Brexit discussion thread II

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Maybe Airbus could be convinced to move the shorts plant to Dundalk in the event of a hard Brexit lol.

If they do, not even the DUP pulling the plug will stop them. 'Control' of 4000 jobs is gone.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Absolutely. Just last week the bad news was that Brexit would cost 400 billion by 2030. This weeks bad news: it already cost 490 billion.

Well, not to pick nits, but this week's 490 billion write-down is not the result of Brexit; it's just the recognition of an accounting stuff-up that would have had to have been recognised, Brexit or no Brexit.

It does mean that their financial and economic position is much more fragile than previously believed, however, and therefore they are less well-placed to deal with the stresses of Brexit than they thought.

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If they do, not even the DUP pulling the plug will stop them. 'Control' of 4000 jobs is gone.

They never "controlled" the jobs. The project is going from majority Canadian ownership to majority European ownership.

Thomas__

Peregrinus wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Absolutely. Just last week the bad news was that Brexit would cost 400 billion by 2030. This weeks bad news: it already cost 490 billion.

Well, not to pick nits, but this week's 490 billion write-down is not the result of Brexit; it's just the recognition of an accounting stuff-up that would have had to have been recognised, Brexit or no Brexit.

It does mean that their financial and economic position is much more fragile than previously believed, however, and therefore they are less well-placed to deal with the stresses of Brexit than they thought.

The reports about the outlook for a hard Brexit are getting more and more day by day and week by week. The present PM has failed once again to achieve anything on her last call to the EU officials. That woman and her whole cabinet are already finished and it is because of that they can´t achieve or even settle anything. Increasing the "bill" won´t help at all to solve the many problems laying on the negotiating table. I am already beyond any doubts that the UK govt is deliberately heading for a hard Brexit, no matter what.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

They never "controlled" the jobs. The project is going from majority Canadian ownership to majority European ownership.

If Airbus decide to decamp because of Brexit there is nothing the DUP or the UK can do.

They can pressure the UK to do something at the moment and they are, bringing pressure to bear on their special friends etc.

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If Airbus decide to decamp because of Brexit there is nothing the DUP or the UK can do.

They can pressure the UK to do something at the moment and they are, bringing pressure to bear on their special friends etc.

Well, if Bombardier decided to decamp, there wouldn't be a great deal that the DUP or the UK could do, beyond offer them more money to stay (which of course they could also offer Airbus, if it came to that).

But there's no reason to expect Bombardier to decamp; the problem they have with the US cannot be resolved by switching production away from Belfast.

Equally, though, there's no reason to expect Airbus to decamp.

What the whole episode highlights is two things.

First, regardless of whether its Bombardier or Airbus, as an open economy in a globalised world the UK has much less control that they like to imagine. We in the Republic are a bit more realistic about this because we are not burdened with the delusions of past imperial grandeur.

Secondly, in such a scary world it helps to have friends. When it came to making representations to the US to try and defend the interests of workers in Belfast, all May's honeyed words and blandishments could acheive nothing at all. We'll never know, but an economic heavyweight like the EU might have had better success. They certainly couldn't have had less.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, if Bombardier decided to decamp, there wouldn't be a great deal that the DUP or the UK could do, beyond offer them more money to stay (which of course they could also offer Airbus, if it came to that).

But there's no reason to expect Bombardier to decamp; the problem they have with the US cannot be resolved by switching production away from Belfast.

Equally, though, there's no reason to expect Airbus to decamp.

What the whole episode highlights is two things.

First, regardless of whether its Bombardier or Airbus, as an open economy in a globalised world the UK has much less control that they like to imagine. We in the Republic are a bit more realistic about this because we are not burdened with the delusions of past imperial grandeur.

Secondly, in such a scary world it helps to have friends. When it came to making representations to the US to try and defend the interests of workers in Belfast, all May's honeyed words and blandishments could acheive nothing at all. We'll never know, but an economic heavyweight like the EU might have had better success. They certainly couldn't have had less.

