Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

mrbrianj · 17-10-2018 12:28pm

briany wrote: »

Disregarding the GFA as flagrantly as that will make any future peace agreements in the North not worth the paper they're written on as there will be an unwritten clause of, "....if it becomes inconvenient for one or more signing parties to uphold...."

Yes, its totally crazy the soundings coming from some members of the UK government and the DUP.

On the BBC NI political show (nolan) a DUP MP even laughed when he expanded the party line that they were against any hard border with the 'EU will make the republic put a border up on their side'!

The EU are fighting hard for the GFA against what seems like the UK just not understanding or caring about the implications.

_Puma_ · 17-10-2018 12:29pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would like a clarification.

If all the treaties fall on 29th March 2019, then what laws or treaties govern the UK status after that date? Does the ECJ still decide all legal matters? Are countries that have a FTA with the EU obliged to continue to consider that those FTAs still aply to the UK as if they were still members of the EU and not a third country? How does certification for things like aviation continue?

In other words, business as usual after 29th of March 2019 until the transition period expires.

No Transition without a deal. EU diplomats meeting this evening to prepare for a EU no deal summit in November. Leo answers question in the dail this morning that the government is moving to the next stage in planning for No deal outcome.

An extension of the transition sounds like its the last movement by the EU negotiation team and if accepted by TM the summit will be pushed out. The backstop is agreed in negotiations by both sides and what is agreed will not be unpicked no matter how much rhetoric comes out of the UK media and Brexit lobby. Theresa May knows this. She will likely bluff up to the November summit but all bets are off what happens after that.

bob mcbob · 17-10-2018 12:34pm

There was an interesting story in the Times yesterday which explained a bit of what is happening with what passes for a government.

TM is negotiating everything with the EU thru her civil servant Olly Robbins. The cabinet knows what is going on as much as people on here.

Apparently on Sunday, Raab found out that TM was going to agree to all EU demands. That is why he fly to Brussels on Sunday to tell Barnier that what TM was agreeing to was not the British governments position.

Dysfunctional does not begin to describe the Tory party at present. More like a bunch of drunks at closing time trying to work out what to do next.

lawred2 · 17-10-2018 12:36pm

bob mcbob wrote: »

There was an interesting story in the Times yesterday which explained a bit of what is happening with what passes for a government.

TM is negotiating everything with the EU thru her civil servant Olly Robbins. The cabinet knows what is going on as much as people on here.

Apparently on Sunday, Raab found out that TM was going to agree to all EU demands. That is why he fly to Brussels on Sunday to tell Barnier that what TM was agreeing to was not the British governments position.

Dysfunctional does not begin to describe the Tory party at present. More like a bunch of drunks at closing time trying to work out what to do next.

Well if that's the case - who is actually setting the government's position?

That would be a sackable offence in almost every democratic parliament in the western world.

Zubeneschamali · 17-10-2018 12:38pm

lawred2 wrote: »

That would be a sackable offence in almost every democratic parliament in the western world.

I don't buy it - more likely Raab went to make sure the EU don't tell everyone that the UK is folding until some choreographed "win" for May can be organized.

lawred2 · 17-10-2018 12:42pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't buy it - more likely Raab went to make sure the EU don't tell everyone that the UK is folding until some choreographed "win" for May can be organized.

hard to imagine that that wouldn't have been leaked by now...

An Ciarraioch · 17-10-2018 12:43pm

Howlin appears to have backtracked significantly on yesterday's comments - he now accepts that the national governments weren't reneging on commitments, and merely states that some in the PES asked him whether the backstop had to be included in the WA, before he informed them that it did.

Sand · 17-10-2018 12:49pm

Winters wrote: »

For all this talk about the backstop hopefully never being needed as the FTA will avoid the need for the border, am I right to say that that a FTA will only resolve the border issue IF the UK stays in the CU and SM?

To put it simply, are the UK's only options:

A. The Norway model (to stay in the CU & SM) or
B. The Canada deal plus hard land or sea border.

The Norway model is actually a bit of a misnomer. Norway is one of 3 EFTA countries participating in the EEA, and the EEA is fairly modular and flexible in a way EU membership is not. It can be tailored to each member's own requirements. Liechtenstein for example has a bar on freedom of movement, while retaining membership of the single market: a core UK objective.

