Brexit discussion thread II

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK obviously won't permit an internal border within the UK.

Again, this is why the EU need to consider a bespoke arrangement recognising the particular challenges that wouldn't cripple Northern Ireland's economy.

Well if this continues and after March 2019 the U.K. finds:
- Full membership of the WTO vetoed by the EU
- WTO members unwilling to start talks with the U.K. until such time as it is approved
- No open skies agreement
- No visa free travel to Europe
- etc

I expect as usual that NI will not be very high on the list of priorities.

Chips Lovell

Jim2007 wrote: »

The EU parliament put an end to that yesterday day! Any transition period will require full compliance with EU law both current and newly introduced during the transition period, acceptance of ECJ rulings, FMOP etc...

That's what I mean actually. In the single market, with all that entails.

Water John

Well the feeling in Birmingham is that the hard talking with the EU wouldn't start until the end of the year: BBC2

Zubeneschamali

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Nobody in the British government will come out and say they want a permanent Norway-style arrangement, because it won't fly politically. The only thing that might is a fudge where it is dressed up as temporary.

NI farmers have asked for at least a 5 year transitional period.

Boris has demanded a strict 2 year period until March 2021, and several people at the Tory conference have been pushing back, saying it may need to be longer.

breatheme

As long as they realise that the transition period means sticking to all the nasty EU things they don't like (FOM, ECJ, etc.) then fine by me, they can do that as long as they want.

Charles Babbage

breatheme wrote: »

This is something I've been biting my lip on. People say that a border goes against the GFA agreement. It doesn't. The CTA is also not mentioned in the GFA, and it itself exists out of agreements that are not legally binding. This means that, effectively, Ireland could leave the CTA tomorrow and join Schengen and it would not be breaking the GFA. As long as people born in NI can claim Irish citizenship, it doesn't matter if there's border infrastructure in place, Ireland's not breaking the GFA.

You can nitpick and state that the GFA doesn't mention this or that but this is neither here nor there. The GFA was an encoding of a set of principles, it cannot mention in detail everything for all time. What is perfectly clear is that any harassment of people crossing the border is a breach of the peace settlement, whatever legal trickery is used to justify this by reference to the exact wording of the GFA, and this is as true of Dublin government doing it as the British.

If the IRA came along and started using cyber warfare against the British and argued that the GFA didn't mention anything about this, would you agree that this did not present a problem because it wasn't explicitly mentioned?

flatty

Slight off topic, but very relevant personally, I'm now likely to sell out or wind up in the UK and move home (the company was a major local employer, but I'll not stay where I'm not wanted, and I want the kids to grow up in a modern European democracy)
My wife is English. If we move before brexit, will she be allowed to work after brexit?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I read the Oireachtas Report (why did you get it from the Sinn Fein website?) and there is absolutely no mention of a border being in conflict with the GFA.

It was the 1st doc that came up when I googled? Is it illegal to visit SF website or something?

I didn't say a border was in conflict with the GFA but I agree that Brexit contravenes the spirit of the GFA.

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

If the UK had made sufficient progress in the other 2 strands then they would probably have been satisfied in Brussels to move towards trade and Ireland in one go, but not one of the 3 key areas, agreed by both sides, have been nailed down.

The UK is seemingly not prepared to compromise to a degree where anything more than a FTA like CETA can be offered. The EU is not going to make another mistake like the unwieldy agreement with CH.

Jim2007 wrote: »

And rightly so! There is no way to even have relaxed border control as in the case of Switzerland unless the U.K. commits to enforcing EU standards in all of it's trade deal. They are not willing to do that, so it is not going to happen. Just because the inhabitants of fantasy island think it is possible does not mean the rest of the EU have to go along with it.

Good morning!

Gentlemen, I would honestly love to know where you get your unbridled passion for the Euro-federalist project from. Perhaps it could change my mind! You speak as if the Euro-federalist institutions and project are like a first love that you would give anything up for to defend.

My point is there is a difference between progress and absolute agreement. Absolute agreement won't happen unless the EU is willing to compromise. The UK have offered some compromise but not a complete bending to the EU position.

If "sufficient progress" means absolute agreement with the EU then I would say Davis is wasting his time with unreasonable people. A negotiation involves some compromise on both sides. If the EU are unwilling to compromise this isn't a negotiation.

The UK have offered funding to cover a shortfall in the EU budget in exchange for transitional terms.

The UK have offered direct effect and direct right of appeal in the event of any modification to the legislation in respect to EU rights.

Paying carte blanche without transitional terms is unreasonable.

Becoming a vassal state of the ECJ after Brexit is also unreasonable.

There are ways to get through this impasse but it does require the EU to accept that it is unlikely that the UK will agree 100% with it's initial position.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

Gentlemen, I would honestly love to know where you get your unbridled passion for the Euro-federalist project from. Perhaps it could change my mind! You speak as if the Euro-federalist institutions and project are like a first love that you would give anything up for to defend.

We are talking about the Single Market and customs union here. For why they are good, see Margaret Thatcher's comments:

Underneath the rhetoric, the old barriers remained. Not just against the outside world, but between the European countries. Not the classic barriers of tariffs, but the insiduous ones of differing national standards, various restrictions on the provision of services, exclusion of foreign firms from public contracts. Now that's going to change. Britain has given the lead. [There was a tendency in Europe to talk in lofty tones of European Union. That may be good for the soul. But the body—Europe's firms and organisations and the people who work in them—needs something more nourishing.] We recognised that if Europe was going to be more than a slogan then we must get the basics right. That meant action. Action to get rid of the barriers. Action to make it possible for insurance companies to do business throughout the Community. Action to let people practice their trades and professions freely throughout the Community. Action to remove the customs barriers and formalities so that goods can circulate freely and without time-consuming delays. Action to make sure that any company could sell its goods and services without let or hindrance. Action to secure free movement of capital throughout the Community. All this is what Europe is now committed to do. In 1985 the Community's Heads of Government gave a pledge to complete the single market by 1992. To make sure that it was not just a pious hope, they made that pledge part of the Treaty, as the Single European Act. So it's going to happen. Indeed the barriers are already coming down. Monsieur Delors, the President of the Commission, and our own Commissioner Arthur Cockfield, deserve a lot of credit for the way in which they are keeping up the momentum.

