Brexit discussion thread II

demfad

Good read from Gina Miller on the murky undercurrents beneath Brexit:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/28/brexit-layers-allegations-opaque-funding-brexiters

kowtow

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't want to make it personal. But I see a lot of posters here putting a lot of thought into replies that won't sway you.

All I want is for the conversation to not be a "us vs. solodeogloria" thing. We're missing a lot of conversation about the broader picture by focusing on it. (maybe. perhaps you're right and you are the needed balance.)

In fairness to solo he does seem to have a pretty thankless task here.

It's an extremely tribal discussion, partly because the test to which any argument is put appears to be whether or not Brexit is a good idea, which looked at from Ireland - particularly at this point in the process - it doesn't seem to be.

Having said that it is a thread full of thoughtful contributions, and there is a lot to learn from those.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

So chlorine washing itself isn't an issue. In respect to animal welfare, Britain banned battery farming before others in the EU, and I'm sure it will be a matter of discussion in terms of how food is imported from other countries. I don't know why people are prematurely getting themselves anxious about a trading arrangement that has yet to be negotiated.

I see you have avoided the issue by stating what has happened in the past and not about what could happen in the future. Its good that the UK has been at the forefront for animal welfare in the past, but if they allow chlorinated chicken to be imported to the UK it means nothing to the now.

The issue with washing chicken in a chlorine wash is not about the chlorine wash itself but about the principle. Are you happy to know that the food that you will eat will have standards set at such a low level that the carcasses will need to be washed before they are safe for consumption?

Now granted the EU position may be precautionary and not based on actual evidence that washing a chicken in chlorine is unsafe, but I will take the safer approach when it comes to both the food we consume and animal welfare.

Another point, I don't know how many US products you can name that they produce that is wanted all over the world.

solodeogloria wrote: »

This article contains precious little detail about what the issues were.



From what you've cited we don't have much a clue about why the American boogeyman was so scary. If there was a detailed step by step analysis about what was wrong with TTIP apart from hyperbole about chlorine washed chicken I'd be pretty interested to read it.

The whole deal seems to have been done in a way too much secrecy. Why would you keep the documents hidden away and have to sign a NDA if you want to look at the documents related the deal? We also know that the US corporations would be able to challenge any new rules that the EU may put in to protect their consumers and that they would be able to sue EU governments if their profits would suffer due to these rules.

That is in the quote I posted, I am not sure if you read it or not. I find that a little disturbing that companies in the US could sue Germany if the EU has rules that protect their consumers but having those rules means they make less profits.

Under a proposal pushed by the EU our ability to make rules to protect society, health or the environment will be subjected to a unique new power for big business to challenge all rules before they are even in place – and to sue governments in a private justice system if any rules affect their profits.

kowtow

kowtow wrote: »

In fairness to solo he does seem to have a pretty thankless task here.

It's an extremely tribal discussion, partly because the test to which any argument is put appears to be whether or not Brexit is a good idea, which looked at from Ireland - particularly at this point in the process - it doesn't seem to be.

Having said that it is a thread full of thoughtful contributions, and there is a lot to learn from those.

I definitely agree, and I'm probably being too hard on solodeogloria. He's thoughtful and polite, in the face of determined opposition.

What I guess I was asking for was less focus on proving other posters wrong, and more focus on discussing the bigger picture.

Sorry again, solodeogloria.

kowtow

Enzokk wrote: »

I see you have avoided the issue by stating what has happened in the past and not about what could happen in the future. Its good that the UK has been at the forefront for animal welfare in the past, but if they allow chlorinated chicken to be imported to the UK it means nothing to the now.

The issue with washing chicken in a chlorine wash is not about the chlorine wash itself but about the principle. Are you happy to know that the food that you will eat will have standards set at such a low level that the carcasses will need to be washed before they are safe for consumption?

Now granted the EU position may be precautionary and not based on actual evidence that washing a chicken in chlorine is unsafe, but I will take the safer approach when it comes to both the food we consume and animal welfare.

There appears to be an assumption here that EU animal welfare standards are higher than those which the UK would adopt left to it's own devices. I'm not sure that is factually correct, and I will offer one important example which touches Ireland in particular.

The UK has come close - and at some points even succeeded temporarily - in banning the export of live animals on welfare grounds, pursuant to a debate which has gone on since after the second world war.

It has been frustrated in this by EU law, and I think I am right in saying a temporary high court ban in the UK was overturned using EU law.

Ireland - by contrast - is a huge proponent of live animal exports, particularly recently through Europe to markets like Algeria and Turkey which would be the focus of a lot of concern in terms of welfare standards at both reception and slaughter. There is considerable evidence that the EU protections in these countries are not being upheld.