So when we say Norway model, it disguises that there could have been a 'UK model' negotiated, which was bespoke to the UK's own needs. The UK ruled it out early on due to their foolish red lines. And I don't think it is on offer now, given all the mistrust and anger sown by the UK's behaviour over the last 2 years.

farmchoice · 17-10-2018 12:51pm

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Howlin appears to have backtracked significantly on yesterday's comments - he now accepts that the national governments weren't reneging on commitments, and merely states that some in the PES asked him whether the backstop had to be included in the WA, before he informed them that it did.

brendan howlin made an absolute fool of himself yesterday, either he is one of the only politicians in Ireland who hasn't got a clue about whats going on or he pulled this stunt for a bit of attention.

bob mcbob · 17-10-2018 12:55pm

lawred2 wrote: »

Well if that's the case - who is actually setting the government's position?

That would be a sackable offence in almost every democratic parliament in the western world.

Nobody - it was stated that there is no agreed government position.

There were quotes from an anonymous current cabinet ministers outwardly loyal to TM who described the situation as chaos.

Professor Moriarty · 17-10-2018 1:00pm

bob mcbob wrote: »

There was an interesting story in the Times yesterday which explained a bit of what is happening with what passes for a government.

TM is negotiating everything with the EU thru her civil servant Olly Robbins. The cabinet knows what is going on as much as people on here.

Apparently on Sunday, Raab found out that TM was going to agree to all EU demands. That is why he fly to Brussels on Sunday to tell Barnier that what TM was agreeing to was not the British governments position.

Dysfunctional does not begin to describe the Tory party at present. More like a bunch of drunks at closing time trying to work out what to do next.

If that's true, he should be sacked immediately by TM. Better inside the tent though.

Leroy42 · 17-10-2018 1:00pm

bob mcbob wrote: »

Nobody - it was stated that there is no agreed government position.

There were quotes from an anonymous current cabinet ministers outwardly loyal to TM who described the situation as chaos.

The reports coming out of the cabinet meeting yesterday, mostly lost in the fact that nobody actually resigned, was that they had no policy going forward. They wouldn't accept, couldn't accept, the EU proposal but had literally nothing in terms of a position themselves.

So TM is going to go to Brussels and try to get other leaders on board. What is she going to say when they ask her the obvious question of how she intends to actually get any deal through.

An Ciarraioch · 17-10-2018 1:01pm

The Aussies damn the prospects of a UK trade deal with faint praise:

https://threader.app/thread/1052458691629338626

Hurrache · 17-10-2018 1:02pm

bob mcbob wrote: »

Apparently on Sunday, Raab found out that TM was going to agree to all EU demands. That is why he fly to Brussels on Sunday to tell Barnier that what TM was agreeing to was not the British governments position.

He actually flew out without her say so in order to undermine her?

briany · 17-10-2018 1:03pm

Can someone chime in on this scenario, please.

Let's say the UK gets no deal. But let's also say that they commit to this idea of no border, as Mogg has suggested. Literally no (tangible) border, just like it is today.

Will they have a border at the Port of Dover? If yes, does that mean that the UK would be proposing to treat two routes from the same trading jurisdiction wholly differently? Does that have a leg to stand on, legally? I know the WTO has its Favoured Nations rule, but that's dealing with different nations/trading entities, not two routes from the same one.

Depending on how chaotic getting goods through the continental-facing ports turns out to be, could we get to a weird scenario where it's actually cheaper and less hassle simply to ship freight to Ireland and then move it into NI and on to Britain. Or, in fact, just ship it directly to Northern Ireland, if there's to be no border?

Professor Moriarty · 17-10-2018 1:07pm

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The Aussies damn the prospects of a UK trade deal with faint praise:

https://threader.app/thread/1052458691629338626

Essentially, this paper sees the UK as a wounded animal to be treated with caution and exploited. It's a cold shower for any British person reading it.

Hurrache · 17-10-2018 1:07pm

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The Aussies damn the prospects of a UK trade deal with faint praise:

https://threader.app/thread/1052458691629338626

All the cards are in the hands of Australia.

lawred2 · 17-10-2018 1:13pm

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The Aussies damn the prospects of a UK trade deal with faint praise:

https://threader.app/thread/1052458691629338626

Ouch

Imreoir2 · 17-10-2018 1:16pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would like a clarification.

If all the treaties fall on 29th March 2019, then what laws or treaties govern the UK status after that date? Does the ECJ still decide all legal matters? Are countries that have a FTA with the EU obliged to continue to consider that those FTAs still aply to the UK as if they were still members of the EU and not a third country? How does certification for things like aviation continue?

