Brexit discussion thread II

Nate--IRL--

It doesn't seem to matter as much, chatter now is the UK as a whole will retain regulatory convergence with the EU.

Nate

mickoneill31

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I've not really heard a good explanation so far as to why a sea border is a good option for the Republic in any case. It definitely isn't a good option for Northern Ireland with most trade by far going to the UK.

I'm going to be interested to see what's concluded in any case. I'm not fully convinced by the binary logic of sea border versus land border either admittedly.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

No border is a good option for Ireland. But we are where we are.

We have three choices.
No border.
Land border.
Sea border.

Now we have to make the best of a crap situation. If there was a real choice we'd have no border between these two islands. Just we can't figure out how to do that with all of the British Red lines.

Neither are a good option for the north either. But we have to worry about Ireland first.

The best the British have come up with is a requirement for imaginative thinking. And apparently it's up to the eu to do the thinking.

Akrasia

mickoneill31 wrote: »

No border is a good option for Ireland. But we are where we are.

We have three choices.
No border.
Land border.
Sea border

It's actually
No border
Sea border only
Land border and Sea Border

from the republics perspective.

Dont be at yourself

It's also incredibly myopic to suggest that the only reason we're lobbying for no border is because of trade. Do people really have such short memories?

Panrich

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I've not really heard a good explanation so far as to why a sea border is a good option for the Republic in any case. It definitely isn't a good option for Northern Ireland with most trade by far going to the UK.

I'm going to be interested to see what's concluded in any case. I'm not fully convinced by the binary logic of sea border versus land border either admittedly.

Edit: on a more humorous note maybe the UK can keep its Doner kebabs! :pac:

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

We were always going to be hit badly as collateral damage in this great folly. The fact that we’d be responsible for maintaining a border with so many crossings and the associated cost of manning it effectively adds insult to the injury. If we can avoid that scenario, it moves the headache to more manageable on our side as well as maintaining cross border cooperation.

solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The advantage of having solo in the thread is that he is closely mimicking the Brexit wing of the Tory party. I don't know why he is doing that, but you can see him quoting the talking points - the settlement is payment for access, no deal is better than a bad deal etc. etc.

These points are, on the face of it, rank lunacy of the most bizarre kind, things that no Leave campaigner dared to say before the referendum, but now perhaps half the UK Government party is pushing them.

Without solo's script-reading, we would not be exposed here to the mad thinking of the Brexiteers at all.

And no, I am not suggesting that solo is mad or a Tory backbencher. He is simply reading from their talking points for some reason of his own, whether that is contrarianism, the zeal of the convert, or one of demfad's favourite explanations.

Good morning!

I simply agree that the UK should get on with leaving and get it over with. There's obvious opportunity outside if it is done rightly. I'm keen to make sure that Brexit is done in the right way which is why I prefer a negotiated agreement to no deal. There's nothing "mad" about seeing advantages in leaving the EU and seeing disadvantages in remaining in a bloc with ambitions to take more and more and more control from member states. Juncker's State of the Union address was a big wake up call in that regard. When I voted remain in 2016, I wasn't voting for the status quo like I thought I was.

I'm not mimicking anything that I don't hold to myself. On the payment a trade off for trade terms, this is how it is widely seen in Britain. I appreciate that the European Commission may have a different view, but the UK isn't agreeing this without seeking to get anything out of it. On the principle of nothing is agreed until everything is agreed we have some way to go before payments will be made. And it is simply obvious that no deal is better than a bad one.

I'm happy to admit that I've voted Conservative in the last two general elections. I've wavered in London Assembly, local council and mayoral elections. (voted for Khan last time but Johnson before that, and Liberal Democrat for London Assembly) It seems that this may be a hangable offence on this forum :pac:

As for demfad's idea that I might be a Kremlin agent (is that what he's claiming? :pac:), one of the moderators can see that I've been based in the UK pretty much continually apart from the odd holiday.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I've not really heard a good explanation so far as to why a sea border is a good option for the Republic in any case. It definitely isn't a good option for Northern Ireland with most trade by far going to the UK.

I'm going to be interested to see what's concluded in any case. I'm not fully convinced by the binary logic of sea border versus land border either admittedly.

Seriously? The advantage of a sea border is that it avoids a land border.

A land border inflicts signficant harm on both sides of the border - economic, social, political. A sea border avoids all that.

A sea border isn't the only way to avoid that. It could equally be avoided by the UK not Brexiting, or by the UK remaining the single market and the customs union, or even by the UK retaining substantial regulatory equivalence with the EU, and making a good trade deal. So the reason a sea border comes up as an idea is that it protects the Republic and, to some extent, NI from (much of) the harm that would result from a land border, while allowing the UK substantially to achieve its objectives with respect to leaving the single market, etc, at least as regards GB. It's not a perfect solution but, then, compromises never are.

