The backstop is an Insurance policy , nothing more , nothing less.

It's there until the UK can come up with a proper solution to the issues that Brexit creates for the Island of Ireland in the context of the GFA.

The wording has always been UNLESS AND UNTIL

UNLESS - The UK solves the problem before Brexit occurs

UNTIL - The UK solves the problem after Brexit occurs.

The reason the UK don't like the backstop is because they absolutely positively understand that they CANNOT solve the problem whilst maintaining their Red lines.

As it ever has been , the solution is entirely down to the UK accepting reality.

[Deleted User]

The recent moves suggest there will be a deal with NI at the centre of it.

Sorry for not replying to each reply I got. I'm on mobile. But this sort of thing is based on something in my opinion.

I would at this stage say that a No Deal is extremely unlikely and some weird NI will be the solution. Be it good or bad; who knows. But it will happen in my opinion. The papers are leading to it.

ToBeFrank123

Panrich wrote: »

I guarantee that the EU would not reject the UK staying in the SM/CU. Apparently the UK didn't like the political aspects of the EU and just wanted the common market.

Johnson and co are not going to propose that. They'd rather No Deal than that.

(Not that I agree with them, but that's their position)

Dytalus

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The main EU backing is for a permanent backstop

You should stop reading UK media or listening to UK politicians. Because this is a lie that they started spreading.

The backstop is not permanent. It's right there, in the withdrawal agreement, that it lasts unless and until a permanent solution for the border problem can be found. By its very definition it cannot be permanent, because the EU will (with the UK, ideally) continue to look for a solution that is permanent.

The EU does not want the backstop. It's messy and difficult to work with and they'd rather anything more substantial and concrete that can solve the British border in Ireland. But the UK has not proffered any solutions, and the EU has to work around the UK's "red lines" which limits the options available to them.

This lie that it's permanent and a way to lock the NI into the EU has to stop.

Quin_Dub

Deleted User wrote: »

The recent moves suggest there will be a deal with NI at the centre of it.

Sorry for not replying to each reply I got. I'm on mobile. But this sort of thing is based on something in my opinion.

I would at this stage say that a No Deal is extremely unlikely and some weird NI will be the solution. Be it or good or bad; who knows. But it will happen in my opinion. The papers are leading to it.

It won't be a weird solution.

It will be the solution that every dog in the street has known for several years is the only viable solution.

Border down the Irish sea , NI remaining in the SM/CU.

They'll spin it and obfuscate behind volumes of utter drivel , but that's the only solution that will be acceptable to Ireland and the EU.

ToBeFrank123

Quin_Dub wrote: »

No, no it's not!!!!

The backstop is an Insurance policy , nothing more , nothing less.

It's there until the UK can come up with a proper solution to the issues that Brexit creates for the Island of Ireland in the context of the GFA.

The wording has always been UNLESS AND UNTIL

UNLESS - The UK solves the problem before Brexit occurs

UNTIL - The UK solves the problem after Brexit occurs.

The reason the UK don't like the backstop is because they absolutely positively understand that they CANNOT solve the problem whilst maintaining their Red lines.

As it ever has been , the solution is entirely down to the UK accepting reality.

This is true. Which effectively means NI could be trapped forever in the backstop, unless the UK can come up with an arrangement that satisfies everyone.

And we have seen how difficult that is.

Tacitus Kilgore

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

This is true. Which effectively means NI could be trapped forever in the backstop, unless the UK can come up with an arrangement that satisfies everyone.

And we have seen how difficult that is.

Precisely, such is the nature of the fruit of the Brexit tree -

You reap what you sow, which sometimes backfires when you don't know what seeds you planted.

ToBeFrank123

Dytalus wrote: »

You should stop reading UK media or listening to UK politicians. Because this is a lie that they started spreading.

The backstop is not permanent. It's right there, in the withdrawal agreement, that it lasts unless and until a permanent solution for the border problem can be found. By its very definition it cannot be permanent, because the EU will (with the UK, ideally) continue to look for a solution that is permanent.

The EU does not want the backstop. It's messy and difficult to work with and they'd rather anything more substantial and concrete that can solve the British border in Ireland. But the UK has not proffered any solutions, and the EU has to work around the UK's "red lines" which limits the options available to them.

This lie that it's permanent and a way to lock the NI into the EU has to stop.

Read my other post. I said clearly that it has been shown how difficult it is to agree an arrangement for the border that satisfies everything and everyone.

There is nothing to stop the EU and Ireland disagreeing for years with anything the UK proposes.

Again, this is not my position, this is how the UK views it.

You cannot negotiate with someone until you understand their viewpoint and why they are opposed to something.

This thread is just round and round blame gaming and point scoring.

Quin_Dub

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

This is true. Which effectively means NI could be trapped forever in the backstop, unless the UK can come up with an arrangement that satisfies everyone.

And we have seen how difficult that is.

Well , Exactly.

The UK Red lines are incompatible with an acceptable solution and they know it, so they have to shift on those red lines.

Those red lines only exist because Theresa May got cocky and called a totally unnecessary election. If the DUP hadn't been propping up the Tories for the last 18 months , this would have been over long ago.

ToBeFrank123

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Precisely, such is the nature of the fruit of the Brexit tree -

You reap what you sow, which sometimes backfires when you don't know what seeds you planted.

So you agree with the UK view the Backstop could be permanent at worst and decades long at best?

prawnsambo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

So you agree with the UK view the Backstop could be permanent at worst and decades long at best?

The UK view is that the backstop is permanent and simultaneously that there are readily available technologies that dispense with the need for it.

Quin_Dub

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

So you agree with the UK view the Backstop could be permanent at worst and decades long at best?

But the UK public position is not based on what they know to be true.

They know that they cannot solve the problem whilst maintaining their red lines.

But - They tell the world that the reason they don't like the backstop is because of the risk of "bad faith" actors in the EU "keeping them prisoner" and other puerile rhetoric.

They are the bad faith actors here , trying to lay the blame for something that is entirely of their creation at others doors.

If the UKGOV came out and laid out the Truth to their Parliament and people , people would at least respect them somewhat.

That truth being that there is no solution without the UK compromising on their Red lines.

Give people the real options and let them choose - NI in the CU/SM , UK in SM/CU etc.

But for any real progress to be made here , the UK Government have to stop lying about the realities here.

Seth Brundle

Here we go (I'm not seeing anything positive in that!)...

https://twitter.com/LeoVaradkar/status/1182297815231471618