Those jobs could quite easily be gone from the north because of a policy the DUP are behind. Brexit.

Peregrinus

Lots of jobs could go because of Brexit, but the immediate threat to these particular jobs is not directly Brexit-related.

ancapailldorcha

Peregrinus wrote: »

Lots of jobs could go because of Brexit, but the immediate threat to these particular jobs is not directly Brexit-related.

It might not be Brexit-related but I would say that the threat of EU-tariffs on Boeing aircraft pushed by a panicked British government would have helped stay Trump's hand. Sadly, that option is gone.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

Lots of jobs could go because of Brexit, but the immediate threat to these particular jobs is not directly Brexit-related.

Nothing to argue with there.

ambro25

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, if Bombardier decided to decamp, there wouldn't be a great deal that the DUP or the UK could do, beyond offer them more money to stay (which of course they could also offer Airbus, if it came to that).

But there's no reason to expect Bombardier to decamp; the problem they have with the US cannot be resolved by switching production away from Belfast.

Whilst that is all true, by taking a majority stake in the project Airbus may bring sufficient clout/capacity/<...> to effectively 'swap' the Canadian origin of US-deliverable C-planes for a European one, effectively mooting the US judicial finding (which was hinged upon the Canadian state aid provided to the project) and resulting tariffs.

(I'll readily confess to this being brief off-the-cuff thinking, only because I can see the tactical sense in it)

Beyond that however, insofar as the NI jobs themselves are concerned, they could eventually experience the PSA-Vauxhall approach just the same, subject to what the NI site productivity looks like (compared to Airbus consortium production sites) and how <actual> Brexit ends up impacting NI unit costs (or not).

Peregrinus

Yes, but that could work either way. The NI workers might turn out to be less productive than other Airbus workers, in which case their jobs would be at risk, but that's also true if they turn out to be less productive than other Bombardier workers. We've no reason to think that the risk is greater with Airbus than with Bombardier. And, even if it is, that's unrelated to the fact that Airbus is an EU company and Bombardier isn't.

There's a tendence to attribute every misfortune that befalls the UK to Brexit, but that's a mistake. The world does contain more than one misfortune. Brexit is not going to be the source of all the UK's misfortunes; it's just going to dump a lot of new misfortunes on top of all the misfortunes that would have happened anyway. And the Bombardier shenanigans is probably in the latter category.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, not to pick nits, but this week's 490 billion write-down is not the result of Brexit; it's just the recognition of an accounting stuff-up that would have had to have been recognised, Brexit or no Brexit.

Well, per the independent article linked earlier, one of the contributions to the stuff-up is that inward foreign investment has collapsed vs. forecasts. The reason this inward investment collapsed?

Brexit.

Thomas__

Peregrinus wrote: »

Lots of jobs could go because of Brexit, but the immediate threat to these particular jobs is not directly Brexit-related.

To those who are to lose their Jobs that difference doesn´t matter much. Meanwhile, as one can expect, the UK govt is deflecting from their own shortcomings by blaming the EU for the Stagnation of the Brexit negotiations.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/17/david-davis-eu-drag-out-brexit-talks-more-Money

Some even think or talk about a possible break down of the whole negotiations and I guess that there´s already something to it, when the Brits are going to lose their nerves. The "blame the EU for all and everything" is just "back on the menue".

ambro25

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but that could work either way. The NI workers might turn out to be less productive than other Airbus workers, in which case their jobs would be at risk, but that's also true if they turn out to be less productive than other Bombardier workers. We've no reason to think that the risk is greater with Airbus than with Bombardier. And, even if it is, that's unrelated to the fact that Airbus is an EU company and Bombardier isn't.

There's a tendence to attribute every misfortune that befalls the UK to Brexit, but that's a mistake. The world does contain more than one misfortune. Brexit is not going to be the source of all the UK's misfortunes; it's just going to dump a lot of new misfortunes on top of all the misfortunes that would have happened anyway. And the Bombardier shenanigans is probably in the latter category.

