Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

14647495152198

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,764 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    mm_surf wrote: »
    I would be shocked controls for beef and milk/dairy weren’t put in place (in the event of a no-deal brexit)
    Irish food carries a premium, and those would be at risk in the event of a porous border. Was done for the foot&mouth risk. I can easily see farmers getting a bit militant about it!

    M.

    As a previous poster mentioned earlier, I think controls such as were in place during Foot n Mouth will be brought in pretty quick with a steady move towards increasing the controls over time.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,244 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    More from Hunt. In a sane world it would read as someone trying to sabotage themselves from getting the job. But in terms of Brexit he's playing to those who have the opportunity to give it to him.
    https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1143567753456050181?s=19


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,187 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    Hurrache wrote: »
    More from Hunt. In a sane world it would read as someone trying to sabotage themselves from getting the job. But in terms of Brexit he's playing to those who have the opportunity to give it to him.
    https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1143567753456050181?s=19

    Interesting response from Prof. Brigid Laffan :

    https://twitter.com/BrigidLaffan/status/1143584017612181505

    I doubt Hunt is even aware DUP only involvement breaches the GFA


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,244 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    Wasn't aware myself, but it's not my job. What is blazingly obvious is that he's excluding the NI, Welsh and Scottish governments from the negotiations.


  • Registered Users Posts: 196 ✭✭A Shropshire Lad


    Its ironic that the Unionists are the ones who are going to break up the Union


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    The UK came within days of brexiting last March and there was no evidence of any plan on the ground to collect tariffs or export controls at any Irish port.

    The construction of additional customs facilities at Irish ports was widely reported, as was the plan for a lorry park near Dublin Airport for trucks queuing for the Port Tunnel.
    I cannot see any situation where the Irish government imposes controls at our own ports unless the EU position of solidarity with Ireland is completely abandoned.

    Controls at Irish ports would only be for traffic that has not pre-cleared - in effect trucks of NI and British origin. Everything pre-cleared sails through.

    A ton of work has been done on this by central Govt, Revenue, Depts of Ag Enterpise and Finance, hauliers, shipping companies, port authorities and several others - all in close consultation with Frontex and other EU agencies. These people know what they are doing and they have handled much trickier EU borders before.


  • Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The UK came within days of brexiting last March and there was no evidence of any plan on the ground to collect tariffs or export controls at any Irish port. This lack of action on the ground obviously points out the Irish strategy. They do not believe the UK will leave without a deal or that if it does leave without a deal that that position is unsustainable in the short term or that if it somehow manages to maintain a no deal environment the EU is willing to allow Ireland time to erect the infrastructure necessary to stay in the single market and align itself with the treaties again. The latter means custom posts on the border, because if it came to it the border economy is far less important than seamless exporting for the MNCs that are based here.

    I cannot see any situation where the Irish government imposes controls at our own ports unless the EU position of solidarity with Ireland is completely abandoned.

    This is where the possible "hard Brexit, (without UK border controls)" puts Ireland on the spot.
    If the UK leaves their side of the border open (to honour the GFA).

    The EU will expect those controls to be imposed, if Ireland refuses to put them at the border, then they will be put in the French coastal ports.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,106 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    This is where the possible "hard Brexit, (without UK border controls)" puts Ireland on the spot.
    If the UK leaves their side of the border open (to honour the GFA).

    The EU will expect those controls to be imposed, if Ireland refuses to put them at the border, then they will be put in the French coastal ports.

    There will be a border.

    You know it, I know it we all know it.

    Any you know well our government can't say it right at the moment because there is road to run till October.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,003 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    listermint wrote: »
    There will be a border.

    You know it, I know it we all know it.

    Any you know well our government can't say it right at the moment because there is road to run till October.

    But there might not be a No Deal Brexit either. Be optimistic.

    I know from contacts that you are correct about a border if all else fails. There is a lot going on in the background, but best to keep it low key at the moment. Best move IMO. Don't let the Brexiteers have the last laugh at us being unprepared or anything. LOL.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,764 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    There is absolutely nothing that Leo, Ireland or indeed the EU can say or do to influence the UK to move towards a deal. They have tried being direct, indirect, understanding, tough. Extending deadlines, keeping quiet, speaking up.