In other words, business as usual after 29th of March 2019 until the transition period expires.

If there is no deal, then the UK has nothing. They will be on their own and will have to beg other countries to agree something quick to overcome the worst effects, but it will be chaos regardless.

If there is a deal, then while legally speaking the treaties no longer apply to the UK, both the EU and the UK will have agreed to act as if they did still apply and in terms of trade both the EU and UK will expect other third countries to respect that and continue on trading with the UK as if nothing has happened. Some third countries might not want to do that, but I don't think there is much expectation that anyone who has a trade deal with the EU is going to want to annoy the EU over a small technicality when it is more beneficial for them to go along with it. Especially if the EU makes it clear that it continues to consider the UK as part of its customs territory during the transition period and any tarrifs imposed on the UK are a breach of the trade deal as far as the EU is concerned. It could happen, but probably wont.

Imreoir2 · 17-10-2018 1:24pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

What is she going to say when they ask her the obvious question of how she intends to actually get any deal through.

Most likely some long winded version of nothing. Which will mean that the November summit will not be formally agreed and will be relegated to "this date maybe, IF there is a good reason to hold it at all", and probably a further anouncment that the EU is stepping up no-deal preperatation.

Imreoir2 · 17-10-2018 1:28pm

Hurrache wrote: »

All the cards are in the hands of Australia.

Yeah, let one of the big guys like the EU or the US knock the stuffing out of them because they are desperate, and when they have shown just how weak they are, we can demand the same terms.

Panrich · 17-10-2018 1:30pm

The French have published their emergency legislation details for a no deal Brexit.

https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1052469712343486465&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2Fblog%2Flive%2F2018%2Foct%2F17%2Fbrexit-eu-summit-may-pmqs-corbyn-blair-heseltine-and-clegg-urge-eu-leaders-to-extend-article-50-to-allow-2nd-referendum-politics-live%3Fpage%3Dwith%253Ablock-5bc72735e4b0dfdbdb80e8d6

Looks like Visas and checks on all lorries for a start. Pressure is ramping up at this stage.

The actual document in French

http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl18-009.html

joe40 · 17-10-2018 1:36pm

Am I missing something but is there any way that a no deal exit would not be an absolute disaster for the UK, basically what is the best case scenario for them in that event.

Also why do the brexiteers and especially DUP nor realise this.
They talk about "no deal" as if will be an inconvenience that has to be managed, as opposed to a catastrophe.

Anyone want a go at playing devils advocate for them? Purely hypothetically

LeinsterDub · 17-10-2018 1:39pm

joe40 wrote: »

Am I missing something but is there any way that a no deal exit would not be an absolute disaster for the UK, basically what is the best case scenario for them in that event.

Also why do the brexiteers and especially DUP nor realise this.
They talk about "no deal" as if will be an inconvenience that has to be managed, as opposed to a catastrophe.

Anyone want a go at playing devils advocate for them? Purely hypothetically

DUP : Fear of a United Ireland
Brexiter : Rule Britannia, Dunkirk Spirt

kuro68k · 17-10-2018 1:45pm

joe40 wrote: »

Anyone want a go at playing devils advocate for them? Purely hypothetically

Some people will get rich from this. It's good for them.

Some people will see a soft ethnic cleansing as Johnny Foreigner leaves.

All the others are just deluded idiots.

J Mysterio · 17-10-2018 1:48pm

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

Similarly my earliest memory of crossing the border was the car being surrounded at one of the check points by armed soldiers and my dad pointing out the snipers up in a bluff, and this was around the early to mid-1990's. And that wasn't even the high point of the troubles. I don't think anyone who experienced what the border actually was would be so flippant as to say the issues can be solved by technological solutions or that it's all in the past. Giving my age away a small bit, but I remember in fifth class we were talking about the IRA break in the cease fire around 97/98 in the bloody playground, and this was down in west Munster. Omagh was a particularly vivid memory as we had recently gotten cable so it was non stop on the TV. My younger brothers don't have those memories and I always hoped that the fact that the GFA had at the very least meant that kids in the republic wouldn't have to worry about such things. There are three years between me and the next sibling, and they don't have any such memories.

The house next door to us was used to house Catholics from the North who had to flee due to the violence up there. The last family had a young girl who came into our class in fourth class. She introduced herself by saying she was from Belfast and they had moved down because the previous month a firebomb had been thrown through the sitting room window in the middle of the night. I'm absolutely disgusted with how the UK has been handling this, they're so flippant about the very legitimate concerns and worries people, on both sides of the border, Protestants, Catholics, Republicans, and Unionists (bar the DUP) have about a renewed border.