You're correct that NI/GB trade will be hampered but, unfortunately, once you rule out UK single market/customs union membership there is no model of Brexit which does not inflict significant harm on NI; the UK have obviously decided that that's a price they are prepared for NI to pay.

Panrich

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I simply agree that the UK should get on with leaving and get it over with. There's obvious opportunity outside if it is done rightly. I'm keen to make sure that Brexit is done in the right way which is why I prefer a negotiated agreement to no deal. There's nothing "mad" about seeing advantages in leaving the EU and seeing disadvantages in remaining in a bloc with ambitions to take more and more and more control from member states. Juncker's State of the Union address was a big wake up call in that regard. When I voted remain in 2016, I wasn't voting for the status quo like I thought I was.

I'm not mimicking anything that I don't hold to myself. On the payment a trade off for trade terms, this is how it is widely seen in Britain. I appreciate that the European Commission may have a different view, but the UK isn't agreeing this without seeking to get anything out of it. On the principle of nothing is agreed until everything is agreed we have some way to go before payments will be made. And it is simply obvious that no deal is better than a bad one.

I'm happy to admit that I've voted Conservative in the last two general elections. I've wavered in London Assembly, local council and mayoral elections. (voted for Khan last time but Johnson before that, and Liberal Democrat for London Assembly) It seems that this may be a hangable offence on this forum :pac:

As for demfad's idea that I might be a Kremlin agent (is that what he's claiming? :pac:), one of the moderators can see that I've been based in the UK pretty much continually apart from the odd holiday.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

As a conservative voter you might be familiar with this article so that shows the Brexit fantasy as laid out by your chief negotiator in the aftermath of the referendum.

As one of the comments afterwards points out, it has not aged well.

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/07/david-davis-trade-deals-tax-cuts-and-taking-time-before-triggering-article-50-a-brexit-economic-strategy-for-britain.html

This is now the time where reality is finally hitting and the innocently optimistic and simplistic mindset that is portrayed in that article and continues in your postings is increasingly at odds with the Brexit reality.

mickoneill31

Akrasia wrote: »

It's actually
No border
Sea border only
Land border and Sea Border

from the republics perspective.

Ha, you're right. I hadn't thought about that one.
And there's another option

Sea Border only + NI stays in the SM (not a likely option but an option nonetheless)

Like every part of Brexit when you get into the weeds you see this is a cluster****.

solodeogloria

Panrich wrote: »

As a conservative voter you might be familiar with this article so that shows the Brexit fantasy as laid out by your chief negotiator in the aftermath of the referendum.

As one of the comments afterwards points out, it has not aged well.

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/07/david-davis-trade-deals-tax-cuts-and-taking-time-before-triggering-article-50-a-brexit-economic-strategy-for-britain.html

This is now the time where reality is finally hitting and the innocently optimistic and simplistic mindset that is portrayed in that article and continues in your postings is increasingly at odds with the Brexit reality.

Good morning!

I don't see how this is a reply to what I've said really, but look let's say that the negotiation is tough, and let's say there is a price to pay. Are you proposing that the UK should bottle Brexit and ignore the electorate? (This is an option I can't accept because I respect democracy and democratic outcomes)

I agree that there is a price to pay. It seems that there is a trade off in terms of this and the amount of control that the UK regains. I think it's still better to try regain as much control as possible. Brexit was a vote about making decisions that affect the UK in Westminster, and not in Brussels.

I've got no doubt that this price will be worth it as the UK is able to take control of trade policy, and other areas.

I agree also, that the best policy for the short term would be to stay in the single market and customs union, but Brexit isn't a decision about the short term. It is a decision about the long term. That's why I think taking back as much control now for the long term in areas such as global trade is better than a myopic form of short termism which is what I think the calls to single market and customs union membership actually are.

If I hold to that as being a priority - there are two options.
A negotiated deal with the European Union versus no deal.

I've said previously that my preferred option isn't the easiest option, but it is the right option because it delivers on the referendum result with integrity rather than selling out.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm not mimicking anything that I don't hold to myself. On the payment a trade off for trade terms, this is how it is widely seen in Britain. I appreciate that the European Commission may have a different view, but the UK isn't agreeing this without seeking to get anything out of it. On the principle of nothing is agreed until everything is agreed we have some way to go before payments will be made. And it is simply obvious that no deal is better than a bad one.

It would help if you could stop with the platitudes that the Conservatives have tried to establish. I don't know if you have answered before but what is a bad deal? The only bad deal I can see is something akin to EEA membership and in the eyes of those that want a complete break and "taking back control" this would be a bad deal for them. For the UK economy, well that is up for debate.