The Challenge

So far Britain hasn't done nearly well enough in trade with Europe. True, the direction of our trade has been transformed. Half of it is now with the European Community. But the balance is nothing like satisfactory, especially in manufactured goods. The fact is that although we haven't done very well in Europe, Europe has done very well in Britain. Our national failure to make the most of the opportunities when we joined the Community was part of a much more general failure.
In those days, Britain was in the forefront of those resisting change, in fighting to preserve the barriers. Some in Britain still see it that way, but they are getting fewer and fewer. The difference is that now we can look forward with confidence to sweeping away the barriers. We have a highly successful economy. We have had seven years of growth. Job creation in this country is unmatched anywhere else in Europe. We have a climate in Britain in which business wants to succeed and can succeed. We have a chance to be world leaders again. The task now is to harness that spirit of enterprise to tackling the challenge of the Single Market

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Gentlemen, I would honestly love to know where you get your unbridled passion for the Euro-federalist project from. Perhaps it could change my mind! You speak as if the Euro-federalist institutions and project are like a first love that you would give anything up for to defend.

My point is there is a difference between progress and absolute agreement. Absolute agreement won't happen unless the EU is willing to compromise. The UK have offered some compromise but not a complete bending to the EU position.

If "sufficient progress" means absolute agreement with the EU then I would say Davis is wasting his time with unreasonable people. A negotiation involves some compromise on both sides. If the EU are unwilling to compromise this isn't a negotiation.

The UK have offered funding to cover a shortfall in the EU budget in exchange for transitional terms.

The UK have offered direct effect and direct right of appeal in the event of any modification to the legislation in respect to EU rights.

Paying carte blanche without transitional terms is unreasonable.

Becoming a vassal state of the ECJ after Brexit is also unreasonable.

There are ways to get through this impasse but it does require the EU to accept that it is unlikely that the UK will agree 100% with it's initial position.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

At this point Solo, im struggling immensely to take you seriously when you continue to have pops using loaded terms like "Euro-federalist" over and over and also refuse to address serious substantial questions put to you about the UKs standing in the world Trading market especially with its supposed trading ally the United States.

can you come back to us when you have constructed a reasoned response to why its ok for the US on which you will rely heavily post brexit to threaten jobs on such a large scale ?

Gerry T

solodeogloria wrote:

My point is there is a difference between progress and absolute agreement. Absolute agreement won't happen unless the EU is willing to compromise. The UK have offered some compromise but not a complete bending to the EU position.

I thought we went through the UK "compromise" and it was shown there's been no compromise. Why persist with saying that. For clarity what is the UK compromise

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

Gentlemen, I would honestly love to know where you get your unbridled passion for the Euro-federalist project from. Perhaps it could change my mind! You speak as if the Euro-federalist institutions and project are like a first love that you would give anything up for to defend.

What (-professional advice, presentations and other business considerations in Real Life™, besides free time correcting misunderstandings, misrepresentations and downright imbecility on fora threads such as this one in the UK) I have given a lot of since February 2016, was to defend against precisely what has been happening in Real Life™ since June 2016 (social division, rampant xenophobia, business uncertainty) and is presently coalescing, fully as expected: no overnight socio-economic Armageddon in June 2016 (or March 2019, or March 2021 for that matter), but a slow and protracted fading into economic insignificance bringing back Victorian era-like levels of social inequality with it.

Because I'd long lived in and was very invested in the UK, because I happen to have a social conscience and, to put it very simply, because I've "lived the EU" for 40-odd years now [EU born (EDIT: of different EU backgrounds, long before the EU was the EU), higher education EU funded in different EU states, moved jobs within the EU in different EU states several times, married a person from another EU country (different 1st language), working at all times with clients and suppliers across the EU <and beyond>] and, with a sufficiently-educated (i.e. -open) mind (which is most everybody in this day and age, I'd like to think), it's as natural as breathing.

So I'm putting my money and future exactly where my beliefs are: in the EU(27)

flatty wrote: »

Slight off topic, but very relevant personally, I'm now likely to sell out or wind up in the UK and move home (the company was a major local employer, but I'll not stay where I'm not wanted, and I want the kids to grow up in a modern European democracy)
My wife is English. If we move before brexit, will she be allowed to work after brexit?

I'm in the exact same boat, flatty.

And, as with most everything else 'Brexit', it's still far too early to tell.

So "hope for best but plan for worst", wherein your planning should be based on your wife being a homemaker (-is currently the correct PC term , I believe ). At least to start with.

My £0.02 advice is for you to start getting a bit of a move on. Because it's still likely to become ever more of a rush as the clock keeps ticking down, with opportunities in the EU27 (besides 'pragmatics' like e.g. school places for incoming kids) shrinking in proportion over time.

ambro25

Not really a Brexity bit of news (the YLYL thread seems more appropriate) and a bit of midday levity, although you do have to wonder how this will be perceived in EU27 capitals and in Brussels, in political terms: Prankster Simon Brodkin hands Theresa May P45 in the middle of her speech, saying 'Boris asked me to give you this'

Topically, the Brexity bit of her speech did not bring anything new relative to Florence (other than slam her figurative first on the table in respect of the domestic political in-fighting about it).

johnnyskeleton

solodeogloria wrote: »

Gentlemen, I would honestly love to know where you get your unbridled passion for the Euro-federalist project from. Perhaps it could change my mind! You speak as if the Euro-federalist institutions and project are like a first love that you would give anything up for to defend.

Mod note:

Maybe we can depersonalise the debate and stick to the specific issues at hand please!

Enzokk

flatty wrote: »

Slight off topic, but very relevant personally, I'm now likely to sell out or wind up in the UK and move home (the company was a major local employer, but I'll not stay where I'm not wanted, and I want the kids to grow up in a modern European democracy)
My wife is English. If we move before brexit, will she be allowed to work after brexit?

I see no reason why the work market would suddenly close for UK nationals after Brexit. I can see that there would be a little bit of bureaucracy depending on the reciprocal status of EU citizens in the UK after Brexit.

Worst case scenario is that your wife will be seen an another non-EEA/EU national after Brexit. You would then need to apply for permission to remain from the GNIB and if that is approved she would have permission to work on Stamp 4 (do they still do those though) in Ireland. That is if things really go wrong with Brexit, but even then I am sure there will be arrangements made for UK citizens in Ireland in the short term at least.

So I am sure there would be no problem for a UK citizen married to an Irish to work in the state, even with the hardest Brexit you can imagine.

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Gentlemen, I would honestly love to know where you get your unbridled passion for the Euro-federalist project from.

Hi S, so would I to be honest. You an Irish citizen, living in the UK, voted remain according to your earlier posts.

jm08

flatty wrote: »

My wife is English. If we move before brexit, will she be allowed to work after brexit?