    We had the sight of Obama being told to stay out of the UK business prior to the ref, but its totally acceptable for Farage and Johnson to be in direct contact with Bannon?

    Whatever we say will be twisted and turned to 'prove' their point. If we say we are preparing for a border, the likes of IDS, JRM etc will be straight out to state that this shows that the EU never wanted Brexit to succeed and there is no chance of a FTA as they hate the UK. We say we don't want a border and IDS etc come out saying this 'proves' no border is required and the EU is trying to trap them.

    Either way, the UK are not listening to themselves, never mind anyone else.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,003 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    I have no doubt that Coveney is doing a good job at the moment. He is in contact with the EU most days, if not every day now I'd say. We just do not hear about it.

    It's better that way. Less speculation.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,966 ✭✭✭trellheim


    Boris Johnson paints buses for relaxation

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRHfgF0l1Jc&feature=youtu.be. Skip to six minutes in . If you want to put your head in your hands take a ticket and get in line.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,381 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    trellheim wrote: »
    Boris Johnson paints buses for relaxation

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRHfgF0l1Jc&feature=youtu.be. Skip to six minutes in . If you want to put your head in your hands take a ticket and get in line.

    Do the buses have adverts for 350 million a week, I wonder. I must say he came across as very convincing when he talked about his hobby. Not.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    trellheim wrote: »
    Boris Johnson paints buses for relaxation

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRHfgF0l1Jc&feature=youtu.be. Skip to six minutes in . If you want to put your head in your hands take a ticket and get in line.
    He's trolling the British public. Has to be. The Boris Bus scheme was a disaster, if only he'd stuck to painting model buses it would have been far better.

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,764 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    volchitsa wrote: »
    He's trolling the British public. Has to be. The Boris Bus scheme was a disaster, if only he'd stuck to painting model buses it would have been far better.

    Yeah, I have that feeling as well. The very fact that he seemingly has little idea of what is actually involved would suggest he was simply making something up.

    The more I see/hear from Johnson the more I see the same playbook that worked so well with Trump and obviously has Bannon helping.

    Even the argument and picture issue could have easily been dealt with but it actually serves Johnson better to play the victim and also use up valuable interview time instead of deep questioning about his lack of a plan.

    And it works because he knows Hunt doesn't have a plan either and so even his opponent doesn't want to get into a debate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 196 ✭✭A Shropshire Lad


    And he enjoys painting the little passengers

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLcCZjDoWTQ


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,966 ✭✭✭trellheim


    Yes indeed. This is the stream of consciousness crap you come out with when you firmly believe you are smarter than your interviewer and audience.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Yeah, I have that feeling as well. The very fact that he seemingly has little idea of what is actually involved would suggest he was simply making something up.

    The more I see/hear from Johnson the more I see the same playbook that worked so well with Trump and obviously has Bannon helping.

    Even the argument and picture issue could have easily been dealt with but it actually serves Johnson better to play the victim and also use up valuable interview time instead of deep questioning about his lack of a plan.

    And it works because he knows Hunt doesn't have a plan either and so even his opponent doesn't want to get into a debate.
    Watching the YouTube link, he was clearly making it up, he started out completely nonplussed and was searching for what he could say. As you say, he didn't even know what materials he makes these buses out of.

    But TBH if you watch the start of the interview where he's asked what his first steps will be if he becomes PM, he's just as obviously spoofing there too, waving his hands around and waffling vaguely about getting "the best bits" of the agreement through parliament. Which best bits? Nah, don't bother even asking.

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,438 ✭✭✭j8wk2feszrnpao


    Enzokk wrote: »
    The EU will make mincemeat of any candidate who comes in with unrealistic objectives.
    The EU negotiators set out their stall, based on the documentation and processes already in place, and and have tried to be true to Brexit as best they could (such as the WA).