Oh, absolutely, and the same comments go for the newly-discovered £490bn black hole in the UK finances.

But one can readily see from the notional NI/EU border-related unknowns arising from Brexit, that are relevant to the feasibility/profitability/etc. of this non-Brexit Bombardier example, how easily Brexit can act as a catalyst for worsening the consequences of initially non-Brexit -borne or -related misfortune.

Again, the same goes for the £490bn issue, which the UK is ill-equipped to begin plugging now, but which the UK shall gradually become still worse-equipped to plug, as FDI into the the UK and UK business/consumer confidence keeps on plummeting as a result of Brexit.

Brexit and the £490bn are both more Ophelias than Irmas. But put both together, feeding off one another in some respects, and the result is likely far more than the sum of their parts, enough so to make Irma blush.

Thomas__

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, not to pick nits, but this week's 490 billion write-down is not the result of Brexit; it's just the recognition of an accounting stuff-up that would have had to have been recognised, Brexit or no Brexit.

Well, per the independent article linked earlier, one of the contributions to the stuff-up is that inward foreign investment has collapsed vs. forecasts. The reason this inward investment collapsed?

Brexit.

There´s another article on the Guardian about who´s to be hit hardest after the UK has exited the EU and it´s not hard to find out who that will be:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/17/no-deal-brexit-likely-to-hit-low-income-families-hardest

I suppose that the many who voted for Brexit are from that "section" of the public and I´d presume that they´ll soon regret it bitterly once they earn the bitter fruits from their vote.

Thomas__

ambro25 wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but that could work either way.  The NI workers might turn out to be less productive than other Airbus workers, in which case their jobs would be at risk, but that's also true if they turn out to be less productive than other Bombardier workers.  We've no reason to think that the risk is greater with Airbus than with Bombardier.  And, even if it is, that's unrelated to the fact that Airbus is an EU company and Bombardier isn't.

There's a tendence to attribute every misfortune that befalls the UK to Brexit, but that's a mistake.  The world does contain more than one misfortune.  Brexit is not going to be the source of all the UK's misfortunes; it's just going to dump a lot of new misfortunes on top of all the misfortunes that would have happened anyway.  And the Bombardier shenanigans is probably in the latter category.

Oh, absolutely, and the same comments go for the newly-discovered £490bn black hole in the UK finances.

But one can readily see from the notional NI/EU border-related unknowns arising from Brexit, that are relevant to the feasibility/profitability/etc. of this non-Brexit Bombardier example, how easily Brexit can act as a catalyst for worsening the consequences of initially non-Brexit -borne or -related misfortune.

Again, the same goes for the £490bn issue, which the UK is ill-equipped to begin plugging now, but which the UK shall gradually become still worse-equipped to plug, as FDI into the the UK and UK business/consumer confidence keeps on plummeting as a result of Brexit.

That all is just another aspect of a development that comes along with this Brexit idiocity and we haven´t seen the end of it yet. This Brexit is the perfect road to chaos and just imagine that from 01 April 2019 onwards, no UK based Aircraft company can fly to continental Europe which means to the many EU destinations what that will bring on problems and that said in the light that some companies have already announced that they´ll have to put it on hold in case that there is no certainty about how to proceed after Brexit deadline. But they need to know that by April 2018 at the latest to plan their schedules. That has of course some severe impact on the UK in her trade as well.

ambro25

ambro25 wrote: »

And I've not mentioned the exit bill, which is on top. I know you're oblivious to it, but well: the exit bill about which the EU will drag the UK kicking and screaming into the ICJ in the Hague in case of no deal/hard Brexit, with a claim for breach of its contractual obligations under the VC

The EU cannot sue the UK at the ICJ. The EU isn't a sovereign.

breatheme

But, would Austria, Italy, Belgium, Latvia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Croatia, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Malta, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, Estonia, Portugal, Finland, Romania, France, Slovakia, Germany, Slovenia, Greece, Spain, Hungary, Sweden, and Ireland be able to sue?

murphaph

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The EU cannot sue the UK at the ICJ. The EU isn't a sovereign.