Also it really doesn't matter how the UK wants to see the divorce payment, but they have already confirmed that they will pay for what they committed to. This is the divorce payment, it is not payment for access. The UK can agree the divorce bill and leave without a deal tomorrow and there is no obligation from the EU to give the UK anything as they haven't "paid" for anything yet. They seem to have only agreed the amounts that they have agreed to pay. It is not a payment for a trade deal and it will not be seen by the EU as that.

The UK cannot agree to the method of calculating what is owed and then under the, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, decide not to pay. That is why the EU wanted to talk about method and not amounts. Because the UK have already agreed to pay what they owe, if they agree to the method they have to pay unless they are all liars and crooks and should not be trusted for anything.

Panrich

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't see how this is a reply to what I've said really, but look let's say that the negotiation is tough, and let's say there is a price to pay. Are you proposing that the UK should bottle Brexit and ignore the electorate? (This is an option I can't accept because I respect democracy and democratic outcomes)

I agree that there is a price to pay. It seems that there is a trade off in terms of this and the amount of control that the UK regains. I think it's still better to try regain as much control as possible. Brexit was a vote about making decisions that affect the UK in Westminster, and not in Brussels.

I've got no doubt that this price will be worth it as the UK is able to take control of trade policy, and other areas.

I agree also, that the best policy for the short term would be to stay in the single market and customs union, but Brexit isn't a decision about the short term. It is a decision about the long term. That's why I think taking back as much control now for the long term in areas such as global trade is better than a myopic form of short termism which is what I think the calls to single market and customs union membership actually are.

If I hold to that as being a priority - there are two options.
A negotiated deal with the European Union versus no deal.

I've said previously that my preferred option isn't the easiest option, but it is the right option because it delivers on the referendum result with integrity rather than selling out.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I have no doubt about your sincerity that you feel the economic price that The UK looks likely to pay is worth the independence that will come from that.

Your postings on here defending the vote are testament to an invested mindset.

The price will be high though. The EU are going to insert punitive punishment clauses if negotiations ever reach phase 2.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/01/brussels-punishment-clause-uk-trade-deal-regulatory-standards-brexit

If these negotiations were a boxing match the referee would have stopped the contest already to avoid further punishment. The incompetence on the UK side hamstrung by red lines and bravado is going to cause lasting damage.

First Up

Thargor wrote:

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?

Just hit Ignore.

Leroy42

Solo, you mentioned obvious opputunity from Brexit.

Can you name some of them as I can't think of any beyond taking back control.

Agent J

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't see how this is a reply to what I've said really, but look let's say that the negotiation is tough, and let's say there is a price to pay. Are you proposing that the UK should bottle Brexit and ignore the electorate? (This is an option I can't accept because I respect democracy and democratic outcomes)

I love this response. I'm not going to bother with the rest because it's bunk that project reality (formerly known as fear) is already playing out in real time.

Britain is a parliamentary democracy with no written constitution. They don't have a lot of experience in referendums. The referendum was an advisory one with no automatic action (Say unlike the Scottish independence one) as a result. This was intentional. It was literally a glorified opinion poll.

Problem is May has treated the referendum as binding and Article 50 as advisory. The reality is that is the other way around and now the clock is ticking.

There was no need for May to put down her silly red lines over customs union, single market and ECJ. None of that was in the referendum was it? None of those are exclusively EU. In fact pretty much all prominent leavers are on record as saying they wanted to stay in the single market. Now their have cake and eat it strategy is blowing up in their faces.

So if you respect democracy so much then surely you should be up in arms about May hijacking a non binding advisory referendum for issues which were not asked?

solodeogloria

Panrich wrote: »

I have no doubt about your sincerity that you feel the economic price that The UK looks likely to pay is worth the independence that will come from that.

Your postings on here defending the vote are testament to an invested mindset.

The price will be high though. The EU are going to insert punitive punishment clauses if negotiations ever reach phase 2.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/01/brussels-punishment-clause-uk-trade-deal-regulatory-standards-brexit

If these negotiations were a boxing match the referee would have stopped the contest already to avoid further punishment. The incompetence on the UK side hamstrung by red lines and bravado is going to cause lasting damage.

Good morning!

Let's see what gets agreed in the end state. From reading the article tariffs would be bounded by WTO regulations if this punishment clause was agreed.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the UK standing up for its own interests. It is important to have red lines to ensure that the Prime Minister doesn't just hand over the crown jewels and the keys to Buckingham Palace. They are also important to ensure that the broad verdict of the referendum result is delivered.

Repeating that "the price will be high" isn't really helpful in making a case against seeking a deal that is in Britain's best long term interests over short termism. The reason why I support the negotiated free trade agreement option isn't rooted in "bravado". It's rooted in a desire to get the best arrangement with the best possible future scope for the UK.