I will confess to being conflicted here as I have from time to time sold calves for export. I've changed my farming system to prevent that in the future but I have to say that puts me in a tiny minority, and I well understand my fellow farmers dependence on the live trade.

I don't think it is fair though - on the evidence - to suggest that UK animal welfare standards would be lower, given the chance, than our own or those imposed by the EU. The facts in this area speak for themselves.

sully0182

Peregrinus wrote: »

VinLieger wrote: »

Why would the UK who are the ones pushing for a border in the first place for immigration reasons not police it effectively once implemented?

The UK proposal is that there will be no immigration border in Ireland, or between NI and GB.  They are committed to maintaining the Common Travel Area.

Is this even possible? (Genuine question)  In the case of a NI exiting the SM and CU, the border between Ireland and the north will become an EU/Non-EU border, meaning there needs to be a customs/immigration check. The same would logic would apply if you push the border out to the Irish sea (and NI stays in the CU/SM). I haven't heard a satisfactory explanation from any UK politician on how we'd get away with no borders at all.

Samaris

kowtow wrote: »

I don't think it is fair though - on the evidence - to suggest that UK animal welfare standards would be lower, given the chance, than our own or those imposed by the EU. The facts in this area speak for themselves.

I agree with the general premise of your view, but I'm not optimistic that this sort of Brexit under this particular set of chancers can work out well for the vast majority.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/18/brexit-british-business-leaders-legatum-eu

This lot have been cropping up. If they're the ones leading the Tory descent into wholesale delusion, the agricultural sector is going to be pressured out of existence. That won't help anyone, nor will what it will do to regulation in the sector before it collapses.

I don't know enough about the Legatum lot yet to decide if this is out of proportion or not. It's looks now like it isn't*, these guys are being brought in to meet with business leaders. That it is being very plausibly entertained and given influence is a bad sign for anything protecting farmers and their livestock.

It's not that Britain is inherently more likely to tolerate cruelty to animals or poor legislation regarding basic food and goods safety, it's more that does anyone really trust that power to this lot once they have the unique power to change what rules they like without oversight? Specifically without oversight, but they promise not to do anything dangerous with it. (There will be full debates on certain sectors that will need to be built from scratch, so that's some limit, but there's a lot of damage to do with a lack of forethought in the rest of the legal system.) And this when their regulatory systems come under intense foreign pressure from other governments where it is one of the few cards they can play to get trade deals. There will also be intense internal pressure from domestic (and multinational) industries influencing decisions about what to keep and what to change. That is an absolute minefield at the best of times and May's government are anything but the best of times. That they appear to be listening to a group run by a disaster capitalist who advocate feeding the agricultural sector to services is..not a good sign either.

*Despite a name out of a Dan Brown novel.

flaneur

kowtow wrote: »

There appears to be an assumption here that EU animal welfare standards are higher than those which the UK would adopt left to it's own devices. I'm not sure that is factually correct, and I will offer one important example which touches Ireland in particular.

The UK has come close - and at some points even succeeded temporarily - in banning the export of live animals on welfare grounds, pursuant to a debate which has gone on since after the second world war.

It has been frustrated in this by EU law, and I think I am right in saying a temporary high court ban in the UK was overturned using EU law.

Ireland - by contrast - is a huge proponent of live animal exports, particularly recently through Europe to markets like Algeria and Turkey which would be the focus of a lot of concern in terms of welfare standards at both reception and slaughter. There is considerable evidence that the EU protections in these countries are not being upheld.

I will confess to being conflicted here as I have from time to time sold calves for export. I've changed my farming system to prevent that in the future but I have to say that puts me in a tiny minority, and I well understand my fellow farmers dependence on the live trade.

I don't think it is fair though - on the evidence - to suggest that UK animal welfare standards would be lower, given the chance, than our own or those imposed by the EU. The facts in this area speak for themselves.

It very much depends on what trade deals the UK might sign with 3rd countries, notably the USA, parts of Latin America and also various parts of Asia. They may end up being forced into reducing standards because they won't have a lot of option.

They've a huge animal rights lobby in the UK, so I would say any attempt to drop welfare standards would be met with enormous resistance but, I wouldn't put anything past the current Tory Government.

I don't think it would be politically or socially acceptable in Britain though.

I actually foresee a situation where the UK will probably end up signing an agreement with the EU on food and agriculture as it just suits everyone.

The reality of importing food, particularly meats form far flung destinations is not going to be very palatable in the UK consumer market.

The issues you'll have more likelihood of the UK wanting to reduce standards on are more likely to be around things like financial services and perhaps environmental standards for industry or energy or even things like the waste water directive which they (and Ireland) are in very serious breech of.

Nody

sully0182 wrote: »

Is this even possible? (Genuine question)  In the case of a NI exiting the SM and CU, the border between Ireland and the north will become an EU/Non-EU border, meaning there needs to be a customs/immigration check. The same would logic would apply if you push the border out to the Irish sea (and NI stays in the CU/SM). I haven't heard a satisfactory explanation from any UK politician on how we'd get away with no borders at all.