I think so. Have a look here.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/migrant_workers/employment_permits/spousal_work_permit_scheme.html

flatty

ambro25 wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

Gentlemen, I would honestly love to know where you get your unbridled passion for the Euro-federalist project from. Perhaps it could change my mind! You speak as if the Euro-federalist institutions and project are like a first love that you would give anything up for to defend.

What (-professional advice, presentations and other business considerations in Real Life™, besides free time correcting misunderstandings, misrepresentations and downright imbecility on fora threads such as this one in the UK) I have given a lot of since February 2016, was to defend against precisely what has been happening in Real Life™ since June 2016 (social division, rampant xenophobia, business uncertainty) and is presently coalescing, fully as expected: no overnight socio-economic Armageddon in June 2016 (or March 2019, or March 2021 for that matter), but a slow and protracted fading into economic insignificance bringing back Victorian era-like levels of social inequality with it.

Because I'd long lived in and was very invested in the UK, because I happen to have a social conscience and, to put it very simply, because I've "lived the EU" for 40-odd years now [EU born (EDIT: of different EU backgrounds, long before the EU was the EU), higher education EU funded in different EU states, moved jobs within the EU in different EU states several times, married a person from another EU country (different 1st language), working at all times with clients and suppliers across the EU

I have done. I'm looking at schools etc later this month. I've been approached about a very attractive job, but my wife is a highly skilled and experienced professional in her own right. If we move before brexit, and she has work, will it be taken off her post brexit even if she is married to a citizen?
She doesn't really want to move, but is appalled by brexit, and all that goes with it, by the craven and self serving nature of the sharp ends of both the tories and labour, and by the xenophobia encouraged by the leadership of both.
It's enough that she will finally move.
I pay a lot of tax, and am responsible for a lot of employment, and this will be lost to a greater or lesser extent to the UK.
Im seeing as an opportunity, as I've wanted to move home for ages, but we had a good life in the UK, and want for nothing, and it's a shame.
The uncertainty is the thing. I would hope that her employment would be secure, but clearly not.

Fratton Fred

flatty wrote: »

Slight off topic, but very relevant personally, I'm now likely to sell out or wind up in the UK and move home (the company was a major local employer, but I'll not stay where I'm not wanted, and I want the kids to grow up in a modern European democracy)
My wife is English. If we move before brexit, will she be allowed to work after brexit?

I know you have already described your self as an exile trapped in England by a wife who won't move to Ireland, so I'm guessing that Brexit is a good excuse for you to make the move you have been seeking.

Both the Irish and British governments have committed to continuing the CTA so there is no reason why you should feel unwelcomed, or why, should she agree to the move, your wife would not be able to work in Ireland, as long as she jumps through the various immigration hoops should the worst happen (which is very unlikly) http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Pages/WP07000024

I am in this boat and i am more worried the brown patches on my lawn than i am about this to be honest. This is another of the "Worst Case Scenarios" that keep getting painted that reminds me of all the planes that were going to fall out of the sky on 1st January 2000.

flatty

jm08 wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

My wife is English. If we move before brexit, will she be allowed to work after brexit?

I think so. Have a look here.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/migrant_workers/employment_permits/spousal_work_permit_scheme.html

Thanks, but I'm irish, so I'm not sure that applies.

Zubeneschamali

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This is another of the "Worst Case Scenarios" that keep getting painted that reminds me of all the planes that were going to fall out of the sky on 1st January 2000.

If the software industry had not spent years preparing (I was working on Y2K projects years out myself) this was perfectly possible. In that case, we had a known issue, a known timetable and plenty of time to plan and execute needed work. The fact that nothing much happened is because we did our jobs, not because there was no real problem.

The number of ways in which this is different to Brexit is large.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was the 1st doc that came up when I googled? Is it illegal to visit SF website or something?

I didn't say a border was in conflict with the GFA but I agree that Brexit contravenes the spirit of the GFA.

The spirit but not the letter. So that means we are all now in agreement that Brexit is not a breach of the GFA, nor will a hard border breach the GFA.

Of course, it can be argued that it will set back the peace process (and other such nonsense) but at least we can dispense with the idea that somehow there is a breach of the GFA.

One red herring gone.

Fratton Fred

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If the software industry had not spent years preparing (I was working on Y2K projects years out myself) this was perfectly possible. In that case, we had a known issue, a known timetable and plenty of time to plan and execute needed work. The fact that nothing much happened is because we did our jobs, not because there was no real problem.

as was I, the likelihood of it happening were minuscule and were largely used by the IT industry to get companies to sit up and take notice. UK nationals in eu countries and eu nationals in the UK are not suddenly going to be forced to go home, or give up their jobs when Brexit happens.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The number of ways in which this is different to Brexit is large.

yes, I know

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The spirit but not the letter. So that means we are all now in agreement that Brexit is not a breach of the GFA, nor will a hard border breach the GFA.

Of course, it can be argued that it will set back the peace process (and other such nonsense) but at least we can dispense with the idea that somehow there is a breach of the GFA.

One red herring gone.

Isn't that being tested through the court's?

Regardless, I know and can see how a hard border has the potential to wreck the work we have done since the signing of the GFA.

breatheme

Charles Babbage wrote: »

breatheme wrote: »

This is something I've been biting my lip on. People say that a border goes against the GFA agreement. It doesn't. The CTA is also not mentioned in the GFA, and it itself exists out of agreements that are not legally binding. This means that, effectively, Ireland could leave the CTA tomorrow and join Schengen and it would not be breaking the GFA. As long as people born in NI can claim Irish citizenship, it doesn't matter if there's border infrastructure in place, Ireland's not breaking the GFA.

You can nitpick and state that the GFA doesn't mention this or that but this is neither here nor there. The GFA was an encoding of a set of principles, it cannot mention in detail everything for all time. What is perfectly clear is that any harassment of people crossing the border is a breach of the peace settlement, whatever legal trickery is used to justify this by reference to the exact wording of the GFA, and this is as true of Dublin government doing it as the British.

If the IRA came along and started using cyber warfare against the British and argued that the GFA didn't mention anything about this, would you agree that this did not present a problem because it wasn't explicitly mentioned?