The EU can do much more damage than a couple dozen billion. No UK services in the EU. Game over for the UK economy.

blanch152

murphaph wrote: »

The EU can do much more damage than a couple dozen billion. No UK services in the EU. Game over for the UK economy.

Services covers such a multitude. Will we lose access to SKY TV services?

listermint

blanch152 wrote: »

Services covers such a multitude. Will we lose access to SKY TV services?

Hopefully!, That way we might get cheaper services .

Would Sky like to lose access to the EU ? I somehow think they would have trouble keeping afloat without an EU market for their goods

ambro25

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The EU cannot sue the UK at the ICJ. The EU isn't a sovereign.

My apologies for the quick turn of phrase that caused you to reply as you did: naturally it would be Germany (and France, they've made the same noises) doing the suing (for people following the whole Brexit thing with any degree of assiduity, that's long been known).

A Little Pony

mountaintop wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Racism? Laughable. Nothing racist about it. It's about respecting democracy and what the people voted for as you would with any legitimate democratic vote.

Once, when they looked across the ruins of a war ravaged Europe, people had a dream of a time when the continent would find peace and prosperity, when people would live as one, when all could strive to be the best they could be, when Europe would lead the way in science and education as a combination of great talents and minds. Miraculously, this was achieved.  And  what do people the likes of Little Pony say? That they'd rather cut off  one of their legs than have anything to do with it. It is voices like his that that are the first to whisper into the ears of the dogs of  war.
 One can only shake their head in despair.

Utopia stuff. Europe is not a singular block. It has many different nationalities, traditions, cultures, certain countries with a strong self of belonging to a homestead. The Belgiums might not have that and many of the bureaucrats don't have a belonging but many of us do throughout Europe who disagree with the EU concept.

 Reading George Eliot and Bobby Sands writings is the formation of my views on this issue.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

Utopia stuff. Europe is not a singular block. It has many different nationalities, traditions, cultures, certain countries with a strong self of belonging to a homestead. The Belgiums might not have that and many of the bureaucrats don't have a belonging but many of us do throughout Europe who disagree with the EU concept.

 Reading George Eliot and Bobby Sands writings is the formation of my views on this issue.

You are northern Irish and Orange but dream of being English. Strong sense of belonging indeed.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Utopia stuff. Europe is not a singular block. It has many different nationalities, traditions, cultures, certain countries with a strong self of belonging to a homestead. The Belgiums might not have that and many of the bureaucrats don't have a belonging but many of us do throughout Europe who disagree with the EU concept.

 Reading George Eliot and Bobby Sands writings is the formation of my views on this issue.

You are northern Irish and Orange but dream of being English. Strong sense of belonging indeed.

Nothing wrong with wanting citizenship. You can't change what you are, no more than a cow can help being a cow or a horse being a horse.

Professor Moriarty

A Little Pony wrote: »

Utopia stuff. Europe is not a singular block. It has many different nationalities, traditions, cultures, certain countries with a strong self of belonging to a homestead. The Belgiums might not have that and many of the bureaucrats don't have a belonging but many of us do throughout Europe who disagree with the EU concept.

Reading George Eliot and Bobby Sands writings is the formation of my views on this issue.

Which of George Eliot's books have informed your opinions on the EU? How have these books informed your views on the EU?

Gmol

A Little Pony wrote: »

Nothing wrong with wanting citizenship. You can't change what you are, no more than a cow can help being a cow or a horse being a horse.

Just curious on how you think you personally will benefit from Brexit, how do you think it will pan out?