You say I have an "invested mindset". Yes, but only in getting the best deal that will be as relevant in 50 years time as it is today.

Leroy42: Please read back over previous posts where I've highlighted the potential that the UK has in securing free trade arrangements. I've mentioned this dozens of times on this thread. I think it's best that I don't repeat myself ad-nauseum. I'd also recommend not repeating questions that I've already answered. This avoids repetition, and I'll be the one who is blamed for it on the thread.

Agent J: My position on both the "advisory referendum" on this thread has been clear. As has my position in respect to how the referendum result (and the campaign that got it over the line) requires the UK to leave the single market and customs union are clear. Please read my previous posts.

People have said I've been repetitive on this thread, and to a degree that is true. Largely because I've been asked questions I've already answered.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Call me Al

But solo your country already has a FTA. As part of the EU. One of the most profitable agreements available.
And your government is pinning its hopes on getting a good FTA with US&China, where it's the weaker party so unlikely to get a favourable result.

solodeogloria

Call me Al wrote: »

But solo your country already has a FTA. As part of the EU. One of the most profitable agreements available.
And your government is pinning its hopes on getting a good FTA with US&China, where it's the weaker party so unlikely to get a favourable result.

Good morning!

I'll be brief here because I've touched on these issues before on this thread.

I would agree if the terms of single market membership weren't so restrictive (give up control of immigration, and giving up control of trade policy amongst others). The EU requires too much divestment of sovereignty, that's why the people voted against it. Brexit is in part about finding a more appropriate relationship with the EU.

Taking back control over these areas will allow for key decisions about the UK to be made in the UK as opposed to being made in Brussels.

I don't believe that the UK is a "weak party" or that it doesn't have anything to offer other countries. I posted why yesterday.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Call me Al

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'll be brief here because I've touched on these issues before on this thread.

I would agree if the terms of single market membership weren't so restrictive (give up control of immigration, and giving up control of trade policy amongst others). The EU requires too much divestment of sovereignty, that's why the people voted against it. Brexit is in part about finding a more appropriate relationship with the EU.

Taking back control over these areas will allow for key decisions about the UK to be made in the UK as opposed to being made in Brussels.

I don't believe that the UK is a "weak party" or that it doesn't have anything to offer other countries. I posted why yesterday.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I called it the weaker party.. a distinct difference.

Eta A look at the Ngaire Woods YouTube clip that was linked here earlier should give any brexit supporter an idea as to how things are likely to evolve for medium term.

Leonard Hofstadter

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

It's also incredibly myopic to suggest that the only reason we're lobbying for no border is because of trade. Do people really have such short memories?

That's exactly the reason I'm utterly opposed to a land border.

If a border didn't work in the 70s and 80s why would it work now?

Do we really want to go back to the days of the IRA and the kind of UK-Irish relations we had then?

I certainly don't, I want us to continue to build on the progress that was being made before Brexit and where we had the best of both worlds, better relations with the UK but no border between North and South. I don't want to see the relative normalisation of Northern Ireland being undone because of a few lunatic Brexiteers or the DUP - who only have 30% of the vote in the North anyway.

MBSnr

solodeogloria wrote: »

And it is simply obvious that no deal is better than a bad one.

No it's not. That's just repeating the empty Tory rhetoric back to this forum. Say Brexit means Brexit and we're having a Red,white and Blue Brexit and we've nearly got the whole set. Someone shout Bingo...!

A No deal could be actually worse than a bad deal. Look at it this way. You want to buy a car. There's a good deal, a slightly worse deal, a bad deal or you have no car.
You desperately need a car.
Which is the worse option? That's right - no car.

Leroy42

With all due respect Solo, you really haven't given the obvious opportunities.

What you have given is possible scenarios based on everything working out perfectly and not actually given any details of what this actually are and what the likely costs associated with them (for example trade deal with India will likely require increased immigration)

You have used terms like increased trade, take back control, return of sovereignty. You have consistently said that the short/medium term costs are worth it. But you haven't been able to give any actual details of what these are?

I would have thought that after so long into the debate (including the lead up to and the aftermath of the ref) that these would be pretty well known. Of course you will come back and say that it is not possible to state with certainty, but doesn't that call into question you statement of obvious opportunity?

solodeogloria

MBSnr wrote: »

No it's not. That's just repeating the empty Tory rhetoric back to this forum. Say Brexit means Brexit and we're having a Red,white and Blue Brexit and we've nearly got the whole set. Someone shout Bingo...!

A No deal could be actually worse than a bad deal. Look at it this way. You want to buy a car. There's a good deal, a slightly worse deal, a bad deal or you have no car.
You desperately need a car.
Which is the worse option? That's right - no car.