    The UK entered discussions with a “we have the upper hand” and a divide and conquer” attitude; old school thinking on their part.

    The UK thought that No Deal was/is their trump card; and that the EU would blink as the end line came into view. The idea that EU/single-market/cohesion was the red line for the EU, never seemed to occur to the UK (blinded by their own unicorn thinking and non-commitment to the EU).

    In an age when it’s never been easier to access the truth (actual documentation), it seems that people may never have been so lazy to access information. The gullibility to fall for the lies from a Trump/Farage/Johnson is nothing new though.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,871 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    The EU negotiators set out their stall, based on the documentation and processes already in place, and and have tried to be true to Brexit as best they could (such as the WA).

    The UK entered discussions with a “we have the upper hand” and a divide and conquer” attitude; old school thinking on their part.

    The UK thought that No Deal was/is their trump card; and that the EU would blink as the end line came into view. The idea that EU/single-market/cohesion was the red line for the EU, never seemed to occur to the UK (blinded by their own unicorn thinking and non-commitment to the EU).

    In an age when it’s never been easier to access the truth (actual documentation), it seems that people may never have been so lazy to access information. The gullibility to fall for the lies from a Trump/Farage/Johnson is nothing new though.

    In 1914, the British thought they would win WW I, they didn't and required USA help to be on the winning side.

    In 1939, they thought that fighting Germany was an existential threat (which it was) and threw all they had at it, and with the help of the USA and the Empire and the Russians, the prevailed, under the impression that it was their vistory (as Britain had stood alone).

    After WW II, they had to pay the piper and handed the USA huge sums of money (devalued the GB£ from GNB£1=US$4 to GB£=US$2.8 - with debts denominated in US$), plus loads of trade and scientific secrets, and basically agreed to USA hegemony in the western world.

    Basically, the Labour party won the election after the war and set up the NHS and nationalised many industries - coal, railways, etc.

    In the fifties there was a fight similar to Brexit between Nationalise - de-nationalise going on in Labour while the Tories won the elections and waged a few wars - some supporting the USA (Korea) and some without permission (Suez), and refused to join in the Vietnam caper.

    They had to join the EEC (later the EU) because the economy was tanking having lost their empire. The economy continued to tank, until the SM happened, but they always were on semi-detached members. Under Thatcher, there was always attempts to get better terms - for specious reasons.

    So now we have Brexit, with no plan - not even a sketch of a plan on the back of an envelope.

    And still the clock ticks. Tick tock.

    As an aside, no single party Gov in the UK has had a majority of the popular vote since 1932, it has a second chamber that is unelected, and an unelected head of state, and a sovereign parliament that is only answerable to the voters once in five years (even though it might not have a majority of that vote), and can do as it likes outside of that - winner takes all.

    And the Brexiteers think the EU is undemocratic. Bonkers.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,106 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    But there might not be a No Deal Brexit either. Be optimistic.

    I know from contacts that you are correct about a border if all else fails. There is a lot going on in the background, but best to keep it low key at the moment. Best move IMO. Don't let the Brexiteers have the last laugh at us being unprepared or anything. LOL.

    Hence I said road to run till October.

    The stupid part is their are those out there that expect our government to lay out all their plans. such a thing would have huge impact on negotiations.

    So they are right to keep stum.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,581 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Plausible Paisley will be suspended again and for longer after the revelations on Spotlight that his dragged out admission didn't cover everything. Brings the numbers even tighter


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,808 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Johnson attempting to grab back the momentum, with his promise of leaving on 31st Oct. This may play out badly as if he wins and moves to this end, will result in a GE. Tories won't look that far forward in choosing PM.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,966 ✭✭✭trellheim


    Don't dump videos here please.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,795 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    Emma Barnett has been killing it recently in her interviews. She is well prepared and researched when talking Brexit. In the clip below she grills Andrew Mitchell about Johnson's letter to Hunt on the 31st October deadline.

    https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1143636621725589504


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,699 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    listermint wrote: »
    Hence I said road to run till October.