Well as Peregrinus said earlier there's a difference between immigration border (people can cross free) and trade going over the border. There are two possibilities with a third being a fudged line:

1) EU gives UK full access to the CU in a FTA and in essence let UK eat the cake and keep it by giving them full access at zero cost to the market and compromising the four freedoms while trusting UK to follow all the rules without oversight.

2) NI becomes a special region in UK with it's own rules which in practice puts the border in the sea and forces all imports from UK to NI to comply with EU requirements.

3) Some hybrid of 1 & 2 in specific areas with EU oversight for NI production for example and allow the products to be shipped in as if they were in the EU CU but imports from UK would not be allowed. Main problem obviously being remarking UK imports as NI etc.

steddyeddy

Big news as Donald Tusk says that the EU will reject the UK's brexit demands if Ireland aren't happy with the border issue.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-donald-tusk-ireland-uk-offer-eu-britain-leo-varadkar-a8087556.html

Theresa May has been warned that the EU will block progress in the Brexit talks if the Irish Government decides that her proposals for the border with Northern Ireland are “unacceptable”.

The European Council President, Donald Tusk, effectively handed Dublin a veto over progressing the talks onto future trade next month – the Prime Minister’s priority in the negotiations.

“Let me say very clearly. If the UK offer is unacceptable for Ireland, it will also be unacceptable for the EU,” Mr Tusk said at a press conference alongside the Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar in Dublin.

Mr Varadkar said that while the “best option” to avoid a hard border in Ireland after Brexit – a major sticking point in the negotiations so far – would be for the UK to remain in the customs union, he recognised this is not Ms May’s desire.

sully0182

Nody;105439284
Well as Peregrinus said earlier there's a difference between immigration border (people can cross free) and trade going over the border. There are two possibilities with a third being a fudged line:

1) EU gives UK full access to the CU in a FTA and in essence let UK eat the cake and keep it by giving them full access at zero cost to the market and compromising the four freedoms while trusting UK to follow all the rules without oversight.

2) NI becomes a special region in UK with it's own rules which in practice puts the border in the sea and forces all imports from UK to NI to comply with EU requirements.

3) Some hybrid of 1 & 2 in specific areas with EU oversight for NI production for example and allow the products to be shipped in as if they were in the EU CU but imports from UK would not be allowed. Main problem obviously being remarking UK imports as NI etc.
Thanks, no.1 seems unlikely in my view considering the way the negotiations have been going so far from the EU side, No.2 sounds like there's a custom border between the GB and NI (I appreciate not technically the same as an immigration border - but tell Sammy Wilson that )

sully0182

sully0182 wrote: »

Nody;105439284
Well as Peregrinus said earlier there's a difference between immigration border (people can cross free) and trade going over the border. There are two possibilities with a third being a fudged line:

1) EU gives UK full access to the CU in a FTA and in essence let UK eat the cake and keep it by giving them full access at zero cost to the market and compromising the four freedoms while trusting UK to follow all the rules without oversight.

2) NI becomes a special region in UK with it's own rules which in practice puts the border in the sea and forces all imports from UK to NI to comply with EU requirements.

3) Some hybrid of 1 & 2 in specific areas with EU oversight for NI production for example and allow the products to be shipped in as if they were in the EU CU but imports from UK would not be allowed. Main problem obviously being remarking UK imports as NI etc.

Thanks, no.1 seems unlikely in my view considering the way the negotiations have been going so far from the EU side, No.2 sounds like there's a custom border between the GB and NI (I appreciate not technically the same as an immigration border - but tell Sammy Wilson that :))

Enzokk

kowtow wrote: »

There appears to be an assumption here that EU animal welfare standards are higher than those which the UK would adopt left to it's own devices. I'm not sure that is factually correct, and I will offer one important example which touches Ireland in particular.

The UK has come close - and at some points even succeeded temporarily - in banning the export of live animals on welfare grounds, pursuant to a debate which has gone on since after the second world war.

It has been frustrated in this by EU law, and I think I am right in saying a temporary high court ban in the UK was overturned using EU law.

Ireland - by contrast - is a huge proponent of live animal exports, particularly recently through Europe to markets like Algeria and Turkey which would be the focus of a lot of concern in terms of welfare standards at both reception and slaughter. There is considerable evidence that the EU protections in these countries are not being upheld.

I will confess to being conflicted here as I have from time to time sold calves for export. I've changed my farming system to prevent that in the future but I have to say that puts me in a tiny minority, and I well understand my fellow farmers dependence on the live trade.