Good morning!

In a lot of scenarios you'd be better off without the car.

For example if it's so old that it's falling apart or will cost an unaffordable amount to repair. Or indeed if the repair costs exceeds the value of the car or the economic benefit of having a car.

Another example is the fairly gruelling process of buying a house. If your surveyor comes back and says the house is at risk of subsidence or that the roof is going to cave in with a huge sum to pay for repairing it you'll probably end up looking somewhere else.

The idea that any deal is better than no deal in this and in all scenarios is obviously daft. The car dealership scenario should surely tell you this.

There are of course deals which are worse than no deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

MBSnr

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

In a lot of scenarios you'd be better off without the car.

For example if it's so old that it's falling apart or will cost an unaffordable amount to repair. Or indeed if the repair costs exceeds the value of the car or the economic benefit of having a car.

Another example is the fairly gruelling process of buying a house. If your surveyor comes back and says the house is at risk of subsidence or that the roof is going to cave in with a huge sum to pay for repairing it you'll probably end up looking somewhere else.

The idea that any deal is better than no deal in this and in all scenarios is obviously daft. The car dealership scenario should steely tell you this.

There are of course deals which are worse than no deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Yes but you're basing your analogy on there being many houses and cars for sale. There's just one. The BIB. You still need a house right, but it's the only one on the market. You'll be back to buy it. You still need a car. The bad car deal is the only one for sale...

It's a good bet the UK will capitulate and they'll take a deal. They have at all points up to now as reality bites...

Really Interested

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

In a lot of scenarios you'd be better off without the car.

For example if it's so old that it's falling apart or will cost an unaffordable amount to repair. Or indeed if the repair costs exceeds the value of the car or the economic benefit of having a car.

Another example is the fairly gruelling process of buying a house. If your surveyor comes back and says the house is at risk of subsidence or that the roof is going to cave in with a huge sum to pay for repairing it you'll probably end up looking somewhere else.

The idea that any deal is better than no deal in this and in all scenarios is obviously daft. The car dealership scenario should surely tell you this.

There are of course deals which are worse than no deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Give your example to a homeless family a house is a house. For the person on the lookout to buy a new home yes no deal is better than buying a bad house, another better house is around the corner. No deal with EU is exactly that no deal. Yes the UK might decide that no deal is better than the deal on offer. But that is the situation the UK may have a really bad deal or a really bad no deal. Your only answer is that’s what they voted for so they must go ahead with it. That is beyond stupid. Name one person who voted for out happy that it may lead to a really bad situation.

solodeogloria

MBSnr wrote: »

Yes but you're basing your analogy on there being many houses and cars for sale. There's just one. The BIB. You still need a house right, but it's the only one on the market. You'll be back to buy it. You still need a car. The bad car deal is the only one for sale...

It's a good bet the UK will capitulate and they'll take a deal. They have at all points up to now as reality bites...

Good afternoon!

If the cost of maintaining the car is more than I could afford given my job I still would say that no deal is better than a bad deal on the car.

The same with the house if the roof was likely to cave in.

I disagree with the assumption that the UK couldn't survive without a deal. This isn't true. It could but it isn't preferable. That's where our disagreement comes from.

This means that a deal is definitely ideal. It is what the UK should be aiming for without a doubt. But there are possible deals that aren't worth taking. Of course there are. The UK isn't going to accept a deal come what may in the same way as I would say no deal to a car that would empty my bank account.

I'm optimistic about a good deal being negotiated but the Tories aren't wrong to say no deal is better than a bad one. That's obviously true.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Call me Al

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

If the cost of maintaining the car is more than I could afford given my job I still would say that no deal is better than a bad deal on the car.

The same with the house if the roof was likely to cave in.

I disagree with the assumption that the UK couldn't survive without a deal. This isn't true. It could but it isn't preferable. That's where our disagreement comes from.

This means that a deal is definitely ideal. It is what the UK should be aiming for without a doubt. But there are possible deals that aren't worth taking. Of course there are. The UK isn't going to accept a deal come what may in the same way as I would say no deal to a car that would empty my bank account.

I'm optimistic about a good deal being negotiated but the Tories aren't wrong to say no deal is better than a bad one. That's obviously true.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So you think a no deal situation won't, as you phrase it, empty your bank account?

steddyeddy

MBSnr wrote: »

No it's not. That's just repeating the empty Tory rhetoric back to this forum. Say Brexit means Brexit and we're having a Red,white and Blue Brexit and we've nearly got the whole set. Someone shout Bingo...!