    The stupid part is their are those out there that expect our government to lay out all their plans. such a thing would have huge impact on negotiations.

    So they are right to keep stum.
    I disagree. I think Varadkar has missed a trick here.

    His line has always been "we won't be erecting border controls [because we expect the UK to honour its no-hard-border guarantee in all circumstances, and therefore it won't be necessary]". But the bit in brackets is easily eclipsed by people who are motivated to eclipse it, or it is easily read down to "...because we expect the UK not to erect border controls". And this gives rise to two problems.

    First, it lends apparent support to the Brexiter line that "UK won't erect border controls! Ireland won't erect border controls! So where's the problem? No need for a backstop! Whole thing is a sinister EU plot to frustrate Brexit/punish the UK/annex NI!" The truth of the matter is otherwise - mutually agreed arrangements are necessary to avoid a hard border and the corollary of that is, if there are no mutually agreed arrangments, there will be a hard border. It doesn't help the case for the backstop to try to sugar-coat this.

    Secondly Varadkar makes a rod for his own back. If and when it becomes necessary to start operating controls on cross-border traffic, Varadkar will be accused of failing to deliver on his own commitment not to erect controls, and/or it will be said that this shows that Ireland is not truly independent, must obey the diktats of the faceless unelected bureaucrats of Brussels, yadda, yadda, yadda. And all this will help to alleviate the pressure on the people who will actually be to blame for this, which is the UK government.

    Varadkar's line should have been "we will do everything we can to avoid a hard border, but we don't see that it can be avoided if the UK won't enter into agreed arrangements which are effective to avoid the need for border controls."

    As for the details of the controls that might be erected, I don't see how releasing these would have an adverse impact on negotaitions. That looks too much like the "keeping our cards close to our chest" sh!te that the UK government trotted out in 2016 and 2017 to conceal the fact that it had no clue what its position would be in the Brexit negotiations. I think it would be fair enough (and quite truthful) to say "we'll have to be flexible in our response to a developing, probably chaotic and hopefully quite short-term state of affairs on the border, so we can't tell you in detail how this will unfold and what controls will be put in place until it actually unfolds. But, yeah, in a crash-out no-deal Brexit the border will harden, and we will have to put in place appropriate and effective controls on cross-border trade to protect our place in the Customs Union and the Single Market".

    If Varadkar had managed expectations better on this over the past year or so, once it became clear that the UK might actually shoot itself in the face rather than honour its guarantees, I think he'd be a slightly more comfortable position now that he is looking down the barrel of the gun.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,892 ✭✭✭CelticRambler


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Varadkar's line should have been "we will do everything we can to avoid a hard border, but we don't see that it can be avoided if the UK won't enter into agreed arrangements which are effective to avoid the need for border controls."

    If you'd asked me to summarise his statements on this over the last couple of years, that's pretty much the same text I would have used. So either I've applied my own Brexity double-speak filter to make him say what I want to hear, or he's consistently used language that makes it clear that that's what he means, even if he avoids using more precise and/or provocative words.

    Whatever about the implications for his own future position in Ireland, I doubt any choice of phrase or declaration of intent would change things for the better in respect of the attitude on the English side of the Irish Sea.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,699 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    If you'd asked me to summarise his statements on this over the last couple of years, that's pretty much the same text I would have used. So either I've applied my own Brexity double-speak filter to make him say what I want to hear, or he's consistently used language that makes it clear that that's what he means, even if he avoids using more precise and/or provocative words.

    Whatever about the implications for his own future position in Ireland, I doubt any choice of phrase or declaration of intent would change things for the better in respect of the attitude on the English side of the Irish Sea.
    I agree with that. I don't think it's a question of actually winning over Brexiters, so much as of not giving them ammunition for their mendacious campaign. "Ireland has said it will not introduce border controls" is a constant them of the Brexiter campaign to belittle the backstop and the need for it, and I think Varadkar should have been explicit from the outset that Ireland would[/ii] introduce border controls if the UK's actions made it necessary. Certainly he should have been doing that throughout this year, when "no-deal" is being advanced as a serious policy option by people who should know better.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,306 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    trellheim wrote: »

    This is fantastic, got a good idea of what him and the GF were arguing about now too


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,795 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Varadkar's line should have been "we will do everything we can to avoid a hard border, but we don't see that it can be avoided if the UK won't enter into agreed arrangements which are effective to avoid the need for border controls."