The IRA is not the Irish government, they didn't sign anything. They could do that now and the Irish government wouldn't be breaking the GFA.

ambro25

flatty wrote: »

ambro25 wrote: »

What (-professional advice, presentations and other business considerations in Real Life™, besides free time correcting misunderstandings, misrepresentations and downright imbecility on fora threads such as this one in the UK) I have given a lot of since February 2016, was to defend against precisely what has been happening in Real Life™ since June 2016 (social division, rampant xenophobia, business uncertainty) and is presently coalescing, fully as expected: no overnight socio-economic Armageddon in June 2016 (or March 2019, or March 2021 for that matter), but a slow and protracted fading into economic insignificance bringing back Victorian era-like levels of social inequality with it.

Because I'd long lived in and was very invested in the UK, because I happen to have a social conscience and, to put it very simply, because I've "lived the EU" for 40-odd years now [EU born (EDIT: of different EU backgrounds, long before the EU was the EU), higher education EU funded in different EU states, moved jobs within the EU in different EU states several times, married a person from another EU country (different 1st language), working at all times with clients and suppliers across the EU

I have done. I'm looking at schools etc later this month. I've been approached about a very attractive job, but my wife is a highly skilled and experienced professional in her own right. If we move before brexit, and she has work, will it be taken off her post brexit

(I fixed your quoting a bit in the above, it'd be nice if you did same in your original post )

On the work side, I guess that would depend on-

(i) how the actual 'flavour' of Brexiting interacts with the Irish legislation governing her entitlement to work in Ireland, plus
(ii) Irish legislation governing employment relations themselves; and
(iii) what her qualifications <etc.> are for her professional role, plus
(iv) again how the actual 'flavour' of Brexiting interacts with the Irish legislation governing recognition of those qualifications post-Brexit.

To give you an example: I'm EU (not UK or Irish), with Irish, UK and European professional qualifications for two 'sides' of my professional role.

Even though based in the UK, I'm currently on two Irish professional register, because the Irish legislation stipulates that if I'm Irish-qualified and EEA-based, I can.

I'm also on one EU(28) register, because the European (EU) legislation stipulates that if I'm EU(28)-qualified and EU(28)-based, I can (and since I'm Irish-qualified and the UK is in the EU, I can).

Post-Brexit hwoever, if the actual flavour of Brexit sees the UK outside the EEA, I would then fail to meet the (respective) requirements of the Irish and the European legislation, and therefore be kicked off both the Irish and the EU(28) registers for that 'side' of my role.

But since I'm not UK-qualified for that particular 'side' of my role, then if I was currently employed in the UK solely for that 'side' of my role and stayed in the UK post-Brexit, I could very well lose my job (or, at least, have to take whatever financial penalties <etc.> are associated with losing the professional 'badge').

As it is, if the UK Brexit out of the EEA and if I stay in the UK, I'll be left with half a job (the other 'side' which is composed of the UK and the other European (non-EU) professional qualifications). I doubt I'd lose my job, but as the loss of the above 'side' extends to the entire UK service industry in which I work (losing the EU work), contraction is inevitable, so there is a very strong likelihood of financial penalties <etc.> associated with losing the professional 'badge' in the UK regardless.

And that's besides any leverage gained by the UK side of my firm against me as an (EU national) employee, depending on the strings attaching to that fabled "settled 'status" (...assuming I even get that to begin with: it's still a long-a55 line of unknowns as you can tell, and there's now about 12 months to go).

Now, subject to whatever it is your wife does and on the basis of what professional qualifications, try and apply the above 'in reverse' for her situation in Ireland.

flatty wrote: »

even if she is married to a citizen?

It's a tad over 9 years since we left the Big Smoke, so I'm not current on Ireland's regime for non-EU immigration and family reunion provisions. But in the UK, it's only the salary of the UK resident with relevant entitlement (Brit or EU national) that counts towards the MIR calculation. And there is plenty of (recent) press about how hard the UK has been making it for families with different nationalities of which one is non-EU.

flatty wrote: »

She doesn't really want to move, but is appalled by brexit, and all that goes with it, by the craven and self serving nature of the sharp ends of both the tories and labour, and by the xenophobia encouraged by the leadership of both. It's enough that she will finally move.

Same here.

flatty wrote: »

I pay a lot of tax, and am responsible for a lot of employment, and this will be lost to a greater or lesser extent to the UK.

Same here.

flatty wrote: »

Im seeing as an opportunity, as I've wanted to move home for ages, but we had a good life in the UK, and want for nothing, and it's a shame.
The uncertainty is the thing. I would hope that her employment would be secure, but clearly not.

Same here. Genuinely. It's uncanny...But I guess these circumstances will be common to many more 'EU couples' than we can even imagine.

listermint

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/915545844434309120/video/1


F..Off ?


Sorry it was too amusing not to include. Opens up a discussion about how they can get nothing right presently.

munsterlegend

listermint wrote: »

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/915545844434309120/video/1


F..Off ?


Sorry it was too amusing not to include. Opens up a discussion about how they can get nothing right presently.

Another letter fell off as well after. Talk about a joke of a security set up that someone can get that close to May at their party conference. Also took security an age to actually remove him. They have a lot to learn from the USA and how it secures its president.

munsterlegend

listermint wrote: »

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/915545844434309120/video/1


F..Off ?


Sorry it was too amusing not to include. Opens up a discussion about how they can get nothing right presently.

Another letter fell off as well after. Talk about a joke of a security set up that someone can get that close to May at their party conference. Also took security an age to actually remove him. They have a lot to learn from the USA and how it secures its president.

demfad

blanch152 wrote: »

The spirit but not the letter. So that means we are all now in agreement that Brexit is not a breach of the GFA, nor will a hard border breach the GFA.

Of course, it can be argued that it will set back the peace process (and other such nonsense) but at least we can dispense with the idea that somehow there is a breach of the GFA.

One red herring gone.

Far from gone. For example Irish citizens in NI are entitled to Irish and thus EU citizenship under the GFA. If the UK leaving the EU removes the rights these citizens enjoy then that is a potential breach of the GFA.

Havockk

Jim2007 wrote: »

I expect as usual that NI will not be very high on the list of priorities.

I'm almost certain that May never once mentioned NI in her speech today.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Gentlemen, I would honestly love to know where you get your unbridled passion for the Euro-federalist project from. Perhaps it could change my mind! You speak as if the Euro-federalist institutions and project are like a first love that you would give anything up for to defend.

Why did you vote remain?
That simple fact completely devalues any and all arguments you now make.

munsterlegend

Havockk wrote: »

Jim2007 wrote: »

I expect as usual that NI will not be very high on the list of priorities.