First Up

A Little Pony wrote:

Utopia stuff. Europe is not a singular block. It has many different nationalities, traditions, cultures, certain countries with a strong self of belonging to a homestead. The Belgiums might not have that and many of the bureaucrats don't have a belonging but many of us do throughout Europe who disagree with the EU concept.

Do you think French culture or identity has been weakened by membership of the EU? Or German? Or Italian or Spanish?

Your fears for the British (or English) identity surviving among others in Europe demonstrates nothing other than insecurity and (subconcious) inferiority.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

Nothing wrong with wanting citizenship. You can't change what you are, no more than a cow can help being a cow or a horse being a horse.

Who in the EU has asked that 'you change who you are'?
You have to profess to be British (swear an oath to the Queen) if you wish to take part in parliament.
You don't have to forsake your identity to take part in the EU.

blanch152

First Up wrote: »

Do you think French culture or identity has been weakened by membership of the EU? Or German? Or Italian or Spanish?

Your fears for the British (or English) identity surviving among others in Europe demonstrates nothing other than insecurity and (subconcious) inferiority.

It is paradoxical watching this debate when the two sides of the North switch position with the DUP Brexiteers needing the special protection of Brexit to preserve their identity and the republicans rubbishing that, when if the debate switched to the Irish Language Act and the republicans' plea for special protection, they would both adopt the opposite position.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

It is paradoxical watching this debate when the two sides of the North switch position with the DUP Brexiteers needing the special protection of Brexit to preserve their identity and the republicans rubbishing that, when if the debate switched to the Irish Language Act and the republicans' plea for special protection, they would both adopt the opposite position.

The DUP didn't have to Brexit to preserve their identity, it is enshrined in an international agreement and respected by everyone else. Their own insecurities led them to support Brexit and then when it suprised them that it passed to water down what they wanted and look for 'special recognitions'

Republicans are looking for equal rights (for everyone). Quite simple and different.

Capt'n Midnight

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, not to pick nits, but this week's 490 billion write-down is not the result of Brexit; it's just the recognition of an accounting stuff-up that would have had to have been recognised, Brexit or no Brexit.

It does mean that their financial and economic position is much more fragile than previously believed, however, and therefore they are less well-placed to deal with the stresses of Brexit than they thought.

It's down to two things, lack of inward investment and collapse in sterling.

Both were triggered by Brexit.

You can argue that the assets haven't changed.

But it's like arguing a house is still a house, and so it's just as valuable an asset. Any banker will set you straight on that if you go to re-mortgage it after the price has fallen 20%, hint - you won't be getting a preferential interest rate.

carrickbally

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Unfollow the thread and follow it again but click "No email notifications".

Thanks. I hope it is fixed.

Capt'n Midnight

blanch152 wrote: »

Services covers such a multitude. Will we lose access to SKY TV services?

Would this be the same SKY that used to be resident in Luxembourg for tax purposes ?

Don't worry them boys don't miss a trick.




*hugs* Freesat box.

mountaintop

A Little Pony wrote: »

Utopia stuff. Europe is not a singular block. It has many different nationalities, traditions, cultures, certain countries with a strong self of belonging to a homestead. The Belgiums might not have that and many of the bureaucrats don't have a belonging but many of us do throughout Europe who disagree with the EU concept.

Reading George Eliot and Bobby Sands writings is the formation of my views on this issue.

George Eliot and Bobby Sands? I'd like you to explain that one. As for all the rest, I won't try and convince you otherwise. But the founding fathers of Europe knew that countries that trade with each other don't go to war. It's obvious you'd be happy to return to the individualism of the nation state, and there are many people like you. The consequence of that, in time, is economic competition, nationalism and ultimately conflict. I'm not making that up. That's fact. I would have thought that a united Europe, despite its difficulties, would be better than that. But if you want to belong to, as you call it, a particular 'Homestead', then that's fine, go ahead. But if people like you get their way, Europe will unravel and return to the past. And then, when you see the ultimate consequences of what that means, what will you say, 'Sorry, I got that wrong'. Too late.