The offie down the road from me is run by a family who fled NI in the troubles, after their father was killed.

When I lived in Cork, I attended a football group run by a guy whos family had also fled the violence.

Plenty of examples, but thanks for sharing it.

Leroy42 · 17-10-2018 1:50pm

joe40 wrote: »

Am I missing something but is there any way that a no deal exit would not be an absolute disaster for the UK, basically what is the best case scenario for them in that event.

Also why do the brexiteers and especially DUP nor realise this.
They talk about "no deal" as if will be an inconvenience that has to be managed, as opposed to a catastrophe.

Anyone want a go at playing devils advocate for them? Purely hypothetically

Because they are betting that the EU won't ever let it get to that point. They firmly believe that the EU needs them more and as such will work something out.

Raab 1st no deal document release included so many instances of a stated no deal with most issues work out even on a temporary nature. Of course planes will continue to fly. Of course medicines will continue to be traded. Of course other countries will simply transpose the current EU trade deals into the UK.

Why not. They are a massive market and everyone will need them.

Nody · 17-10-2018 1:51pm

joe40 wrote: »

Am I missing something but is there any way that a no deal exit would not be an absolute disaster for the UK, basically what is the best case scenario for them in that event.

Also why do the brexiteers and especially DUP nor realise this.
They talk about "no deal" as if will be an inconvenience that has to be managed, as opposed to a catastrophe.

Anyone want a go at playing devils advocate for them? Purely hypothetically

Not much to be devils advocate about to be honest; their positions are basically this:

Brexiteers - Two versions
1) Vulture capitalists who'll make a ton of money (or their friends will and they get a kick back as a "consultant" or "director" etc. down the line) from the chaos. They will personally not be that impacted and will mitigate it with buying a permanent residency in another EU country if needed. The more chaos the better for them while "sticking it to the man" as their voters wanted them to even if it is utterly stupid.

2) We want hard crash out, no really, seriously trust us, btw can we make those deals on the side? This is the larger part and are the likes of ERG group etc. When they talk about "no deal" they don't mean "no no deal"; what they mean is "Not the deal you propose but we'll strike multiple small side deals in the areas we need instead such as airplanes etc. but not a big deal overall with to much EU control". There is an obvious cross over here with group 1 as well to a certain extent but their version of "no deal" is basically that we don't have a big deal but tons of smaller deals with something similar to a Canada++ model but with no big deal. The idea being EU will be so desperate that UK can get away with more due to it (yea, no comment on that one). This group would include the likes of Dyson's founder who thinks he can get away with ****tier products due to lower standards after Brexit but still insists he should get as much money as now in form of EU support but from the UK government instead for example.

Now DUP are even easier. In DUPs world there is only one thing that matters and that's being British. The fact that the rest of UK don't see them as Brits and most of the time could not care about the ass end of the country does not matter to them. They are blue blooded Brits and God Save the Queen. To them if UK had a nuclear strike flagged in advance by Russia they would demand Putin nuke them as well so they don't need to feel different. They got such an inferiority complex that anything, and that means literally speaking ANYTHING, that's different from UK is an affront that needs to be fixed (except of course for things such as gay marriage and abortion but those are not talked about publically because "look we're British and proud about it damn it" now stop talking about the stuff). Hence for DUP they would rather see NI burn down around them as long as it's the same fire as is raging in the UK no matter the cost locally "because it's worth it to be British".

pH · 17-10-2018 1:54pm

joe40 wrote: »

Am I missing something but is there any way that a no deal exit would not be an absolute disaster for the UK, basically what is the best case scenario for them in that event.

Also why do the brexiteers and especially DUP nor realise this.
They talk about "no deal" as if will be an inconvenience that has to be managed, as opposed to a catastrophe.

Anyone want a go at playing devils advocate for them? Purely hypothetically

Obviously as has been said ad-infinitum no deal is better than a bad deal. The EU could for example demand 50 Billion a year, offer a terrible imbalanced trade deal, enforce ECJ jurisdiction etc.

It would seem obvious that for the UK, remaining in the custom union/single market without any of the influence of being in the EU is an almost suicidal (economy wise move), because more than actual tariffs the EU is very keen of protecting its markets with 'regulations' and entering into a treaty that commits you to obey rules that will obviously created to disadvantage you is economic madness.