I don't think it is fair though - on the evidence - to suggest that UK animal welfare standards would be lower, given the chance, than our own or those imposed by the EU. The facts in this area speak for themselves.

I am not saying the UK will on the day after Brexit all of a sudden allow welfare standards to drop. But if the US insists on allowing among others chlorinated chicken to be exported to the UK it will mean that UK suppliers will be on the back foot on costs against the imports. Now we can only speculate on what might happen, but if the choice is animal welfare and a lost sector in the UK I think I know which way it is likely to go.

So my contention is not that they will lower standards from day one, but if they hope for a trade deal with the US they may have to lower standards after a few years to help their farmers stay in business.

Mr.Nice Guy

Encouraging comments from Tusk. Let's hope they mean what they say and it's not just a bluff.

Kermit.de.frog

steddyeddy wrote: »

Big news as Donald Tusk says that the EU will reject the UK's brexit demands if Ireland aren't happy with the border issue.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-donald-tusk-ireland-uk-offer-eu-britain-leo-varadkar-a8087556.html

Daft but hilarious. They really did not think it all through.

J Mysterio

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Chatham House have produced a most useful "Tribes of Europe" quiz - eight questions in total, but six different "tribal options" in terms of attitudes to Europe. Personally, I'm a Contented European, but don't let that skew your results!

https://tribes.chathamhouse.org

Also Contented European.

MPFGLB

On the day of the Brexit vote I remember being on this forum and arguing alot with so many Irish keyboard troopers who were so anti EU.
I wonder what happened to those guys ...I never hear from them now on here


I also remember pointing out the NI would be the biggest stumbling block to Brexit and it could be detrimental to Ireland as a whole. I now think that maybe Brexit could be the biggest opportunity for the island of Ireland...If ireland could be deemed a special case imagine the industry and commenrce that could relocate to the border areas ...
Special flow between UK and Europe zone

If those idiots in the DUP could just wake up and smell the coffee ( and they are idiots the way they are going on...did that woman leader not sign away millions in NI taxpayers money ?- where do they get these people ? )
Ni has the opportunity to attract so many companies if it a special trading zone

As an aside to an earlier post people in the UK prefer animals to people hence the higher standards on animal welfare

Mr.Nice Guy

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Daft but hilarious. They really did not think it all through.

The Brexiteers aren't happy.

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/936652547879825409

https://twitter.com/ianpaisleymp/status/936645339519516672

Expect more anti-Irish sentiment to be on the way over the next few days.

kowtow

flaneur wrote: »

The reality of importing food, particularly meats form far flung destinations is not going to be very palatable in the UK consumer market.

The issues you'll have more likelihood of the UK wanting to reduce standards on are more likely to be around things like financial services and perhaps environmental standards for industry or energy or even things like the waste water directive which they (and Ireland) are in very serious breech of.

I think for food and farming it could in a sense go either way. The UK has actually developed quite a strong local (and sometimes organic) food ethic in recent years and that will thrive after Brexit. Michael Gove has taken a surprisingly new age view of agriculture, something which not all of his colleagues and not all farmers will necessarily be happy with. In his way he is actually quite a radical and intelligent man, but he's not a very political one, which will limit his chances of surviving.

It's difficult to judge financial services regulatory standards qualitatively - regulation tends to have attendant risks just as non-regulation does, the real problems occur when people rely on regulation and it turns out not to have protected them in the way they expected. Certainly the UK approach will not be the same as that of the EU, sans passporting etc.

On the question of corporate influence and more specifically Legatum, I don't give much credibility to the idea that the 'Brexiteers' are in any sense puppets, no matter who funded what.

I know - or at least knew, many years ago - one or two of them fairly well and if anything they are too intelligent and/or not pragmatic and political enough to do well in a 'normal' political environment. In a sense that is one of the reasons for the current Tory mayhem - the referendum led to an unlikely coalition of Ministers who lack any of the usual shared ambition for power - they are, in some part, there for a single issue. Strong principles and intelligence will only get you so far in Government - political nous and low cunning is needed, not only in Brussels but also in dealing with the Civil Service at home. Sir Humphrey is, and always has been, a great fan of the EU.

David Davis, I think, has some claim as a talented negotiator in the past but for one reason or another is long past his prime.

I generally admire politicians who are more principled than practiced, I think quite a big section of the UK electorate probably does as well - but that doesn't stop their opponents - whether in Westminster or in Brussels - making them look like idiots at every opportunity.

J Mysterio

kowtow wrote: »

There appears to be an assumption here that EU animal welfare standards are higher than those which the UK would adopt left to it's own devices. I'm not sure that is factually correct

The English are removing an element of EU law which considers animals to be sentient beings.