The Rape of Lucretia

murphaph wrote: »

Even on this thread there is a marked quietness from the few people prepared to defend Brexit as it becomes increasingly indefensible.

There being no true defence, its only in the interest of provoking some debate that some feel it incumbent upon themselves to bat for Brexit. soli deo gloria did some sterling work in that unfancied role for a while but time for a few others to take a turn or the thread will be dead. Willing to give it a go. So :




Britain must take back control - no true Englishman wants Slovenians, Latvians or Turks deciding its laws. Especially the Turks. Such an idea is clearly nonsense and the EEC went too far when it started letting in more than the original 9 that we were in 1973. Many of the people from those countries have never even set foot in the UK, so why should they have anything to do with making our laws ? British laws should be made in London, and I make no apology for thinking thus.
With the money we will save that is being squandered by fat French and German bureaucrats in Brussels on expense accounts, the trade deals we can make with countries all over the world without the deadweight of the EU, and being able to sell curved bananas again, we will be able to make Britain truly Great once more.

My advice - tell the EU to go whistle for its 'divorce settlement' (cant ever remember marrying Europe do you ?), and just pull out of the Brexit negotiations right now (we voted out - not to negotiate about being out!). Its just a time wasting tactic by the EU to keep us in as long as possible. Leave in the morning, screw a 'deal', and TAKE BACK CONTROL !

Beechwoodspark

murphaph wrote: »

Even on this thread there is a marked quietness from the few people prepared to defend Brexit as it becomes increasingly indefensible. The fact the UK appears to be half a trillion pounds poorer than was thought up to last week has perhaps put a bit of a dampener on the whole going over the Brexit top with your chums.

Even That "good morning!!!! Much thanks(?!)" dude seems to have realised the crock that Brexit is

ancapailldorcha

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Even That "good morning!!!! Much thanks(?!)" dude seems to have realised the crock that Brexit is

Please post a bit more constructively than this and cut out the sniping.

ancapailldorcha

Post deleted. Up the standard please.

A Little Pony

mountaintop wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Utopia stuff. Europe is not a singular block. It has many different nationalities, traditions, cultures, certain countries with a strong self of belonging to a homestead. The Belgiums might not have that and many of the bureaucrats don't have a belonging but many of us do throughout Europe who disagree with the EU concept.

Reading George Eliot and Bobby Sands writings is the formation of my views on this issue.

George Eliot and Bobby Sands? I'd like you to explain that one. As for all the rest, I won't try and convince you otherwise. But the founding fathers of Europe knew that countries that trade with each other don't go to war. It's obvious you'd be happy to return to the individualism of the nation state, and there are many people like you. The consequence of that, in time, is economic competition, nationalism and ultimately conflict. I'm not making that up. That's fact. I would have thought that a united Europe, despite its difficulties, would be better than that. But if you want to belong to, as you call it, a particular 'Homestead', then that's fine, go ahead. But if people like you get their way, Europe will unravel and return to the past. And then, when you see the ultimate consequences of what that means, what will you say, 'Sorry, I got that wrong'. Too late.

That is what I want, the people of the states ruling themselves, self governing it is called. Making our own laws, not part of the ECJ, control over borders. Being an independent nation. You are not going to get a nuclear war in Europe, certainly not involving  the UK with France or Germany. Mainly because we have the bomb and it's not in anyone's interests for that.

Sam Russell

A Little Pony wrote: »

That is what I want, the people of the states ruling themselves, self governing it is called. Making our own laws, not part of the ECJ, control over borders. Being an independent nation. You are not going to get a nuclear war in Europe, certainly not involving  the UK with France or Germany. Mainly because we have the bomb and it's not in anyone's interests for that.

You do know that David Davis took the UK to the ECJ and won.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/dec/21/eus-highest-court-delivers-blow-to-uk-snoopers-charter

So we have the chief negotiator to take the UK ut of the jurisdiction of the ECJ actually used the ECJ to put manners on the UK Gov who were riding roughshod over the rights of UK citizens.