On the NI border, the Irish position seems deeply hypocritical, however inflammatory border checks would be, it would seem obvious that the equivalent checks between the UK and NI would be equally inflammatory to the 'other side' up there.

It also seems deeply suspicious. I could see good arguments why Irish products can continue to travel up north (and vice versa) but it doesn't seem obvious why the 'backstop' seems to have to include opening the NI market to German cars, french wines instead of just RoI produce.

It also isn't clear why these checks are needed. Are there tax implications, if the 'backstop' was put into action could ASDA still run supermarkets in NI, can UK phone operators offer services etc.

Who will be doing these checks? EU employees, what powers will they have? If ASDA wants to import baked beans into NI and there is a tarif on UK goods entering the EU then who exactly is that tariff paid to?

Sand · 17-10-2018 2:01pm

The kindest interpretation of the 'no deal' advocates are that they do not see it as an end state. Their absolute objective is to exit the EU, and they are deeply suspicious of any deal with keeps the UK entangled with the EU and its structures. They want a hard-break that cannot be easily reversed by a change of government.

So they prefer 'no deal' which gives a clearcut, irreversible Brexit over a deal which leaves the UK in the EU environment, and which might be plausibly reversed in a few years. They're willing to absorb any amount of economic pain to achieve an aim they see as more important than GDP growth.

Of course, they're not alone. Labour and JC want 10 Downing Street so badly that they too are willing to accept 'no deal' to achieve that. A disastrous economic fallout could even be seen as beneficial, as it offers the opportunity of exploiting the chaos to completely change the UK.

In the UK right now, there is several groups which are prioritising non-economic goals over and beyond economic performance. Given the doctrine of Clinton, Blair, Brown and Obama has been that economic performance is all that matters, its revolutionary. But its best observed from a distance.

BonnieSituation · 17-10-2018 2:02pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

You paint a comforting picture. :eek:

You forgot to add Scottish independence and NI descending into chaos.

I'm okay with the first part of that.

Nody · 17-10-2018 2:02pm

pH wrote: »

It also seems deeply suspicious. I could see good arguments why Irish products can continue to travel up north (and vice versa) but it doesn't seem obvious why the 'backstop' seems to have to include opening the NI market to German cars, french wines instead of just RoI produce.

Because doing so would require border controls to check what's in the actual truck at the border; hence the need for NI to be in the single market to avoid checks at the border between Ireland & NI by ensuring any goods imported to the single market can go into NI. By your proposal of only RoI products you'd need to check every truck to see if they contain non RoI products or not (because there is no way to know without checking) as well as any goods leaving Ireland to check it does not contain NI products.

It also isn't clear why these checks are needed. Are there tax implications, if the 'backstop' was put into action could ASDA still run supermarkets in NI, can UK phone operators offer services etc.

Because NI as part of the single market their sea border becomes a third party border for the single market which requires exactly the same controls as any other third party border to the single market. The single market border is either between Ireland and NI or NI and mainland UK but there will always be such a border. Why? Because any imports to the single market has to go through very strict controls (quality, conformity to EU regulation, labelling, qouta limitations etc.) and as it's coming from a third country (which UK becomes) the same controls has to be done as for if it came from Peru, China or Russia. All third party countries have to be treated equally under WTO terms; ergo no exceptions possible for UK.

Who will be doing these checks? EU employees, what powers will they have? If ASDA wants to import baked beans into NI and there is a tarif on UK goods entering the EU then who exactly is that tariff paid to?

Depends on the controls in general but there are no EU employees at any border; there are local staff trained to a certain standard by the local government. Now Ireland may suplement this to NI at the start but strictly speaking it's a UK requirment to ensure people are trained and ready. The duty question however is to EU; all countries pay it in to EU's budget but often do some offsetting in practice (i.e. EU don't pay us 20 million in funding for X and we offset that with not paying 20 million of duties to EU's budget and move the money directly over to X instead of paying them to EU first).

J Mysterio · 17-10-2018 2:15pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

But Johnson has stated, and TM seems to be of the same opinion, that whatever they agreed to in December was not what they thought it was. Whether that was simply to move the process on (which I think it was) or due to them really not understanding it is open but it is clear that the UK do not consider the December agreement as anything other than a position at the time.

To cover themselves on this issue, and placate the DUP and ERG, they had to choose between being sneaky or ignorant. They chose ignorant.