A No deal could be actually worse than a bad deal. Look at it this way. You want to buy a car. There's a good deal, a slightly worse deal, a bad deal or you have no car.
You desperately need a car.
Which is the worse option? That's right - no car.

M you're the worse for replying. A no deal is the way to go IMHO. It will hurt Ireland but also convince Britain that Brexit isn't a good thing.

Harika

Akrasia wrote: »

It's actually
No border
Sea border only
Land border and Sea Border

from the republics perspective.

How about a referendum in northern Ireland to verify what they want? That should clarify that although it is political dangerous and some involved parties might not like the will of the people.

solodeogloria

Call me Al wrote: »

So you think a no deal situation won't, as you phrase it, empty your bank account?

Good afternoon!

Of course it wouldn't. This is the type of unquestioned dogma that doesn't get challenged on this thread. Along with the idea that the UK needs to accept a deal at any cost.

No deal would mean a lot of restrictions on trade into the EU in respect to goods and services but a lot would still continue. Trade with many non-EU countries would continue in much the same way.

So of course the UK wants a deal, but to say there's no deal that is a worse outcome than no agreement is wrong.

Nobody wants a no deal scenario or a bad deal because it isn't good but the UK could still weather it particularly with state assistance.

Edit:

steddyeddy wrote: »

M you're the worse for replying. A no deal is the way to go IMHO. It will hurt Ireland but also convince Britain that Brexit isn't a good thing.

Yes shame on him for refusing to allow the thread to become an echo chamber. Shame on him for engaging with other opinions!

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

MBSnr

steddyeddy wrote: »

M you're the worse for replying. A no deal is the way to go IMHO. It will hurt Ireland but also convince Britain that Brexit isn't a good thing.

But if it's a no deal, that will mean a physical hard border with the UK, trading under WTO conditions. Is that what you want for Ireland?

Leroy42

Solo what do you think the outcome of a no deal would be?

steddyeddy

MBSnr wrote: »

But if it's a no deal, that will mean a physical hard border with the UK, trading under WTO conditions. Is that what you want for Ireland?

No but the UK does. I want a sea border for Ireland. They want a hard Brexit out of the customs union. They don't seem to be aware that two different trading zones require at least a customs border. Let Britain leave the single market and NI stay.

markodaly

Is it me or do I think that the Government and the Dept. of Foreign Affairs have done brilliantly on this issue so far. We at this moment have the UK over a barrel. While we are at it, maybe we can get a few Billion out of them.

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Of course it wouldn't. This is the type of unquestioned dogma that doesn't get challenged on this thread. Along with the idea that the UK needs to accept a deal at any cost.

No deal would mean a lot of restrictions on trade into the EU in respect to goods and services but a lot would still continue. Trade with many non-EU countries would continue in much the same way.

So of course the UK wants a deal, but to say there's no deal that is a worse outcome than no agreement is wrong.

Nobody wants a no deal scenario or a bad deal because it isn't good but the UK could still weather it particularly with state assistance.

Edit:


Yes shame on him for refusing to allow the thread to become an echo chamber. Shame on him for engaging with other opinions!

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Opinions are grand, but your posts change ideology every few posts. Your posts aren't about Brexit. They're about oppisition to what the last poster said.

steddyeddy

markodaly wrote: »

Is it me or do I think that the Government and the Dept. of Foreign Affairs have done brilliantly on this issue so far. We at this moment have the UK over a barrel. While we are at it, maybe we can get a few Billion out of them.

Well Ireland will lose put either way IMHO, but you're right, the Irish government have been brilliant here.

solodeogloria

steddyeddy wrote: »

Opinions are grand, but your posts change ideology every few posts. Your posts aren't about Brexit. They're about oppisition to what the last poster said.

Good afternoon!

If you don't want to hear my opinion you can ignore my posts.

My posts have all been about Brexit and why I think the UK is right to leave.

If other posters want to reply to me that's up to them. You can report my posts to a moderator if you find them objectionable.

I make no apologies for giving this thread the balance it desperately needs.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Samaris

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well Ireland will lose put either way IMHO, but you're right, the Irish government have been brilliant here.

At some point I'll dig out the reference, but I've been reading Tony Connelly's excellent (if rather terrifying) book Brexit and Ireland. It's all a bit convoluted, so I'm on the second read now and still not picked up everything. But still, it's made plain from interviews with EU commissioners and those organising the whole thing from the EU side that Ireland was exceptionally well-prepared for all this, as well as being one of the first off the mark ensuring that Ireland's position in this was not overlooked. The Irish were sending delegations right off the bat who knew intimately the problems that were being faced, from the border and from trade in almost every sector (agri was causing the biggest screaming heebie-jeebies unsurprisingly). One official commented that some of the Irish delegations knew enough that they could have worked for the commission on it.