J Mysterio

Samaris wrote: »

I agree with the general premise of your view, but I'm not optimistic that this sort of Brexit under this particular set of chancers can work out well for the vast majority.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/18/brexit-british-business-leaders-legatum-eu

This lot have been cropping up. If they're the ones leading the Tory descent into wholesale delusion, the agricultural sector is going to be pressured out of existence. That won't help anyone, nor will what it will do to regulation in the sector before it collapses.

I don't know enough about the Legatum lot yet to decide if this is out of proportion or not. It's looks now like it isn't*, these guys are being brought in to meet with business leaders. That it is being very plausibly entertained and given influence is a bad sign for anything protecting farmers and their livestock.

Makes me think of Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine (an amazing book, very highly reccomended). It basically holds that government work with big business to take advantage of a stupified populace after shocking events (9/11, Hurricane Katrina etc.). This can be through garnering support for war, pushing legislation, or making land grabs and conducting dodgy deals.

J Mysterio

J Mysterio wrote: »

The English are removing an element of EU law which considers animals to be sentient beings.

How do the Scots and the Welsh feel about this?

J Mysterio

Aegir wrote: »

How do the Scots and the Welsh feel about this?

They are irrelevant! Hahaha

solodeogloria

J Mysterio wrote: »

The English are removing an element of EU law which considers animals to be sentient beings.

Good evening!

This doesn't seem to be exactly accurate.

What MP's voted against was an inclusion of a clause saying that animals are sentient beings into the EU Withdrawal Bill.

Domestic animals are covered under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and all EU standards would be converted into UK law under the process that the EU Withdrawal Bill provides for.

I agree by the by that the EU Withdrawal Bill is a bill regarding the process of leaving the European Union and providing for the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. It isn't a bill for all and sundry to be included in. There's other legislation for that.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Kermit.de.frog

This is an informal place.

You don't need to start your posts with "good evening" nor sign off with your username.

Sand

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Chatham House have produced a most useful "Tribes of Europe" quiz - eight questions in total, but six different "tribal options" in terms of attitudes to Europe. Personally, I'm a Contented European, but don't let that skew your results!

https://tribes.chathamhouse.org

72% Federalist, 69% frustrated pro-European which I recognise more.

One weakness in its logic (to my mind) is it seems to equate all immigration under one banner. Its possible to support freedom of movement within the EU whilst also opposing mass migration from outside the EU.

Deleted User wrote: »

I definitely agree, and I'm probably being too hard on solodeogloria. He's thoughtful and polite, in the face of determined opposition.

What I guess I was asking for was less focus on proving other posters wrong, and more focus on discussing the bigger picture.

Sorry again, solodeogloria.

I think you're being too hard on yourself. You were right the first time. A contrarian position, based entirely on assertions, 'feels', beliefs doesn't contribute much to a 'debate'. If anything it distracts it from more thoughtful posting. I agree that the thread is 50% one poster engaged by everyone else, but its an entirely one-way communication. If difficult posts and questions aren't entirely ignored (and they are), they are dismissed with no curiosity whatsoever. The posts are entirely circular and repetitive.

There is no development, refinement or adjustment of the view and Solo made it clear recently that he will never adjust his views on Brexit, under any circumstances. Its a matter of faith you might say.

There are proponents of Brexit who have a coherent view and are able to argue it. They have different values, and different priorities but they do weigh up costs and understand choices must be made and they recognise the EU is not being vindictive when it represents the interests of its members. They know they cannot have their cake and eat it. It would be very interesting to have contributions such proponents, but they're like unicorns, and usually attacked by both Remain and Brexit supporters.

FrancieBrady

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This is an informal place.

You don't need to start your posts with "good evening" nor sign off with your username.

Makes it really hard to navigate this thread on a phone. All your posts have a tendency to look the same and it's confusing on a small screen. I wish you would do us a favour and stop Solo. So many have asked at this stage.

solodeogloria

Sand wrote: »

I think you're being too hard on yourself. You were right the first time. A contrarian position, based entirely on assertions, 'feels', beliefs doesn't contribute much to a 'debate'. If anything it distracts it from more thoughtful posting. I agree that the thread if 50% one poster engaged by everyone else, but its an entirely one-way communication. If difficult posts and questions aren't entirely ignored (and they are), they are dismissed with no curiosity whatsoever. The posts are entirely circular and repetitive.

There is no development, refinement or adjustment of the view and Solo made it clear recently that he will never adjust his views on Brexit, under any circumstances. Its a matter of faith you might say.

There are proponents of Brexit who have a coherent view and are able to argue it. They have different values, and different priorities but they do weigh up costs and understand choices must be made and they recognise the EU is not being vindictive when it represents the interests of its members. They know they cannot have their cake and eat it. It would be very interesting to have contributions such proponents, but they're like unicorns, and usually attacked by both Remain and Brexit supporters.

Good evening!

Like me or lump me - I do think that the thread should be about discussing Brexit and not about discussing me.