Mc Love · 17-10-2018 2:21pm

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0000qks Coveney on Radio4 this morning, from 2hr 10mins in, and things get heated from 2:18 onwards.

Sand · 17-10-2018 2:28pm

I thought Coveney did well. Coveney stated Ireland's objective is to avoid any disturbance to peace and stability on the island of Ireland. The presenter made some stupid comment to the effect of 'The GFA is in the past, many people in NI want to remain in the UK, and you have to respect that above all else'.

I would think, no, not above all else.

mrbrianj · 17-10-2018 2:29pm

A lot of focus is on what happens in the UK, stuff going north etc.

Remember its a 2 way street - do we want chlorinated chicken, hormone beef, cheap nasty products flooding our shops and putting our argi companies out of business - not to mention how we deal with the influx of non EU (non refugee) migrants - there will be a lot of NI/UK people looking for jobs post brexit.

Dytalus · 17-10-2018 2:32pm

Sand wrote: »

I thought Coveney did well. Coveney stated Ireland's objective is to avoid any disturbance to peace and stability on the island of Ireland. The presenter made some stupid comment to the effect of 'The GFA is in the past, many people in NI want to remain in the UK, and you have to respect that above all else'.

I would think, no, not above all else.

I can't listen to it at the moment, but the arrogance of that comment infuriates me. I've seen more and more of this "how dare those uppity Irish not let us walk all over them" sentiment coming out of Britain in the wake of Brexit.

Can't decide whether I want to listen to the broadcast now to see how Coveney did, or avoid it in case I have an aneurysm if this is the type of tripe being said.

pH · 17-10-2018 2:33pm

Nody wrote: »

Because doing so would require border controls to check what's in the actual truck at the border; hence the need for NI to be in the single market to avoid checks at the border between Ireland & NI by ensuring any goods imported to the single market can go into NI. By your proposal of only RoI products you'd need to check every truck to see if they contain non RoI products or not (because there is no way to know without checking) as well as any goods leaving Ireland to check it does not contain NI products.

At least now the situation is clear, Ireland (as an EU member) is insisting that NI remain fully for all time (well at least until 'that' vote) remain fully in both the customs union and single market.

Therefore there are 3 options (presuming Brexit goes ahead, the 4th is remaing in the EU)

1) The UK get some kind of Canada like trade deal, NI is split off and remains in the customs union and single market.
2) All of the UK remains in the single market and customs union (but not the EU)
3) No deal is possible.

Of these, I think given the current players (3) is most likely, and I feel abandoning Brexit is more likely than (1) or (2). I hope I'm proved wrong.

One other thing, I haven't heard anything about on UK or Irish news is can the UK actually split NI out like this? I presume it would mean new legislation in Westminster, but is it constitutionally possible, could the DUP fight it in the UK courts?

MrMusician18 · 17-10-2018 2:35pm

Mc Love wrote: »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0000qks Coveney on Radio4 this morning, from 2hr 10mins in, and things get heated from 2:18 onwards.

It's about time someone took on Humphries

pH · 17-10-2018 2:37pm

mrbrianj wrote: »

A lot of focus is on what happens in the UK, stuff going north etc.

Remember its a 2 way street - do we want chlorinated chicken, hormone beef, cheap nasty products flooding our shops and putting our argi companies out of business - not to mention how we deal with the influx of non EU (non refugee) migrants - there will be a lot of NI/UK people looking for jobs post brexit.

I think the idea is all this stuff is stopped at the NI/UK sea border. The other side is trickier, we always had the 'free travel area' even before the EU, I think it just got wrapped up in EU rights somewhere along the way, but it may still exist in both country's legislation. People born in NI have an absolute constitutional right to live and work in the south, and UK citizens have had these rights too for many years pre-EU (as could Irish people work and live in the UK)

An Claidheamh · 17-10-2018 2:39pm

Hurrache wrote: »

Coveney getting a lot of phrase both sides of the sea over on his Radio 4 interview this morning, with Humphry's getting a lot of criticism, including by BBC employees.

His interview starts around 2:10:00 in this link, and his correction of Humphry on the already signed backstop at 2:14:00
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0000qks

Humphreys : "England, Scotland and Wales concerned NI may be out of the UK",

the same Britain that didn't even consider it in the Brexit vote?

Humphreys : "we (Ireland) need to respect Johnson and Davis views as they influence people in Britain"

Coveney : "those two men aren't even in the UK government..."