    I don't disagree with your post, but if every politician on both sides and in the EU has said they will protect the GFA, why should Leo be the first to openly talk about putting up borders? This would be openly questioning the UK and whether they would be living up to their obligations, as they have said they would. We cannot assume the worst in public of our closest neighbour.

    This is a waiting game, you prepare for the worst but in no way do you publicly let this be known.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,699 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Enzokk wrote: »
    I don't disagree with your post, but if every politician on both sides and in the EU has said they will protect the GFA, why should Leo be the first to openly talk about putting up borders?
    Because he may, in fact, be the first to have to put up borders.

    If there is a crash-out Brexit, both sides will need to erect controls but neither side will want to be seen to be the first to erect controls. So there'll be a kind of Mexican standoff, with each waiting for the other to move, and both hoping that developments elsewhere will resolve the position before either has to move. (E.g. Ireland will hope that chaos at UK's channel ports, shortage of consumer goods, collapse in industrial output, will bring UK back to table before border issue get really pressing.)

    But if the situation isn't resolved in this way fairly soon one of them will have to move first, and that will probably be Ireland, because we have an interest in maintaining the integrity of the SM and the CU both for our own advantage and in solidarity with other member states. (Solidarity is two-way, remember.) UK will already be suffering masive reputational damage and economic dislocation from crash-out Brexit; problems resulting from open Irish border will be small beer to them, so they can let them ride for longer than we can afford to.

    So, forseeably, Varadkar will be moving on border controls before UK does. So, if nothing else, it's in his interests to manage Irish public expectations in this regard.
    Enzokk wrote: »
    This would be openly questioning the UK and whether they would be living up to their obligations, as they have said they would. We cannot assume the worst in public of our closest neighbour.
    That consideration for a long time justified Varadkar not speculating in public about what he would do if the UK decided not to honour its guarantee.

    But not any more. UK Parliament has rejected the backstop and has not advanced any serious alternative, and for many months now leading UK figures are openly contemplating, even calling for, a no-deal Brexit, which is of course the legal and legislated default. I think we can safely discuss what would happen, and what would have to happen, in that event without being accused of making unwarranted and uncharitable assumptions. Failing to honour its guarantee is very much a policy option under active and open consideration in the UK.
    Enzokk wrote: »
    This is a waiting game, you prepare for the worst but in no way do you publicly let this be known.
    I think we're past that. At this point not to acknowledge that the worst could realistically happen doesn't look like diplomacy so much as like living in denial.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,637 ✭✭✭spacecoyote


    Link may be paywalled, I'm not sure, but a good concise piece in the FT around Johnsons Gatt 24 rubbish:

    https://twitter.com/alanbeattie/status/1143486078218907653


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,705 ✭✭✭54and56


    Its ironic that the Unionists are the ones who are going to break up the Union

    And beautiful :P


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Peregrinus wrote:
    I think we're past that. At this point not to acknowledge that the worst could realistically happen doesn't look like diplomacy so much as like living in denial.

    The worst is just one of the several contingencies that has been planned for by Ireland and the EU.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,764 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Just to clarify, whilst many are calling for No Deal in the UK they don't really mean it as we understand it.

    When they talk about No Deal they mean no formal WA type pack. They fully expect lots of side deals and extensions. They are trying to bypass the WA and move directly to trade negotiations, exactly as they have always done.

    They are banking on an implementation period, even if it's not actually called that, whereby everything stays pretty much as is and they can roll the WA into trade talks.

    That is what all this is about. It was their plan from day 1. It was the reason they 'agreed ' to the backstop in Dec 17. To move from Phase 1 to Phase 2.