He is also trying to remove the ECJ from oversight of the rights of EU citizens left in the UK after Brexit.

I think that is called hypocrisy.

First Up

A Little Pony wrote:

That is what I want, the people of the states ruling themselves, self governing it is called. Making our own laws, not part of the ECJ, control over borders. Being an independent nation.

Yes, we heard you already. I asked you before; are you against all cooperation between sovereign states or just when it happens in Europe?

A Little Pony

First Up wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote:

That is what I want, the people of the states ruling themselves, self governing it is called. Making our own laws, not part of the ECJ, control over borders. Being an independent nation.

Yes, we heard you already.  I asked you before;  are you against all cooperation between sovereign states or just when it happens in Europe?

Cooperation is fine. We worked together to stop Napoleon. No issue with working together outside the EU.

First Up

A Little Pony wrote:

Cooperation is fine. We worked together to stop Napoleon. No issue with working together outside the EU.

So what sort of cooperation do you approve of?

steddyeddy

A Little Pony wrote: »

Cooperation is fine. We worked together to stop Napoleon. No issue with working together outside the EU.

You don't realise but without being in the largest free market in the world, no not the UK, there's zero chance the economy would be as good as it is. To be fair it's not great now.

The UK subsidise NI 20 billion a year. We just found out the UK has a 490 billion hole in their finances. Do you really think the NI economy can lose agricultural grants, EU grants and access to the single market?

Professor Moriarty

steddyeddy wrote: »

You don't realise but without being in the largest free market in the world, no not the UK, there's zero chance the economy would be as good as it is. To be fair it's not great now.

The UK subsidise NI 20 billion a year. We just found out the UK has a 490 billion hole in their finances. Do you really think the NI economy can lose agricultural grants, EU grants and access to the single market?

You're talking to someone who stated that they would cut off their leg if it meant that Brexit would happen immediately, so I don't think pesky little matters like grants and the single market matter much to them.

Firblog

Sam Russell wrote: »

He is also trying to remove the ECJ from oversight of the rights of EU citizens left in the UK after Brexit.

I think that is called hypocrisy.

No that's called not wanting to discriminate and defending sovereignty , why should a European court have oversight of the rights of EU Citizens in the UK? Why should EU citizens be treated any differently to anyone else when UK leaves the EU? Can you imagine if the US wanted their courts to adjudicate on their citizens' rights in the EU?

I really cannot understand how anyone in the EU can believe that this is anything other than a red line for the UK; that their courts/laws - in an independent country - can be over ruled by a foreign court, whose laws the UK have no part in drafting.

steddyeddy

Firblog wrote: »

No that's called not wanting to discriminate and defending sovereignty , why should a European court have oversight of the rights of EU Citizens in the UK? Why should EU citizens be treated any differently to anyone else when UK leaves the EU? Can you imagine if the US wanted their courts to adjudicate on their citizens' rights in the EU?

I really cannot understand how anyone in the EU can believe that this is anything other than a red line for the UK; that their courts/laws - in an independent country - can be over ruled by a foreign court, whose laws the UK have no part in drafting.

The ECJ has the following responsibilities:

"It is the responsibility of the Court of Justice to ensure that the law is observed in the interpretation and application of the Treaties of the European Union and of the provisions laid down by the competent Community institutions"

In other words they, a collection of 28 judges from each member state deal with laws relating to membership of the EU. It relates to EU law, I.E the set of rules that the EU is bound by. It's not as simple as Brexiters make out, but then again what is?

steddyeddy

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You're talking to someone who stated that they would cut off their leg if it meant that Brexit would happen immediately, so I don't think pesky little matters like grants and the single market matter much to them.

True, but I don't know how unionists can vote for something that can weaken their union? This will do more damage to the North than the IRA did. I'm surprised Sinn Fein didn't campaign for it.