So Humphreys thinks the whole continent should respect what two British BUFFOONS,
with their own agendas, who couldn't point Ireland out on a map.... think about the border?

Also, Coveney needs to stop playing the Ireland will suffer the most card.

Remind them, the EU can destroy UKslavia.

Only negotiation they understand.

Kermit.de.frog · 17-10-2018 2:42pm

Contrary to the stated Irish case the French do seem to think the solution inevitably undermines the constitutional integrity of the UK.

https://twitter.com/cleacaulcutt/status/1052550549495721986

Merkel has also confirmed for first time Germany is preparing for no deal but still thinks deal is possible.

Enzokk · 17-10-2018 2:44pm

farmchoice wrote: »

that was very good from coveney, im no FG supporter but i really think the government and covneney in particular are doing a stellar job. honorable mention to FF as well for not trying to upset the apple cart.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I should have added that these are exceptional circumstances. The Tories have gone from trying to convince people that Brexit will enrich the nation to telling us that we'll survive while Labour just idles around waiting to get into No. 10 instead of acting like an opposition.

There is the national interest part in exceptional circumstances. They are also polling terribly right now and seeing as any criticism of FG will come back to them, they are propping them up, so they cannot really offer criticisms of the way the government is doing its business as they are allowing it to happen. They would actually be better off owning their role in what is happening instead of being both the enabler and opposition.

They have actually done the country a service with their supply and confidence agreement, but like Labour in the last election there is a chance the voters will not see that as a good thing.

lawred2 wrote: »

Was that the actual show presenter who was so outrageously biased? It sounded more like some Brexiteer guest than an anchor?

Either way a knowledgeable, eloquent and politely forceful presentation by Simon Coveney.

That would be John Humphrys, 75 years old. I don't really understand why people in this age bracket are allowed to be on radio or television any longer. Its okay for people to retire at age 65-67 but we allow older people to voice their opinions to others? From personal experience my grandparents opinion is barely fit for family gatherings where we can just forget their utterances as them being old and not knowing better.

If you look at the BBC and some of their main presenters, you have David Dimbleby, Andrew Neill and John Humphrys as examples of the youngest being 69 and the others 75 and 79 but having a very influential voice for the people. Now they may still be excellent interviewers but surely it is time to pass on to the next generation?

Nody wrote: »

Now DUP are even easier. In DUPs world there is only one thing that matters and that's being British. The fact that the rest of UK don't see them as Brits and most of the time could not care about the ass end of the country does not matter to them. They are blue blooded Brits and God Save the Queen. To them if UK had a nuclear strike flagged in advance by Russia they would demand Putin nuke them as well so they don't need to feel different. They got such an inferiority complex that anything, and that means literally speaking ANYTHING, that's different from UK is an affront that needs to be fixed (except of course for things such as gay marriage and abortion but those are not talked about publically because "look we're British and proud about it damn it" now stop talking about the stuff). Hence for DUP they would rather see NI burn down around them as long as it's the same fire as is raging in the UK no matter the cost locally "because it's worth it to be British".

The DUP took the ultimate gamble, if Brexit works out and they are all better off out of the EU then the talk of unification is dead. That is why they went for it and seemingly without even thinking about the other side of the argument.

Just on the USA trade deal that joe40 mentioned, here is a link to a similar article.

Trump tells May to abandon 'unjustified' food standards for Brexit trade deal

Donald Trump's administration has said the UK must scrap "unjustified" food and agricultural standards before it can sign a free trade deal with the US after Brexit.

The US Trade Representative sent a to letter to US Congress on Tuesday, formally announcing President Trump's intention to negotiate a free trade deal with the UK once its transitional relationship with the EU is over.

The letter states that any UK-EU trade deal must respect the US' Trade Priorities and Accountability Act, which requires the "reducing or eliminating [of] unjustified sanitary or phytosanitary restrictions" and "other unjustified technical barriers to trade."

So if anyone ever asks why there will need to be a border in case of no deal, this is a very good reason why there will need to be checks done. It is also vital on why we need the backstop written in legal text as we don't want to find ourselves kicked out of the EU because we cannot keep chlorinated chicken out of the EU food chain.

bob mcbob · 17-10-2018 2:45pm

Also in the (Scottish) Times yesterday was a column by Alex Massie. He is strongly unionist, conservative supporting (he also writes for the spectator) and is heavily anti-scottish nationalist in general and anti-SNP in particular.