Feel free to put my posts on ignore if you don't want to hear from me.

I do feel that there are some posters who only want to hear people like them though without any form of disagreement. They are welcome to that discussion, but I feel they are the poorer for it. Part of the outcome of the forum being located in Ireland is that people are concluded on their view of the EU as an all benevolent institution and really there's not much scope for disagreement leading to views like mine getting written off at face value.

Whereas in the UK itself there are significant numbers of leavers and remainers which leads to a more balanced discussion by nature.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

J Mysterio

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

This doesn't seem to be exactly accurate.

What MP's voted against was an inclusion of a clause saying that animals are sentient beings into the EU Withdrawal Bill.

Domestic animals are covered under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and all EU standards would be converted into UK law under the process that the EU Withdrawal Bill provides for.

I agree by the by that the EU Withdrawal Bill is a bill regarding the process of leaving the European Union and providing for the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. It isn't a bill for all and sundry to be included in. There's other legislation for that.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

What are you on about?

swampgas

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Chatham House have produced a most useful "Tribes of Europe" quiz - eight questions in total, but six different "tribal options" in terms of attitudes to Europe. Personally, I'm a Contented European, but don't let that skew your results!

https://tribes.chathamhouse.org

I'm a Federalist, apparently:

"Federalists support a deeply integrated ‘United States of Europe’. They are wealthier, older and disproportionately male. They feel the EU has benefited them and are mostly positive about immigration. They are on average the highest educated group, with strong and diverse social networks."

solodeogloria

J Mysterio wrote: »

What are you on about?

Good evening!

You claimed that the English wanted to remove a law which considers animals to be sentient beings. That isn't true. I explained why.

Edit: Predictably from the results.

EU Rejecters overwhelmingly feel the EU is undemocratic and has too much power. Rejecters are least likely to feel any benefits of EU membership or solidarity with other Europeans. Many feel angry about politics and the EU. Most feel negative about immigration and are socially conservative.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

J Mysterio

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

You claimed that the English wanted to remove a law which considers animals to be sentient beings. That isn't true. I explained why.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Are you for real? I said that the British are removing a law which consider animals a sentient being and you say 'no, they aren't removing it, they voted not to include it'. You must be taking the piss.

Sand

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Like me or lump me - I do think that the thread should be about discussing Brexit and not about discussing me.

Feel free to put my posts on ignore if you don't want to hear from me.

I do feel that there are some posters who only want to hear people like them though without any form of disagreement. They are welcome to that discussion, but I feel they are the poorer for it. Part of the outcome of the forum being located in Ireland is that people are concluded on their view of the EU as an all benevolent institution and really there's not much scope for disagreement leading to views like mine getting written off at face value.

Whereas in the UK itself there are significant numbers of leavers and remainers which leads to a more balanced discussion by nature.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I agree, it should be about discussing Brexit. Your posts don't help. 7 references to yourself, 4 thinks/feels plus more baseless assertions, zero facts, zero evidence. Oh, and lets not forget the personal post branding that you know irritates people and several posters have asked you to cut down on.

Anyway, I might as well be talking to the wall, so that'll be the end of it.

steddyeddy

Sand wrote: »

I agree, it should be about discussing Brexit. Your posts don't help. 7 references to yourself, 4 thinks/feels plus more baseless assertions, zero facts, zero evidence. Oh, and lets not forget the personal post branding that you know irritates people and several posters have asked you to cut down on.

Anyway, I might as well be talking to the wall, so that'll be the end of it.

I agree 100% Sand, but it's the people replying that are to blame. I have decent debates with real Brexit voters in my work who offer sincere positions. This isn't a real debate here.

solodeogloria

Sand wrote: »

I agree, it should be about discussing Brexit. Your posts don't help. 7 references to yourself, 4 thinks/feels plus more baseless assertions, zero facts, zero evidence. Oh, and lets not forget the personal post branding that you know irritates people and several posters have asked you to cut down on.

Anyway, I might as well be talking to the wall, so that'll be the end of it.

steddyeddy wrote: »

I agree 100% Sand, but it's the people replying that are to blame. I have decent debates with real Brexit voters in my work who offer sincere positions. This isn't a real debate here.

Good evening!

I'm entitled to begin and end my posts as I like.

I'm interested in discussing the ins and outs of Brexit. If you disagree with what I say that's fine but I'm entitled as you are to post here.

J Mysterio wrote: »

Are you for real? I said that the British are removing a law which consider animals a sentient being and you say 'no, they aren't removing it, they voted not to include it'. You must be taking the piss.

No I'm not "taking the piss". I'm informing you that MPs didn't vote not to consider animals sentient. All EU regulations will be British law in 2019 including that one. All MPs voted on was not to include an unnecessary amendment in a piece of process legislation.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

MBSnr

solodeogloria wrote: »

Whereas in the UK itself there are significant numbers of leavers and remainers which leads to a more balanced discussion by nature.