I'm almost certain that May never once mentioned NI in her speech today.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Gentlemen, I would honestly love to know where you get your unbridled passion for the Euro-federalist project from. Perhaps it could change my mind! You speak as if the Euro-federalist institutions and project are like a first love that you would give anything up for to defend.

Why did you vote remain?
That simple fact completely devalues any and all arguments you now make.

Most Tories are embarrassed with the links to the DUP so she is not going to highlight NI in any conference speech. It's a short marriage of convenience and anything to keep Corbyn out. The speech was a shambles from start to finish. It was like one of those Disney films where everything goes wrong at a school play and everyone either cries or laughs.

First Up

Excruciating to watch May's implosion at the Tory conference today. On a human level you have to feel sorry for her but they are in total disarray.

Cookie_Monster

Charles Babbage wrote: »

You can nitpick and state that the GFA doesn't mention this or that but this is neither here nor there. The GFA was an encoding of a set of principles, it cannot mention in detail everything for all time. What is perfectly clear is that any harassment of people crossing the border is a breach of the peace settlement, whatever legal trickery is used to justify this by reference to the exact wording of the GFA, and this is as true of Dublin government doing it as the British.

If the IRA came along and started using cyber warfare against the British and argued that the GFA didn't mention anything about this, would you agree that this did not present a problem because it wasn't explicitly mentioned?

how is a (potential) customs checkpoint "harassment"?

blanch152

demfad wrote: »

Far from gone. For example Irish citizens in NI are entitled to Irish and thus EU citizenship under the GFA. If the UK leaving the EU removes the rights these citizens enjoy then that is a potential breach of the GFA.

The UK leaving the EU does not remove those rights.

It is now a fact that nobody has been able to point to anything about Brexit that breaches the GFA.

Of course there is the wringing of the hands and the crying about the damage to the peace process (how can something be still a process twenty years on?), but that is speculative and scaremonegering.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Gentlemen, I would honestly love to know where you get your unbridled passion for the Euro-federalist project from. Perhaps it could change my mind! You speak as if the Euro-federalist institutions and project are like a first love that you would give anything up for to defend.

I've thought long and hard about replying to this because to be honest, I don't think you really understand what some people - certainly not what I - think about the European Union. I also don't believe you can be persuaded as otherwise you wouldn't have called it the Euro-federalist programme.

But first things first. You've made the assumption that all people posting and replying to you are male. They are not. I'm female and to be honest, I'm find it depressing in this day and age that you assume that all interlocutors on a message board either all male. I realise you work in IT but so do I and frankly, you have no excuse.

The primary reason I feel like responding to this is less for your benefit and perhaps for the benefit of other people.

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point is there is a difference between progress and absolute agreement. Absolute agreement won't happen unless the EU is willing to compromise. The UK have offered some compromise but not a complete bending to the EU position.

Strictly speaking, the country which requires compromise is the UK. The EU is more likely to survive Brexit than the UK is. For me, it is hard to see that the UK has offered any compromise because to be honest, they haven't offered much in the way of concrete proposals, never mind movement on them. We know that there are a number of red lines, apparently, on the UK side.

They are red lines that are actually not in the UK's interests. I don't know if you get this, but fine. We are at the stage right now where you might argue that the UK, in agreeing (sort of, without any practical details, taking it for granted that they will receive) that in fact, transition would be nice, is a concession. It isn't. The party who needs a transition phase here is the UK. In fact, if you were to be completely honest, economically, the UK probably needs to stay in the EU but based on this thread, two things will likely happen here a) you'll deny it and make some comments about trade deals or b) ignore it.

solodeogloria wrote: »

If "sufficient progress" means absolute agreement with the EU then I would say Davis is wasting his time with unreasonable people. A negotiation involves some compromise on both sides. If the EU are unwilling to compromise this isn't a negotiation.

These negotiations are happening at the level of details and actually identifying what has to be done. Currently, the UK's contribution on Northern Ireland has been wishful thinking about not complying with WTO regulations on a border which per one of their own red lines means that one side will be in the single market and one side will not. There has been discussion about drones. Blue sky thinking. Number plate reading. There is nothing actually tangible here at the level of detail which is required to make anything happen. It's as though someone said "I want a computer system which will do stuff" but no one actually tells you what the stuff is.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK have offered funding to cover a shortfall in the EU budget in exchange for transitional terms.

TBH - and I have said this before - this is not so much an offer as something which would be a basic requirement. Again, the transition is in the UK's interest much more than the EU interest. Otherwise they wouldn't be asking for one.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK have offered direct effect and direct right of appeal in the event of any modification to the legislation in respect to EU rights.

Really? EU rights are dealt with by the ECJ. I thought that this was off the table as one of May's red lines. I don't see this as a concession. A concession is recognising that the ECJ is the correct court here. I've written before about issues with enforcement of court orders in the UK when the party in contempt is the Home Office.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Paying carte blanche without transitional terms is unreasonable.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Becoming a vassal state of the ECJ after Brexit is also unreasonable.

This too is a bit meaningless.

solodeogloria wrote: »

There are ways to get through this impasse but it does require the EU to accept that it is unlikely that the UK will agree 100% with it's initial position.

The problem, solo, is that the UK doesn't even have a coherent position. It keeps changing, depending on whether you talk to May, Davis, or latterly, Johnson who seems to think he is PM and not FS. Yesterday's speech to the Tory party conference by the way, does not indicate that Johnson is on top of his job at all.

But anyway. You voted remain and yet you have all this leave rhetoric at your finger tips.

I like the European Union for a lot of reasons. I grew in up in a country which is one of the most open trading economies in the world now but it was extremely insular and parochial when I was at school. Like a lot of people, I was fortunate enough to receive Erasmus funding in the very early days and this enabled me to study in foreign countries. I studied in Germany. In the interim, I also worked in France, the UK, Belgium and I studied for a short while in Finland as well after it joined in 1995. I've paid college fees in the UK and I've voted there. I've paid taxes in all of those countries except Finland unless you count VAT and excise which you can't avoid if you want to make someone an Irish coffee and didn't bring a bottle of Jameson with you.

I think, when I read your posts, that what I sense more than Leave rhetoric is privilege. You are in the UK, you have the right to vote there. Certain other rights are guaranteed to you by EU legislation and you assume you will never need those rights. One of the best things that the EU brought with it for people was the right to establishment anywhere in the EU provided certain conditions were met. You and many people like you take those conditions for granted in the UK because you're Irish. And you also take it for granted that Brexit won't change the rights you've enjoyed. I find it quite selfish. I think if you were in the same position as many French people, many Polish people who settled in the UK and, broadly, paid their way in the UK - the EU cohort in the UK are more than self financing - your view would be different.