In his column he said that it is either a soft Brexit or the United Kingdom ceases to exist.

briany · 17-10-2018 2:50pm

bob mcbob wrote: »

Also in the (Scottish) Times yesterday was a column by Alex Massie. He is strongly unionist, conservative supporting (he also writes for the spectator) and is heavily anti-scottish nationalist in general and anti-SNP in particular.

In his column he said that it is either a soft Brexit or the United Kingdom ceases to exist.

English Brexiteers will probably be happy enough to see the UK crumble in order to get a clean break from the EU.

Nody · 17-10-2018 2:50pm

pH wrote: »

At least now the situation is clear, Ireland (as an EU member) is insisting that NI remain fully for all time (well at least until 'that' vote) remain fully in both the customs union and single market.

Therefore there are 3 options (presuming Brexit goes ahead, the 4th is remaing in the EU)

1) The UK get some kind of Canada like trade deal, NI is split off and remains in the customs union and single market.
2) All of the UK remains in the single market and customs union (but not the EU)
3) No deal is possible.

Of these, I think given the current players (3) is most likely, and I feel abandoning Brexit is more likely than (1) or (2). I hope I'm proved wrong.

Full agreement

One other thing, I haven't heard anything about on UK or Irish news is can the UK actually split NI out like this? I presume it would mean new legislation in Westminster, but is it constitutionally possible, could the DUP fight it in the UK courts?

NI already has seperate rules from the mainland (they already do for example 10% checks on animals going into UK as the island of Ireland could have different disease profile than UK mainland) so there is already a difference from a law perspective (along with gay marriage & abortion for example). Hence it can be done but it could (would?) be challenged in court depending on how it was implemented most likely but in the end would go through even if it might take a round or two in court to get the final forms for it green lighted.

Imreoir2 · 17-10-2018 2:53pm

pH wrote: »

At least now the situation is clear, Ireland (as an EU member) is insisting that NI remain fully for all time (well at least until 'that' vote) remain fully in both the customs union and single market.

Not true, the backstop remains in place for all time, but is only used unless and until some other arangement is agreed that prevents a hard border. The UK government INSISTS that such an other arangement can and will be agreed. In fact if you were to believe them you would think that a backstop is not even necessary because it is certain that such an other arangement will be in place in time for the end of the transition period.

Ireland accepts that if such an arangement can be found, then the backstop will not be needed, but the backstop must still be in place "just in case".

Leroy42 · 17-10-2018 2:56pm

When people like Humphreys bring out the respect the British people, do they not see how hypocritical that is. Coveney is there putting forward the Irish position, and basically Humphreys is saying that isn't important because the British view is more important.

TBH, whilst I totally understand the 'game' that has to be played out diplomatically in all of this, Coveney at times seemed deeply frustrated during that and it must really be hard to keep it from boiling over. When Humphreys said that the December agreement meant nothing as it was all just part of a negotiation and nothing was agreement until the very end, he should have said that should they treat the GFA agreement the same? And therefore what weight can they out on anything the UK agree to as they are more than happy to go back on anything.

Luckily, for all concerned, it is Coveney and not me in the interviews.

Also, there is no commentary around the fact that the reason why the backstop would ever come into effect, and TM talks about it as a given, is that the claims that they made regarding technology etc have been completely debunked. Even the UK know that they have little hope of finding a solution and thus the backstop becomes a real issue.

pH · 17-10-2018 2:56pm

briany wrote: »

English Brexiteers will probably be happy enough to see the UK crumble in order to get a clean break from the EU.

But equally the Irish Brit-bashers are enjoying seeing UK getting bashed around and humiliated. A no-deal scenario is proportionally worse for Ireland than it is for the UK, a 10 year recession and 4 day weeks might seem like a small price to pay to give the UK one in the eye, but certainly both the UK and Ireland will suffer hugely without a deal.

lawred2 · 17-10-2018 2:58pm

pH wrote: »

But equally the Irish Brit-bashers are enjoying seeing UK getting bashed around and humiliated. A no-deal scenario is proportionally worse for Ireland than it is for the UK, a 10 year recession and 4 day weeks might seem like a small price to pay to give the UK one in the eye, but certainly both the UK and Ireland will suffer hugely without a deal.

Where did you pull this prediction from?

Btw I think you'll find most people when it comes down to it want their lives to be effected as little as possible.

As for getting bashed around and humiliated?

By whom?

It's entirely and continues to be entirely their own doing.

Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Comments