Ha ha! Not in my experience. Some of the UK forums appear to have reasoned logical posts by remainers, punctuated with ridiculous posts by leavers which have no basis in fact.... Ironically the Irish posters on the UK forums tend to post the most balanced and factual details. I'm actually surprised by their restraint in their replies to the most stupid suggestions or solutions 'posted' by many leavers, once they realise the poster is Irish...

Samaris

MBSnr wrote: »

Ha ha! Not in my experience. Some of the UK forums appear to have reasoned logical posts by remainers, punctuated with ridiculous posts by leavers which have no basis in fact.... Ironically the Irish posters on the UK forums tend to post the most balanced and factual details. I'm actually surprised by their restraint in their replies to the most stupid suggestions or solutions 'posted' by many leavers, once they realise the poster is Irish...

What forums are there? I'd be interested to read British opinion in some format that isn't comment sections.

embraer170

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I disagree that it is "impossible". There are two other cases with countries outside the customs union in Europe which have individual free trade deals with other countries where the border is open to general traffic. Norway has stopping points for trucks. Switzerland doesn't. There are other options to be looked at and they should be explored.

The UK will be expecting a movement in terms of access for goods and services and a movement in terms of controls in return for this €55bn. That's the reality. There will be increasing calls for no deal if this isn't delivered on.

The UK see this as money for access. The EU need to give assurances in this regard soon. Preferably the transition needs to be on the table in January.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Solo: I have asked you before but failed to get a reply. Switzerland is in Schengen and a signatory to the free movement of people (with some small exceptions).

Secondly, even if only 2% of traffic overall gets stopped for questions/searches, the number of trucks transits getting checked is no doubt higher than 2%.

Anyone crossing the Swiss/German border on a weekday on the Karlsruhe-Basel motorway (busiest border crossing in Switzerland) is likely to see queues of trucks. These can stretch for miles on the very bad days. The last few miles before the border on the German side are set up with a complex traffic management system that can close off one or two motorway lanes for queuing trucks.



Some of the smaller Switzerland/EU border crossing points are closed by barriers for all traffic at night. The number of these nighttime closures is actually increasing!


(If you read French: https://www.tdg.ch/geneve/grand-gene...tory/17761499)

Anything close to this would dramatically alter the lives of many people on the border with Northern Ireland so I really fail to see it as a model.

embraer170

The Swiss "model".

Here is a technical description of the 9km truck queuing system from the local road management authority:
https://www.svz-bw.de/vls_a5.html (in German)

The traffic control system Weil am Rhein was built due to the almost daily truck traffic jams. If there is no truck traffic jam, the functions of the route control system, such as speed specifications, warning of weather conditions and truck overtaking bans, are displayed.

(with Google translate)

For some idea of the scale of the facilities:
87 acres, 140 employees on the Swiss side and 145 employees on the German side.
https://www.srf.ch/news/regional/basel-baselland/neue-zollanlage-soll-lastwagenabfertigung-beschleunigen

swampgas

swampgas wrote: »

I'm a Federalist, apparently:

"Federalists support a deeply integrated ‘United States of Europe’. They are wealthier, older and disproportionately male. They feel the EU has benefited them and are mostly positive about immigration."

Otherwise known as the eu commission

MBSnr

Samaris wrote: »

What forums are there? I'd be interested to read British opinion in some format that isn't comment sections.

Not entirely sure what you mean by "comment sections" but a site that seems to deal mostly with UK politics and is, to me pretty, much evenly divided between Leavers and Remainers is https://forums.digitalspy.com/categories/politics

Some interesting reading, factual detail (esp regarding WTO trade etc from a poster called sangreal) and the odd laugh from the comments.

Plenty of Irish posters there that are giving an insight in to things Irish, especially a perspective on Brexit from another country.

Interestingly the Leavers have become far less active on there since Brexit started to unravel....

There are others in the UK which a google search will find, much like politics.ie, but seem rather dull in comparison...

solodeogloria

embraer170 wrote: »

The Swiss "model".

Here is a technical description of the 9km truck queuing system from the local road management authority:
https://www.svz-bw.de/vls_a5.html (in German)

(with Google translate)

For some idea of the scale of the facilities:
87 acres, 140 employees on the Swiss side and 145 employees on the German side.
https://www.srf.ch/news/regional/basel-baselland/neue-zollanlage-soll-lastwagenabfertigung-beschleunigen

Good evening!

I'm happy to accept I'm wrong on this. The source for my position was this article from the BBC reporting on the Northern Ireland Committee in parliament from the head of the Swiss customs service.