Just nice to see some news of competency in this age of unrepentant Stupid.

markodaly

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well Ireland will lose put either way IMHO, but you're right, the Irish government have been brilliant here.

Well it was a scenario that was thrust on us, there are going to be some winners and some losers either way. But the border issue is something we can control and if that goes our way then I think we will have done as best we could.

markodaly

Samaris wrote: »

At some point I'll dig out the reference, but I've been reading Tony Connelly's excellent (if rather terrifying) book Brexit and Ireland. It's all a bit convoluted, so I'm on the second read now and still not picked up everything. But still, it's made plain from interviews with EU commissioners and those organising the whole thing from the EU side that Ireland was exceptionally well-prepared for all this, as well as being one of the first off the mark ensuring that Ireland's position in this was not overlooked. The Irish were sending delegations right off the bat who knew intimately the problems that were being faced, from the border and from trade in almost every sector (agri was causing the biggest screaming heebie-jeebies unsurprisingly). One official commented that some of the Irish delegations knew enough that they could have worked for the commission on it.

Just nice to see some news of competency in this age of unrepentant Stupid.

Whatever those guys have been eating in the Dept. of Foreign Affairs they should feed other departments with the same (looking at you Dept. of Justice).

Foreign Affairs is one of those areas which the government has done brilliantly in the past few years. EU relations with Ireland was at a low during the banking crisis with the Bertie and Cowen governments more interested in having piss ups then engaging diplomatically with their EU partners. Many many stories went around then about members of government having to be showered down by their handlers before EU summit meetings because they were so drunk and/or hungover. The arrogance the then Irish government carried itself back then was also commentated on by other within the EU, it was the case that the then FF government alone created the celtic tiger and they knew best.

Enda and FG took over and went to work behind the scenes which has now manifested itself with a situation where by the Irish government can wield a veto with the backing of all EU member states against the UK. This was by no means an overnight success, it started years ago.

Foreign Affairs is not something sexy like missing emails, so the media most likely ignore any success they achieve but it should be acknowledged regardless and whomever is in government to keep it going.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Whatever those guys have been eating in the Dept. of Foreign Affairs they should feed other departments with the same (looking at you Dept. of Justice).

Foreign Affairs is one of those areas which the government has done brilliantly in the past few years. EU relations with Ireland was at a low during the banking crisis with the Bertie and Cowen governments more interested in having piss ups then engaging diplomatically with their EU partners. Many many stories went around then about members of government having to be showered down by their handlers before EU summit meetings because they were so drunk and/or hungover. The arrogance the then Irish government carried itself back then was also commentated on by other within the EU, it was the case that the then FF government alone created the celtic tiger and they knew best.

Enda and FG took over and went to work behind the scenes which has now manifested itself with a situation where by the Irish government can wield a veto with the backing of all EU member states against the UK. This was by no means an overnight success, it started years ago.

Foreign Affairs is not something sexy like missing emails, so the media most likely ignore any success they achieve but it should be acknowledged regardless and whomever is in government to keep it going.

Could the PR find a thread of it's own maybe?

Samaris

One of the trickier jobs they had to do (this was back under Kenny) was getting in a "Unity clause", enshrining the GFA IF NI chose under the rules set down in the GFA to join Ireland for NI to do so and automatically join the EU along with the Republic. This was based to some extent on the German precedent, which was the reunification of East and West Germany and the East being brought into the EU. This was done under the Irish presidency and the Germans (admittedly two chancellors ago) were grateful for Irish support on it.

The unity clause wasn't easy to bring in either - the Spanish and the French (and I think Netherlands) were all nervy about it - and you can imagine what the British thought of it. The wording had to be phrased very carefully to ensure that this couldn't be used as a precedent and in no way was applicable except by NI choosing to join Ireland under the terms of the GFA. This all had to be kept fairly quiet too, to not cause a diplomatic ****storm. It wasn't hidden, mind, it was presented to all the other leaders and was written down in the negotiations, but it could not be lauded as a success for fear of spooking Britain and contributing to the "Dublin is listening to Sinn Fein to steal NI" bull**** in Westminster and the press.

The government is being eyeballed for, in the eyes of the public, not doing enough to get jobs from Britain. But tbh, reading what they had to deal with before any opportunities could be chased, they didn't get much credit for what they achieved.

Samaris

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Could the PR find a thread of it's own maybe?

Eh, is it not relevant to the topic and part of what's been going on?

I know it's more fun to bitch relentlessly (and boy there is a lot to bitch about), but credit where it's due.

FrancieBrady

Samaris wrote: »

Eh, is it not relevant to the topic and part of what's been going on?

I know it's more fun to bitch relentlessly (and boy there is a lot to bitch about), but credit where it's due.