I'm not sure that voicing a view that Irish people who have jobs in the UK who are voicing pro-Brexit opinions are fundamentally self-centred is going to convince you of anything. You don't engage with many of the comments I make.

The thing is, compared to 25 years ago when I graduated college for the first time, the one thing that the EU has done is broadened the experience of many, many people. Not just the French and the Polish. The British are notoriously awful at learning languages - they are worse on average than the Irish are and god knows many of my compatriots are not good. This also means that they are massively disadvantaged when it comes to knowing the heart of other peoples. There's a famous quote attributed to Mandela:

If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart.

which I think is important here. The European Union hasn't just been about money, or economics or trade. It's been about people. It has been about their hearts. Their lives. Their loves. Other people have reached into the hearts of many Britons even if Britons have not engaged in learning foreign languages with much gusto.

My life would be very different if the EU had not existed. I might not have studied languages. I might have spent my life living in Dublin. There are people in my life both past and present, the lack of whom would have made me a lesser person. Opportunities have come my way because of freedom of movement, and various policies of the EU in its various guises to foster connections between the different peoples of Europe. I am absolutely certain that my life would have been the poorer for the lack of it and the freedoms and rights it has conferred upon me. That you think you don't benefit from them or don't need to benefit from them in the UK because you're Irish and not, for example French so the risk to you is so much less doesn't change the impact that this has. If the UK is serious about walking away from FOM, this affects thousands of young British people who want that chance. I posted yesterday that I had met some of them. There is a callous disregard for their interests too Yes, there is a lot of discussion about the EU citizens, but it seems to me to be forgotten that many British people are losing out here too.

The EU and its admin are not perfect. It is, and has always been, in a constant state of evolution. Even if Brexit never happened, I can guarantee that the EU as it is now would be different to the EU as it will be in 10 years' time, and is different to how things were 10 years ago. More ownership of the process has moved to the Parliament which gives the inhabitants of the constituent states of the EU more of a say and more influence in what happens.

But no administration is perfect and few if any states in the world are in a state of unchanging stasis.

I don't believe I can change your mind because only you can do that.

Calina

demfad wrote: »

Far from gone. For example Irish citizens in NI are entitled to Irish and thus EU citizenship under the GFA. If the UK leaving the EU removes the rights these citizens enjoy then that is a potential breach of the GFA.

I am not a lawyer but it is highly unlikely that the UK leaving the EU removes those rights as the conferral of Irish citizenship is a matter for the Republic of Ireland.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

(rhow can something be still a process twenty years on?.

Because it was meant to be.

The executive is in tatters as a result of the 'process' stalling.

mountaintop

Calina wrote: »

I've thought long and hard about replying to this because to be honest, I don't think you really understand what some people - certainly not what I - think about the European Union. I also don't believe you can be persuaded as otherwise you wouldn't have called it the Euro-federalist programme.

But first things first. You've made the assumption that all people posting and replying to you are male. They are not. I'm female and to be honest, I'm find it depressing in this day and age that you assume that all interlocutors on a message board either all male. I realise you work in IT but so do I and frankly, you have no excuse.

The primary reason I feel like responding to this is less for your benefit and perhaps for the benefit of other people.



Strictly speaking, the country which requires compromise is the UK. The EU is more likely to survive Brexit than the UK is. For me, it is hard to see that the UK has offered any compromise because to be honest, they haven't offered much in the way of concrete proposals, never mind movement on them. We know that there are a number of red lines, apparently, on the UK side.

They are red lines that are actually not in the UK's interests. I don't know if you get this, but fine. We are at the stage right now where you might argue that the UK, in agreeing (sort of, without any practical details, taking it for granted that they will receive) that in fact, transition would be nice, is a concession. It isn't. The party who needs a transition phase here is the UK. In fact, if you were to be completely honest, economically, the UK probably needs to stay in the EU but based on this thread, two things will likely happen here a) you'll deny it and make some comments about trade deals or b) ignore it.



These negotiations are happening at the level of details and actually identifying what has to be done. Currently, the UK's contribution on Northern Ireland has been wishful thinking about not complying with WTO regulations on a border which per one of their own red lines means that one side will be in the single market and one side will not. There has been discussion about drones. Blue sky thinking. Number plate reading. There is nothing actually tangible here at the level of detail which is required to make anything happen. It's as though someone said "I want a computer system which will do stuff" but no one actually tells you what the stuff is.



TBH - and I have said this before - this is not so much an offer as something which would be a basic requirement. Again, the transition is in the UK's interest much more than the EU interest. Otherwise they wouldn't be asking for one.



Really? EU rights are dealt with by the ECJ. I thought that this was off the table as one of May's red lines. I don't see this as a concession. A concession is recognising that the ECJ is the correct court here. I've written before about issues with enforcement of court orders in the UK when the party in contempt is the Home Office.



I have no idea what you're talking about here.



This too is a bit meaningless.



The problem, solo, is that the UK doesn't even have a coherent position. It keeps changing, depending on whether you talk to May, Davis, or latterly, Johnson who seems to think he is PM and not FS. Yesterday's speech to the Tory party conference by the way, does not indicate that Johnson is on top of his job at all.

But anyway. You voted remain and yet you have all this leave rhetoric at your finger tips.

I like the European Union for a lot of reasons. I grew in up in a country which is one of the most open trading economies in the world now but it was extremely insular and parochial when I was at school. Like a lot of people, I was fortunate enough to receive Erasmus funding in the very early days and this enabled me to study in foreign countries. I studied in Germany. In the interim, I also worked in France, the UK, Belgium and I studied for a short while in Finland as well after it joined in 1995. I've paid college fees in the UK and I've voted there. I've paid taxes in all of those countries except Finland unless you count VAT and excise which you can't avoid if you want to make someone an Irish coffee and didn't bring a bottle of Jameson with you.

I think, when I read your posts, that what I sense more than Leave rhetoric is privilege. You are in the UK, you have the right to vote there. Certain other rights are guaranteed to you by EU legislation and you assume you will never need those rights. One of the best things that the EU brought with it for people was the right to establishment anywhere in the EU provided certain conditions were met. You and many people like you take those conditions for granted in the UK because you're Irish. And you also take it for granted that Brexit won't change the rights you've enjoyed. I find it quite selfish. I think if you were in the same position as many French people, many Polish people who settled in the UK and, broadly, paid their way in the UK - the EU cohort in the UK are more than self financing - your view would be different.

I'm not sure that voicing a view that Irish people who have jobs in the UK who are voicing pro-Brexit opinions are fundamentally self-centred is going to convince you of anything. You don't engage with many of the comments I make.

The thing is, compared to 25 years ago when I graduated college for the first time, the one thing that the EU has done is broadened the experience of many, many people. Not just the French and the Polish. The British are notoriously awful at learning languages - they are worse on average than the Irish are and god knows many of my compatriots are not good. This also means that they are massively disadvantaged when it comes to knowing the heart of other peoples. There's a famous quote attributed to Mandela:



which I think is important here. The European Union hasn't just been about money, or economics or trade. It's been about people. It has been about their hearts. Their lives. Their loves. Other people have reached into the hearts of many Britons even if Britons have not engaged in learning foreign languages with much gusto.

My life would be very different if the EU had not existed. I might not have studied languages. I might have spent my life living in Dublin. There are people in my life both past and present, the lack of whom would have made me a lesser person. Opportunities have come my way because of freedom of movement, and various policies of the EU in its various guises to foster connections between the different peoples of Europe. I am absolutely certain that my life would have been the poorer for the lack of it and the freedoms and rights it has conferred upon me. That you think you don't benefit from them or don't need to benefit from them in the UK because you're Irish and not, for example French so the risk to you is so much less doesn't change the impact that this has. If the UK is serious about walking away from FOM, this affects thousands of young British people who want that chance. I posted yesterday that I had met some of them. There is a callous disregard for their interests too Yes, there is a lot of discussion about the EU citizens, but it seems to me to be forgotten that many British people are losing out here too.

The EU and its admin are not perfect. It is, and has always been, in a constant state of evolution. Even if Brexit never happened, I can guarantee that the EU as it is now would be different to the EU as it will be in 10 years' time, and is different to how things were 10 years ago. More ownership of the process has moved to the Parliament which gives the inhabitants of the constituent states of the EU more of a say and more influence in what happens.

But no administration is perfect and few if any states in the world are in a state of unchanging stasis.

I don't believe I can change your mind because only you can do that.

Thank-you for taking the time and effort to write this excellent post. I doubt that Solo will take any heed, unfortunately. I find the man's views exasperating. He has said he is Irish and is an immigrant in the U.K. for over 20 years. Britain leaving the E.U. undermines the vision of a pan European consensus in favour of the blinkered self obsession of the nation state is my view. Solo is flag waving and the flag is not even his own! I really don't get it. Exasperating, as I say.

FrancieBrady

Calina wrote: »

I am not a lawyer but it is highly unlikely that the UK leaving the EU removes those rights as the conferral of Irish citizenship is a matter for the Republic of Ireland.

There are also concerns that the UK will be in breach if it leaves the ECHR.

The people of the north would be very concerned about not having that protection, given that the conflict kicked off because of flagrant abuse of human rights.

Fratton Fred

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There are also concerns that the UK will be in breach if it leaves the ECHR.

The people of the north would be very concerned about not having that protection, given that the conflict kicked off because of flagrant abuse of human rights.

The UK isn’t though, so it is irrelevant.

FrancieBrady

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The UK isn’t though, so it is irrelevant.

Not in the short term. AFAIK they have only committed to it until Brexit concludes.

Fratton Fred

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not in the short term. AFAIK they have only committed to it until Brexit concludes.

The UK will remain a member of the european council for the duration of this parliament, beyond that it is up to the next parliament to decide and the next one and the next one.

Or, to put it another way, there are no plans for the UK to leave the ECHR.

FrancieBrady

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The UK will remain a member of the european council for the duration of this parliament, beyond that it is up to the next parliament to decide and the next one and the next one.

Or, to put it another way, there are no plans for the UK to leave the ECHR.

So, the statement I made is true. 'If they leave...etc'.

Enzokk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The UK will remain a member of the european council for the duration of this parliament, beyond that it is up to the next parliament to decide and the next one and the next one.

Or, to put it another way, there are no plans for the UK to leave the ECHR.

Seeing that the ECHR is the court that has made the rulings that people site when talking about rulings that are made elsewhere and not allowing the UK to deport people, how long before they figure out that they really wanted to leave the ECHR and not the ECJ?

Reality Check: What is the European Court of Justice?

It's not to be confused with...
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which is a separate institution.
The ECtHR is based in a different city, Strasbourg, and is not part of the European Union.
It is the ECtHR not the ECJ that has often upset British politicians by making it harder, for example, to deport terrorist suspects.

Theresa May under fire over deportation cat claim

Home Secretary Theresa May has been criticised for claiming that an illegal immigrant avoided deportation because of his pet cat.

She told the Conservative conference the ruling illustrated the problem with human rights laws, but England's top judges said she had got it wrong.

Her Cabinet colleague Ken Clarke said he had been "surprised" by the claim and could not believe it was true.

And human rights campaigners said Mrs May should get "her facts straight".

'Needs to go'

Mrs May made the remark during a speech in which she repeated her belief that the Human Rights Act, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, "needs to go".

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not in the short term. AFAIK they have only committed to it until Brexit concludes.

More scaremongering designed only to cause fear and distrust among the Northern Irish population.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

More scaremongering designed only to cause fear and distrust among the Northern Irish population.

No scaremongering. The UK were intent on leaving the ECHR until pressured into committing to it (only) until Brexit concludes.
Nobody in their right mind would take that as a reassuring position, particularly those affected by abuses of human rights perpetrated by the UK.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Calina wrote: »

But first things first. You've made the assumption that all people posting and replying to you are male. They are not. I'm female and to be honest, I'm find it depressing in this day and age that you assume that all interlocutors on a message board either all male. I realise you work in IT but so do I and frankly, you have no excuse.

I was replying to murphaph and Jim2007. Both of whom as far as I know are men. I could be wrong.

Calina wrote: »

These negotiations are happening at the level of details and actually identifying what has to be done. Currently, the UK's contribution on Northern Ireland has been wishful thinking about not complying with WTO regulations on a border which per one of their own red lines means that one side will be in the single market and one side will not. There has been discussion about drones. Blue sky thinking. Number plate reading. There is nothing actually tangible here at the level of detail which is required to make anything happen. It's as though someone said "I want a computer system which will do stuff" but no one actually tells you what the stuff is.

It's worth pointing out that the reason why the border can't be dealt with comprehensively is because the European Union won't permit discussions in respect to trade or customs.

The UK are ready and waiting to discuss these matters.

Calina wrote: »

TBH - and I have said this before - this is not so much an offer as something which would be a basic requirement. Again, the transition is in the UK's interest much more than the EU interest. Otherwise they wouldn't be asking for one.

The UK paying for nothing in return simply isn't in Britain's interest. This is why the Florence speech clearly tied payment for the EU budget and outstanding obligations with the transition period. If it doesn't work this way I'd much rather use the money to help handle a no deal scenario.

Calina wrote: »

Really? EU rights are dealt with by the ECJ. I thought that this was off the table as one of May's red lines. I don't see this as a concession. A concession is recognising that the ECJ is the correct court here. I've written before about issues with enforcement of court orders in the UK when the party in contempt is the Home Office.

The terms of the agreement very clearly can be enforced by British courts. British courts are held in high international regard for enforcing law. So much so that third parties use them for settling international disputes.

Part of being separate from the EU is that the ECJ cannot supersede British law. If that happens then the UK hasn't actually left the European Union.

A concession is proposing joint arbitration - this is a reasonable option and has international precedent.

Calina wrote: »

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

Read my point about tying the payment to transitional terms.

Calina wrote: »

This too is a bit meaningless.

Read my point about the ECJ and the UK actually leaving the European Union.

Calina wrote: »

But anyway. You voted remain and yet you have all this leave rhetoric at your finger tips.

I respect democracy. That's why.

I'm highly sceptical of the European Union and it's increasing remit. I was before the referendum also. I voted reluctantly for the status quo, but I realised afterwards that a vote to stay in the European Union isn't a vote for the status quo, it's a vote for more "integration".

Calina wrote: »

I think, when I read your posts, that what I sense more than Leave rhetoric is privilege. You are in the UK, you have the right to vote there. Certain other rights are guaranteed to you by EU legislation and you assume you will never need those rights. One of the best things that the EU brought with it for people was the right to establishment anywhere in the EU provided certain conditions were met. You and many people like you take those conditions for granted in the UK because you're Irish. And you also take it for granted that Brexit won't change the rights you've enjoyed. I find it quite selfish. I think if you were in the same position as many French people, many Polish people who settled in the UK and, broadly, paid their way in the UK - the EU cohort in the UK are more than self financing - your view would be different.

I enjoy living in Britain and I'm thankful for the opportunities I've been conferred.

The basis for the rights that I have in Britain is the Republic of Ireland Act. I'm thankful for that opportunity. In the event that I required a visa I would get one and follow the due process. I'm thankful that I don't have to.

Calina wrote: »

I'm not sure that voicing a view that Irish people who have jobs in the UK who are voicing pro-Brexit opinions are fundamentally self-centred is going to convince you of anything. You don't engage with many of the comments I make.

I don't believe I'm "fundamentally self-centred" for actively contributing to life in the UK. Nor do I believe that anyone who is currently here from the EU should have to leave.

I also understand the concerns that were raised in the referendum.

Calina wrote: »

My life would be very different if the EU had not existed. I might not have studied languages. I might have spent my life living in Dublin. There are people in my life both past and present, the lack of whom would have made me a lesser person. Opportunities have come my way because of freedom of movement, and various policies of the EU in its various guises to foster connections between the different peoples of Europe. I am absolutely certain that my life would have been the poorer for the lack of it and the freedoms and rights it has conferred upon me. That you think you don't benefit from them or don't need to benefit from them in the UK because you're Irish and not, for example French so the risk to you is so much less doesn't change the impact that this has. If the UK is serious about walking away from FOM, this affects thousands of young British people who want that chance. I posted yesterday that I had met some of them. There is a callous disregard for their interests too Yes, there is a lot of discussion about the EU citizens, but it seems to me to be forgotten that many British people are losing out here too.

You seem to forget it was the British people who voted to leave the European Union of their own accord. People will be able to apply for residence by normal channels.

I don't think desiring Britain to take back control of it's own affairs is "callous". I see Brexit as an opportunity to open up to the world at large rather than an opportunity to close in on itself. I respect that you disagree.

Calina wrote: »

The EU and its admin are not perfect. It is, and has always been, in a constant state of evolution. Even if Brexit never happened, I can guarantee that the EU as it is now would be different to the EU as it will be in 10 years' time, and is different to how things were 10 years ago. More ownership of the process has moved to the Parliament which gives the inhabitants of the constituent states of the EU more of a say and more influence in what happens.

The EU and it's institutions are moving towards taking more control from member states. That is why Britain voted to leave. It is moving in a completely different direction to how people wanted it. People wanted more control for nation states to make their own decisions. The European Union was increasingly incompatible with this aspiration. People didn't want important decisions being made about their lives hundreds of miles away but rather in their own parliament by their own MP's.

That's an understandable concern.

Britain was moving in a fundamentally different direction to the European Union since 1992. This is simply a painful realisation of that. Had John Major called a referendum in 1992 it is possible that the British people would have chosen not to join the European Union.

Calina wrote: »

But no administration is perfect and few if any states in the world are in a state of unchanging stasis.

I don't believe I can change your mind because only you can do that.

It isn't about perfection. It's about the very underlying philosophical principles of the European Union. More integration is not the answer. If anything less is.

Yes, I'm afraid you're right. I don't get this passion.

The UK doesn't need to be a member of the European Union to contribute positively in the European continent. Its efforts and initiatives in European defence in the eastern bloc show this clearly.

mountaintop wrote: »

Thank-you for taking the time and effort to write this excellent post. I doubt that Solo will take any heed, unfortunately. I find the man's views exasperating. He has said he is Irish and is an immigrant in the U.K. for over 20 years. Britain leaving the E.U. undermines the vision of a pan European consensus in favour of the blinkered self obsession of the nation state is my view. Solo is flag waving and the flag is not even his own! I really don't get it. Exasperating, as I say.

I grew up in Ireland. I've been in the UK for 6 years. Not 20.

You make it sound like it's somehow sinister to wish that nations should have control over their own affairs. Isn't that what happened in Ireland about 100 years ago?

I find your comments about my nationality inappropriate. I get a warning for asking an innocuous question of people as to why they are passionate about the EU, whereas this is just fine.

Hope that makes sense.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Fratton Fred

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, the statement I made is true. 'If they leave...etc'.

no, I am not entirely sure that it is actually.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No scaremongering. The UK were intent on leaving the ECHR until pressured into committing to it (only) until Brexit concludes.

Theresa May saying she wanted to leave the ECHR does not equal the UK being intent on leaving it.