Only about 2% of consignments crossing the Swiss border have to be subject to physical checks, he said.
For bulk products like milk, which cross the border on a regular basis, he said it would be possible to have a system where traders make administrative returns on a monthly basis.
"You don't need a system where you stop every time at the border," said Dr Bock.

He said that only 2% of consignments needed to be stopped.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Jayop

Nail on head from that quiz with me...

Contented Europeans are optimistic and pro-European. They are often young, broadly socially liberal and generally positive about immigration. They feel that they benefit from the EU and feel well informed about how it works, but tend to favour the status quo to further integration.

Sam Russell

kowtow wrote: »

There appears to be an assumption here that EU animal welfare standards are higher than those which the UK would adopt left to it's own devices. I'm not sure that is factually correct, and I will offer one important example which touches Ireland in particular.

The UK has come close - and at some points even succeeded temporarily - in banning the export of live animals on welfare grounds, pursuant to a debate which has gone on since after the second world war.

It has been frustrated in this by EU law, and I think I am right in saying a temporary high court ban in the UK was overturned using EU law.

Ireland - by contrast - is a huge proponent of live animal exports, particularly recently through Europe to markets like Algeria and Turkey which would be the focus of a lot of concern in terms of welfare standards at both reception and slaughter. There is considerable evidence that the EU protections in these countries are not being upheld.

I will confess to being conflicted here as I have from time to time sold calves for export. I've changed my farming system to prevent that in the future but I have to say that puts me in a tiny minority, and I well understand my fellow farmers dependence on the live trade.

I don't think it is fair though - on the evidence - to suggest that UK animal welfare standards would be lower, given the chance, than our own or those imposed by the EU. The facts in this area speak for themselves.

Of course the UK are great on animal welfare.

Well they are if you do not care about BSE. This was introduced to the world by the UK farming system of feeding animal protein to herbivores (cows), so causing BSE, which becomes Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease.

If that wasn't enough, they fed food waste, improperly treated, to pigs and gave rise to an extensive outbreak of foot and mouth, which despite our best efforts, endeded up in this country.

I am sure that there are many other examples of animal husbandry that might cause us concern.

steddyeddy

Donald Tusk's visit to Dublin this week was illuminating. He made this statement in Dublin which I think sums up how stupid the DUP backing Brexit really is:

Mr Tusk was speaking after talks with the Irish prime minister in Dublin on Friday.

He said: "The UK's future lies - in some ways - in Dublin".

Thargor

Can a mod give an opinion on stopping the user solodeogloria from starting every post with that incredibly irritating and passive aggressive "Good Morning!" and signing off every post with "Much Thanks" and his name? Multiple users have complained about it at this stage and its obvious he's doing it deliberately to irritate people. Can I copy and paste a stupid phrase at the beginning and end of every one of my posts that people are forced to read over and over again?

Thargor

steddyeddy wrote: »

Donald Tusk's visit to Dublin this week was illuminating. He made this statement in Dublin which I think sums up how stupid the DUP backing Brexit really is:

Mr Tusk was speaking after talks with the Irish prime minister in Dublin on Friday.

He said: "The UK's future lies - in some ways - in Dublin".

Im lovng this turn of events tbh, rubbing Paisley Jrs face in it

Leroy42

It doesn't bother me. Its just noise which I simply scan past.

If it makes him happy then I'm fine with it.

Are people really complaining that a poster is being too polite?

Jaggo

Sand wrote: »

There are proponents of Brexit who have a coherent view and are able to argue it. They have different values, and different priorities but they do weigh up costs and understand choices must be made and they recognise the EU is not being vindictive when it represents the interests of its members. They know they cannot have their cake and eat it. It would be very interesting to have contributions such proponents, but they're like unicorns, and usually attacked by both Remain and Brexit supporters.

I think my issue with most brexiteers' views tends to centre around one point: how much does the membership of the EU and Single Market benefit its member countries. I tend to think that it is massively under recognised in the peoples thinking (not just brexiteers).

The more I look at Brexit related elements during study and work, the more I realised that the benefits of EU are ingrained into how we work but also ingrained into how we think things should work. Activities such as transferring funds, imports, exports, borders, holidays, recognition of education qualifications, standards in medical drugs etc. have all become easier and become common place. Hence they are not recognised as important as they actually are. I think Barnier pointed this out some time ago - "Britain needs to be taught" speech. I think he is absolutely right.

So what tends to happen is that people are discussing the same problem but from entirely different viewpoints. One group of people will be getting a difficult lesson soon.

Jayop

Leroy42 wrote: »

It doesn't bother me. Its just noise which I simply scan past.

If it makes him happy then I'm fine with it.

Are people really complaining that a poster is being too polite?

It's not polite. It would be polite in an email or a letter but on this format of discussion it's a pain the the hole and completely unnecessary. To keep going with it despite being asked to stop is also rude.