You may or may not have noticed that I have already given plaudits to how it is being handled by Dublin.
In one sentence and without trying to score points against other parties who are actually working in consensus with the gov.

MPFGLB

mickoneill31 wrote: »

No border is a good option for Ireland. But we are where we are.

We have three choices.
No border.
Land border.
Sea border.

Now we have to make the best of a crap situation. If there was a real choice we'd have no border between these two islands. Just we can't figure out how to do that with all of the British Red lines.

Neither are a good option for the north either. But we have to worry about Ireland first.

The best the British have come up with is a requirement for imaginative thinking. And apparently it's up to the eu to do the thinking.

There has to be a border somewhere ...so the question is not no border versus border but where the border will be

Here is my more radical view

No border between NI & Uk
No border between Ireland & NI

All controls and checks done on the way into Irealnd from EU
UK mainland has it own checks with EU

So virtual border for the purposes of UK in Ireland

Ireland takes control of the flow. Ireland is funded by UK & EU to do so


Goods into Ireland from EU must be for Irish or NI use and if not must pay UK tariffs and will be flagged as so to UK customs & excise
People into Ireland from EU must be to reside in Ireland./NI and if not will be reported to UK authorities as incoming

Why is this best

Well no NI border and what that constitutes
No border between NI & UK (in the sea or otherwise) and what that implies to the Unionists

No loss of flow between Ireland, NI & UK
Ireland get free flow to NI and thus UK (with maybe a special deal for Ireland & UK trade tariffs)

Unionists and NI walk away as having 'won' as no sea border

Ireland has to masively increase it jobs and technology to tag and track product flow. Better and more work on immigration flow


I think this is if I say so myself the win win situation
UK & Ireland & NI will have to work to make it viable and I can see it would work very well

Any company locating to Ireland have the best of both worlds if Ireland can get favourable rates as a quid pro quo
Any company going to NI could get the same if EU make NI a special case re tariffs

Played properly this could be a mega opportunity for Ireland
Opportunities like this dont come around very often

and Irealnd have the power now to make it happen
They can get great rates from May
Ni an get rates from Tusk

Water John

You forgot the third solution where EU and UK mirror each other. But you know who will lead and who will follow.

Carb

One thing I am curious about, and I accept I may have missed it, but why is the DUP the only voice I'm hearing from the North. I understand their position supporting the Conservatives is going to generate much more coverage, not to mention their abrasive approach, and the current impasse in Stormont creates a bit of a vacuum. I would have expected much more visibility from other political and business leaders, especially given the North voted to remain.

flaneur

Water John wrote: »

You forgot the third solution where EU and UK mirror each other. But you know who will lead and who will follow.

The EU won’t accept that at all because it would be one external country dictating policy to 27.

I think because we are in Ireland and next to the UK, we over estimate how much this matters to most of the EU. They’re not going to want to be hamstrung by some deal with an irrational former member where a significant element of its political system and electorate seem to rant and rave about wanting to not only leave the EU but even destroy or undermine it.

It’s not the EU side that’s being utterly unreasonable here. It’s the UK and it’s coming from a long and well established pattern of Eurobashing that’s embedded in politics.

I feel sorry for the large % of completely reasonable, friendly and openminded British people and politicians. However, the way that the other large % of their compatriots have dealt with the EU and others is burning all the bridges and making deals extremely difficult to foresee happening.

They really aren’t in a very strong position to force the EU to do anything and we aren’t all members of the EU so that it works against our collective interests and facilitates hostile 3rd countries / bitter former members.

Jayop

Carb wrote: »

One thing I am curious about, and I accept I may have missed it, but why is the DUP the only voice I'm hearing from the North. I understand their position supporting the Conservatives is going to generate much more coverage, not to mention their abrasive approach, and the current impasse in Stormont creates a bit of a vacuum. I would have expected much more visibility from other political and business leaders, especially given the North voted to remain.

The only voice you're hearing because they're the only ones being listened to. The other Unionist parties are making noise and Niomi Long is as always talking complete common sense on her Twitter account. She's a bit of a legend on Twitter.

flaneur

Jayop wrote: »

The only voice you're hearing because they're the only ones being listened to. The other Unionist parties are making noise and Niomi Long is as always talking complete common sense on her Twitter account. She's a bit of a legend on Twitter.

What annoys me is I’m seeing and hearing comments from very reasonable unionists who probably voted DUP.

If you vote for extreme parties, you get extreme politics. Northern voters need to understand that this is exactly what the DUP were always going to do!

If you voted for them, you really don’t get to complain about them doing exactly what they’ve always done.

They may be good at getting community funds or filling local potholes but this is how they play the bigger game.

The unionist electorate largely abandoned the middle ground and this is what you get when you do!