    It hasn't worked so far, but with little else to play they are doubling down.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,699 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    First Up wrote: »
    The worst is just one of the several contingencies that has been planned for by Ireland and the EU.
    Yes. The issue, though, is not whether we should plan for the worst, but whether we should talk about our plans for the worst. I think we should, and we should have been doing so for some months now.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,764 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    First Up wrote: »
    The worst is just one of the several contingencies that has been planned for by Ireland and the EU.
    Yes. The issue, though, is not whether we should plan for the worst, but whether we should talk about our plans for the worst. I think we should, and we should have been doing so for some months now.

    I think the thinking behind it to avoid normalising it. They don't want people to simply accept the border. They want the people in NI to wake up and see the effects and then force the UK to change course.

    Its like No Deal. After many months of it being mentioned people are now not only accepting it, but many are actively calling for it!

    It is pretty obvious that telling them won't work. It will be dismissed as project fear or Ireland trying to scare NI.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Yes. The issue, though, is not whether we should plan for the worst, but whether we should talk about our plans for the worst. I think we should, and we should have been doing so for some months now.

    Everyone who should know about them knows about them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,699 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    First Up wrote: »
    Everyone who should know about them knows about them.
    I know, but there's more to it than that. Public expectations in Ireland need to be managed, and the effect of Ireland's position on the discourse in the UK needs to be considered. The less we talk about it, the easier it is for Brexiter to spin the line that Ireland won't be putting up border controls in any event, and neither will the UK, so the backstop is unnecessary.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,914 ✭✭✭Russman


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    When they talk about No Deal they mean no formal WA type pack. They fully expect lots of side deals and extensions. They are trying to bypass the WA and move directly to trade negotiations, exactly as they have always done.

    They are banking on an implementation period, even if it's not actually called that, whereby everything stays pretty much as is and they can roll the WA into trade talks.

    Totally agree this is the case, but given how the EU has given no indication it will budge (nor should it), I suspect the UK is in for a very rude awakening on 1st Nov. Autumn/winter 2019 has the potential to be truly monumental.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I know, but there's more to it than that. Public expectations in Ireland need to be managed, and the effect of Ireland's position on the discourse in the UK needs to be considered. The less we talk about it, the easier it is for Brexiter to spin the line that Ireland won't be putting up border controls in any event, and neither will the UK, so the backstop is unnecessary.

    But that is complete delusion, especially from people for whom one of the major issues with the EU was the need to "control our borders". And there's really no point in trying to reason with someone who is delusional. They will just take what you've said and integrate it into their fantasy. Or dismiss it.

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,699 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    volchitsa wrote: »
    But that is complete delusion, especially from people for whom one of the major issues with the EU was the need to "control our borders". And there's really no point in trying to reason with someone who is delusional. They will just take what you've said and integrate it into their fantasy. Or dismiss it.
    The aim is not to reason with the delusional, so much as to counter the narrative that the delusional are pushing on the merely uninformed.

    As long as Varadkar doesn not say, very clearly, that if there is a crash-out Brexit with no backstop, border controls are inevitable, then he allows the delusional to cherry-pick his own past comments to spin the line that the backstop is unnecessary, since border controls can be avoided without it. That narrative needs to be contradicted so that (a) people in the UK correctly understand what choosing or allowing a crash-out would entail, and (b) when border controls are instituted the blame lies where it should.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,966 ✭✭✭trellheim


    I think the time has come - and we see this yesterday from the Dept of Finance - to start the hard prep and this means the people as well . 4 months and 5 days to an unavoidable crash-out.


    Note that the EU are trying to sort out Switzerland at same time and thats taken years and without any WA


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,795 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Because he may, in fact, be the first to have to put up borders.

    If there is a crash-out Brexit, both sides will need to erect controls but neither side will want to be seen to be the first to erect controls. So there'll be a kind of Mexican standoff, with each waiting for the other to move, and both hoping that developments elsewhere will resolve the position before either has to move. (E.g. Ireland will hope that chaos at UK's channel ports, shortage of consumer goods, collapse in industrial output, will bring UK back to table before border issue get really pressing.)

    But if the situation isn't resolved in this way fairly soon one of them will have to move first, and that will probably be Ireland, because we have an interest in maintaining the integrity of the SM and the CU both for our own advantage and in solidarity with other member states. (Solidarity is two-way, remember.) UK will already be suffering masive reputational damage and economic dislocation from crash-out Brexit; problems resulting from open Irish border will be small beer to them, so they can let them ride for longer than we can afford to.

    So, forseeably, Varadkar will be moving on border controls before UK does. So, if nothing else, it's in his interests to manage Irish public expectations in this regard.


    I don't think we need to move before the UK though. Why should we be talking and preparing for a border when the UK has indicated multiple times there will not be a border? We may be the first to start preparations, but that will only be after the UK has indicated it will break their obligations and what they have said and written to the EU and Ireland,


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    That consideration for a long time justified Varadkar not speculating in public about what he would do if the UK decided not to honour its guarantee.

    But not any more. UK Parliament has rejected the backstop and has not advanced any serious alternative, and for many months now leading UK figures are openly contemplating, even calling for, a no-deal Brexit, which is of course the legal and legislated default. I think we can safely discuss what would happen, and what would have to happen, in that event without being accused of making unwarranted and uncharitable assumptions. Failing to honour its guarantee is very much a policy option under active and open consideration in the UK.

    I think we're past that. At this point not to acknowledge that the worst could realistically happen doesn't look like diplomacy so much as like living in denial.


    But the UK Parliament has also ruled out no-deal repeatedly as well which would mean no border. All options are on the table and none have been ruled out by the UK so why should we focus on one outcome?

    What we also have to take into account is that we are in a election campaign so we should not be making decisions or take actions when it could influence the two candidates and what they promise they will deliver.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,467 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Link may be paywalled, I'm not sure, but a good concise piece in the FT around Johnsons Gatt 24 rubbish:

    https://twitter.com/alanbeattie/status/1143486078218907653

    It's a good read. And I've read pretty much the same rebuttal of that same fantasy multiple times.

    Pity noone cares what some 'patronising elitist'* boffin in the FT has to offer..


    * Not my words


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,585 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Mod: One-liner/Smiley post deleted. No more please.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,244 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    It's not us, it's you, declares Raab, trying to set the narrative that the EU kicked them out and it had nothing to do with the UK.
    https://twitter.com/anandMenon1/status/1143780549665968128


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Hurrache wrote: »
    It's not us, it's you, declares Raab, trying to set the narrative that the EU kicked them out and it had nothing to do with the UK.
    https://twitter.com/anandMenon1/status/1143780549665968128

    Great reply on that thread.

    https://twitter.com/MRLibDem/status/1143785454287933440


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,244 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    Beth Rigby also flags his nonsense. Sky have always been good on the subject, but there does seem to be bit more of a bite from the media over there, although that probably could be due to Johnson more so than a revelation on Brexit.
    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1143780699880792065


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,327 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Enzokk wrote: »
    I don't think we need to move before the UK though. Why should we be talking and preparing for a border when the UK has indicated multiple times there will not be a border? We may be the first to start preparations, but that will only be after the UK has indicated it will break their obligations and what they have said and written to the EU and Ireland,


    But the UK Parliament has also ruled out no-deal repeatedly as well which would mean no border. All options are on the table and none have been ruled out by the UK so why should we focus on one outcome?

    What we also have to take into account is that we are in a election campaign so we should not be making decisions or take actions when it could influence the two candidates and what they promise they will deliver.

    The UK are the ones leaving. The UK are the ones who, as it stands, have not agreed to the agreement which will mean a smooth transition and good relationship with the EU.

    You mention how the UK has ruled out a no-deal scenario. However, the UK have failed to tell the EU what they actually want. Without an agreement, what do the UK want? What do they expect?

    The EU can not do anything else: it is all down to the UK.
    If the EU are the first to erect a border, it is simply as a result of the UK's choices.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement