Brexit discussion thread III

seamus

Nody wrote: »

Bold added by me to highlight the stupidity...

Comments about British identity and "national humiliation", from a child of Indian immigrants.

You literally couldn't make this up. In my eyes, she is British. But from the point of view of many Brexiteers, she is exactly what they voted Leave to avoid - "dilution of Britishness", foreign immigrants tainting the British gene and cultural pools, and yet here she is making comments in its defence.

Madness.

josip

Nody wrote: »

Looks like those Freedom Passports will be printed in Europe by a French/Dutch company which of course have the Brexiteers up in arms (and showing their cluelessness to EU regulation and law requirements on open tenders etc.).

If it had to be an open tender then is this statement in the article incorrect?

Sutherland acknowledged that his firm had been beaten on price in an open competition, but he said that was unfair. He said that in France, as a foreign-based firm, De La Rue would be barred from bidding to produce the French passport

Nody

josip wrote: »

If it had to be an open tender then is this statement in the article incorrect?

Depends on the legislation; for example if France has a legal requirement of them being done in France for security reasons (it's then open for any company but the production has to be done in France) or similar that's in play. The standard rule is however that any government contracts have to be advertised EU wide for tenders. The tender has to have clear criteria for selection and the limitations can also be challenged (for example "Can only hire UK citizens" would most likely not be a legal requirement as it goes against freedom of movement etc.).

Found the above potentially confirmed in the Telegraph article:

He said the company is not allowed to compete for passport contracts in France - thought to be because of national security protections

josip

Nody wrote: »

Depends on the legislation; for example if France has a legal requirement of them being done in France for security reasons (it's then open for any company but the production has to be done in France) or similar that's in play. The standard rule is however that any government contracts have to be advertised EU wide for tenders. The tender has to have clear criteria for selection and the limitations can also be challenged (for example "Can only hire UK citizens" would most likely not be a legal requirement as it goes against freedom of movement etc.).

Found the above potentially confirmed in the Telegraph article:

That sound like protectionism by another name, especially if not all EU countries apply this principle.

seamus

josip wrote: »

If it had to be an open tender then is this statement in the article incorrect?

Probably. It's most likely deliberately misleading to get a soundbite.

French passports are produced by a state-run company responsible for printing all official documents. So in effect nobody outside (or inside) of France would ever be invited to tender to print passports. How that works under competition law I don't know, but they've probably shoehorned in some data security things there - e.g. as a state company, they have access to verification data that no private company ever legally could.

LeinsterDub

josip wrote: »

That sound like protectionism by another name, especially if not all EU countries apply this principle.

It is. The UK are entitled to enact a similar law if they wanted to or they could of lobbied for the EU regulations to be changed. Much like they could send home EU citizens who can't support themselves .

Nody

Oh but this story just took another turn for fun; Gemalto has a factory in the UK that would most likely produce the passports in Kent. So not only would the jobs remain in the UK they can do it for 50 million less but it's all about those bastard third party French scum who'll steal blank passports and give them out in Calais immigrants apparently and this is why it needs to be with a proper UK company (summary from the Telegraph comment section).

Only to add another source for the above claim of production:
https://twitter.com/PaulJ2303/status/976733090893705217?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2Fblog%2Flive%2F2018%2Fmar%2F22%2Fminister-floats-prospect-of-procurement-rules-changing-after-brexit-after-passport-contract-backlash-politics-live&tfw_creator=AndrewSparrow&tfw_site=guardian

Skedaddle

It's all becoming a bit sad and starting to remind me of the NI "flegs" protests.

When your national pride is entirely about things like the colour of passports, miles on road signs and the technical specifications of 3 pin plugs, it's usually indicative of an identity crisis and lack of confidence.

It's also a rather hilarious and ironic piece of cultural appropriation that the UK has adopted the narrative of countries leaving the British Empire (usually by uprising and against military force) and is applying that to leaving a peaceful, democratic organisation that it voluntarily joined and that has shown no particular resistance to it leaving, other than asking it to tidy up the loose ends.

The whole thing is like a comedy sketch.

Peregrinus

Essentially, the UK has long had a mania for privatisation of public services and, once you privatise a service, it has to be open to all EU service providers on a non-discriminatory basis (there can be exceptions based on national security, etc, but they are narrowly drawn).

If and when the French do privatise their passport production, then other EU bidders can tender for it.

Yet another layer of irony in the comments of Tory ministers about this is that the UK government has made it clear that it wants a strong, broad, deep, etc really good trade deal with the EU post-Brexit. It is absolutely certain that such a deal will include public procurement and competition rules opening UK government contracts to EU bidders (and vice versa, of course). So the UK, having brexitted and recovered the ability to bar foreign tenderers from public contracts, will immediately exercise its newly-taken-back control to surrender that freedom and restore the state of affairs to that which prevailed in the bad old days of enslavement by faceless unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

Econ_

The real irony of the blue British passports is that you can actually have them if you’re in the EU anyway.

It’s a good metaphor for the supposed ‘positives’ of Brexit. ‘Now that we’re leaving we can do.....the things we were already able to do’

josip

Is it also ironic that the UK having a 'mania' for privatisation of services is more compatible with the free movement of services objective of the EU than countries that have more protectionist policies?

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm thinking the impact is going to be slow, steady, and sustained. Not a massive and sudden crash, but a persistent underperformance by the UK economy with a substantial cumulative effect over time.

I agree there will be a sustained slowdown vs. potential growth, but if a lot of British business is simply ignoring Brexit and hoping it'll be all right on the night, there is going to be a short, sharp shock too.

Various boardsies have been saying (for months) "if X doesn't happen before date Y, business will trigger their contingency plans and we'll see bad thing Z".

But if much of British business is ignoring Brexit and has no contingency plans, this kind of thing will not happen. Instead we will pass dates Y, A, B and C whistling happily and finally arrive at some critical date. Maybe Brexit day, maybe the end of the Transition period, maybe a collapse in talks, maybe a collapse of the Government and a new election.

Whatever it is, when this crisis happens, there will be a huge loss of confidence in the UK economy when business finally faces the fact that they really are up the creek, and the Government does not even know what a paddle is.

This could indeed be a massive, sudden crash into a recession.

Enzokk

josip wrote: »

That sound like protectionism by another name, especially if not all EU countries apply this principle.

Seems that some passports are currently printed overseas already. From the independent article there is this quote from the Home Office spokesperson:

“All passports will continue to be personalised with the holder's details in the United Kingdom, meaning that no personal data will leave the UK.

“We do not require passports to be manufactured in the UK. A proportion of blank passport books are currently manufactured overseas, and there are no security or operational reasons why this would not continue.”

So at the moment passport books are printed overseas but the personal information page is added in the UK.

Edited to add: If the UK were looking for protectionism they could add the clause that the passports need to be produced in the UK, but for me they are being prudent and saving their tax payers £50m with this contract. That can go a long way in a country that has to rely on food banks for people to eat.

Peregrinus

As matters stand, if they want to say that the passports must be produced in the UK they need to justify that on national security or other grounds. If the EU Commission isn't happy about that they can haul them into the ECJ and see if the justification stands up.

This issue goes away with Brexit, but it almost certainly returns again if the UK succeeds in making the super-duper trade deal with the EU to which it aspires.

It's amusing to see Brexiters who have been trumpeting nimble, go-ahead global Britain as the answer to all concerns about Brexit turn around and say they would charge British taxpayers an extra fifty million quid in order to avoid letting a government contract go to the damned Frenchies.

Thomas__.

Peregrinus wrote: »

As matters stand, if they want to say that the passports must be produced in the UK they need to justify that on national security or other grounds.  If the EU Commission isn't happy about that they can haul them into the ECJ and see if the justification stands up.  

This issue goes away with Brexit, but it almost certainly returns again if the UK succeeds in making the super-duper trade deal with the EU to which it aspires.  

It's amusing to see Brexiters who have been trumpeting nimble, go-ahead global Britain as the answer to all concerns about Brexit turn around and say they would charge British taxpayers an extra fifty million quid in order to avoid letting a government contract go to the damned Frenchies.

That is all very funny and exposes the stupidity of the many Brexiteers when reality hits them back.

Leroy42

But also, are Brexiteers really saying that under Brexit everything will be more expensive since there will be less competition?

The bid was accepted as it was the lowest, saving the country money. Are UK citizens prepared to pay an extra amount for a UK produced passport? Some of them no doubt, but that is the easiest argument to show people the logical effects of the policy they want.

And why is nobody asking why the UK firms are so of of whack in terms of pricing. They have the same regulations. How does the UK intend to compete with the likes of China and India if they can't even compete with the EU?

demfad

Sand wrote: »

Critics say democracy is voters going for the easy option, for whatever is in their immediate interest. No big picture or vision beyond where their next handout is coming from. We know pollution is killing the planet, but we just want more anyway. I just find the criticism of Brexit, given it was a vote for an idea* greater than where the next handout is coming from to be fascinating in that context.

I know I'm talking to a wall on this point. Brexit voters are idiots. There is nothing to learn. Ignore the vote. More of the same. Okay.

*I don't agree with the idea.

The Brexit campaign played to people's emotions and fears. 'Bring back control' was probably the most astute emotional play. In modern UK (and elsewhere) people feel that the things are outside their control, that they are powerless. Using the perceived remoteness of the EU to associating this feeling of helplessness with membership of a remote, unaccountable EU.
Take back control and you have the power to solve all the other problems, economic and social.
Fears were played on through immigration which tied in with taking back control this time of borders.
Nationalistic emotions were fired up with the EU being portrayed as a domineering empire forcing rules down the UKs throat. With many Britons brought up on Britains past glory and greatness the idea being a perceived 'rule taker' from foreigners including past foes was used to rouse deep nationalism.
With the revelations of Cambridge Analytica and Facebook we now know that these emotions were targetted using information warfare. This is indeed a fascinating point in history, but also a very worrying one indeed.

Skedaddle

Peregrinus wrote: »

As matters stand, if they want to say that the passports must be produced in the UK they need to justify that on national security or other grounds. If the EU Commission isn't happy about that they can haul them into the ECJ and see if the justification stands up.

This issue goes away with Brexit, but it almost certainly returns again if the UK succeeds in making the super-duper trade deal with the EU to which it aspires.

It's amusing to see Brexiters who have been trumpeting nimble, go-ahead global Britain as the answer to all concerns about Brexit turn around and say they would charge British taxpayers an extra fifty million quid in order to avoid letting a government contract go to the damned Frenchies.

Also the big lie that there was a dichotomy between EU trade and global trade, when they already have both and have the weight of the entire EU to leverage trade deals. That still goes largely unchallenged by most of the UK media who just parrot the line over and over.

It's very hard to make any kind of arguments in an environment that's 90% rhetoric and 10% facts.

So far, as I understand it, they're going for: an open Britian, that will be highly protectionist and very opposed to immigration, with strict border controls that it doesn't want to enforce under any circumstances. Meanwhile, it wants to be a creative and IT hub while continuously pushing towards internet censorship and heavy-handed data retention.

There's no liberal philosophy that I can detect. It's nativism, protectionism and regressive policies wearing the clothes of a party that used to be about economic liberalism. I don't think the Tories really know what they stand for. It seems to be mostly whatever pushes the correct and highly calculated emotional hope and fear triggers to keep them in power.

Who needs a political philosophy, a vision for the economy or an ability to lead when you know exactly how to manipulate enough of the population to keep power?

This isn't like any kind of normal British politics and nothing like the old school Tories either.

Zubeneschamali

I think an interesting point I saw recently, I think on Twitter but someone may have raised it here, is that arguments for Brexit are the exact opposite of the Better Together arguments against Scottish independence.

Brexit arguments are about taking back control, sovereignty and patriotism. When it is pointed out that this will cost an Imperial Ton of cash and will slow the economy, that is not important.

Arguments against Scottish Independence were all about how it would cost the Scots an Imperial Ton of cash and damage their economy, and that sovereignty, local control and patriotism should take a back seat.

A follow on is that the economic costs of Brexit to Scotland mean that the economic arguments are a tie, or maybe even a reason to leave the UK and rejoin the EU, meaning a new Indyref would have control etc on the Indy side and economics as a tie - bye bye UK.

Thomas__.

Leroy42 wrote: »

But also, are Brexiteers really saying that under Brexit everything will be more expensive since there will be less competition?

The bid was accepted as it was the lowest, saving the country money.  Are UK citizens prepared to pay an extra amount for a UK produced passport?  Some of them no doubt, but that is the easiest argument to show people the logical effects of the policy they want.

And why is nobody asking why the UK firms are so of of whack in terms of pricing.  They have the same regulations.  How does the UK intend to compete with the likes of China and India if they can't even compete with the EU?

Brexiters don't think that far, like their FS, they're stuck in the past and for BoJo it is all 1930s and 1940s all over again (just thinking about his recent rhetoric).

josip

Enzokk wrote: »

Edited to add: If the UK were looking for protectionism they could add the clause that the passports need to be produced in the UK, but for me they are being prudent and saving their tax payers £50m with this contract. That can go a long way in a country that has to rely on food banks for people to eat.

You're not taking the multiplier effect into account.

http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Managing_the_economy/The_multiplier_effect.html

Sometimes it can make more macro economic sense to pay more for domestically produced goods and services.

Akrasia

I have to say I laughed at the fisheries protesters the other day, protesting to demand that foreign fishing vessels should not be allowed access to UK fisheries while also demanding that UK fishermen be allowed to retain 'fair access' to EU fisheries.

What do we want??
Foreign Fishermen out!
What else do we want??
Access to foreign fisheries!

gimli2112

watching some tory nitwit on Sky debating the loss of British passport production to the EU is funny, cringeworthy and a little horrifying

ancapailldorcha

gimli2112 wrote: »

watching some tory nitwit on Sky debating the loss of British passport production to the EU is funny, cringeworthy and a little horrifying

No more name calling please. This is a forum for serious discussion.

gimli2112

yeah ok it's just bizarre the importance they're placing on this kind of stuff. I just don't understand the mindset I guess.

Sam Russell

Akrasia wrote: »

I have to say I laughed at the fisheries protesters the other day, protesting to demand that foreign fishing vessels should not be allowed access to UK fisheries while also demanding that UK fishermen be allowed to retain 'fair access' to EU fisheries.

What do we want??
Foreign Fishermen out!
What else do we want??
Access to foreign fisheries!

One single Dutch trawler has 23% of the UK fishery catch, and it does not unload the catch in the UK, but rather in the Nederlands.

Really Interested

Peregrinus wrote: »

Essentially, the UK has long had a mania for privatisation of public services and, once you privatise a service, it has to be open to all EU service providers on a non-discriminatory basis (there can be exceptions based on national security, etc, but they are narrowly drawn).

If and when the French do privatise their passport production, then other EU bidders can tender for it.

Yet another layer of irony in the comments of Tory ministers about this is that the UK government has made it clear that it wants a strong, broad, deep, etc really good trade deal with the EU post-Brexit. It is absolutely certain that such a deal will include public procurement and competition rules opening UK government contracts to EU bidders (and vice versa, of course). So the UK, having brexitted and recovered the ability to bar foreign tenderers from public contracts, will immediately exercise its newly-taken-back control to surrender that freedom and restore the state of affairs to that which prevailed in the bad old days of enslavement by faceless unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=200403&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=735146


I have not read decision yet but in effect I believe it says a states own printing service does not save it from having to tender including passport services.

Really Interested

Sam Russell wrote: »

One single Dutch trawler has 23% of the UK fishery catch, and it does not unload the catch in the UK, but rather in the Nederlands.

http://theconversation.com/fact-check-is-80-of-uk-fish-given-away-to-the-rest-of-europe-39966

So can you link to proof that 23% of “UK fishery catch” in fact that claim does not add up! As only UK registered boats can catch UK Quota. Do people not even read the claims they find.

BTW the largest fishing vessel registered in Holland used tone the Irish Registered Athlantic Dawn. http://www.thejournal.ie/annelies-ilena-atlantic-dawn-ireland-coast-1886452-Jan2015/

Akrasia

Sam Russell wrote: »

One single Dutch trawler has 23% of the UK fishery catch, and it does not unload the catch in the UK, but rather in the Nederlands.

Maybe, but as part of the EU the UK negotiates fishing quotas for its fishing industry, they negotiate the best terms from a position of power within tge EU. Outside the EU they'll have no access unless they allow a reciprocal agreement for EU trawlers to fish their waters, much like Norway has.

Gerry T

Really Interested wrote:

So can you link to proof that 23% of “UK fishery catch†in fact that claim does not add up! As only UK registered boats can catch UK Quota. Do people not even read the claims they find.

I heard this also on a radio programme, but the interesting fact proposed was UK boats catch fish that's sold to the EU and the EU (minus UK) boats sell their catch into the UK. Has to do with where these boats fish (deep v's shallow waters) and taste preferences of those catches. But the circa 23% from a single boat was mentioned

Really Interested

Gerry T wrote: »

I heard this also on a radio programme, but the interesting fact proposed was UK boats catch fish that's sold to the EU and the EU (minus UK) boats sell their catch into the UK. Has to do with where these boats fish (deep v's shallow waters) and taste preferences of those catches. But the circa 23% from a single boat was mentioned

Yes and I assume that boat is the Dutch ship that used to be Irish. It is so big it used to be banned from fishing in EU waters for most of the year. It had to spend 9 months a year fishing off Africa until it was kicked out of there. Funny no one seemed to have issue when a Donegal ship was catching huge amount of EU quota and sucking African waters bare but all changed when it was bought by a Dutch company.

CrabRevolution

I don't get the huge importance placed on fishermen. They've a disproportionately loud voice compared to their size, especially considering the ideas they push.

It's like the steelworkers in the US. It seems that if tariffs cause 3 car manufacturing plant workers to lose their jobs, it's justified if they create 1 more job for a steelworker.

The trump card of "Irexit" arguments is apparently how the EU stole our fish. They effectively propose actions which will benefit at most a few hundred fishermen and a few thousand people with jobs further up the line, but at a cost of hundreds of thousands of other jobs which involve EU membership (pharmaceutical/tech/finance etc.)? How can they keep a straight face when suggesting it?

I'm all for supporting our indigenous fishing industry, but our priorities have to be right.

Kermit.de.frog

The Tories seem to think the Irish attitude is all for show over "the elections"

From 3:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=066LosZ6F-0

Bit cynical

Leroy42 wrote: »

Nobody is claiming the vote is invalid. What remainers are claiming is that the vote does not give a blank cheque to the government to do whatever it wants. It cannot simply ignore the 48% that voted to remain or assume that every leave vote was on the basis of whatever the cost.

In fairness there were quite large protests the days after the referendum, not against government policy or the government's interpretation of the result, but the actual result itself.

Anthracite

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The Tories seem to think the Irish attitude is all for show over "the elections"

I've heard this being trotted out many times in the UK media, by Iain Duncan Smith and others, completely unchallenged. The fact that it would take literally 5 seconds for a journalist to fact-check this seems to be an insurmountable barrier to anyone calling them on this bare-faced lie.

Capt'n Midnight

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The Tories seem to think the Irish attitude is all for show over "the elections"

Someone should remind them that the Civil War was fought over whether to accept a border or not. And FF were the crowd totally against it.

And that if FF get in they'd have to be even more hardline about the border to prove they are the "real" republican party, especially to take votes back from SF.

For a lot of us down here the idea that FG are actually doing something about the north is uncharted territory.

FreudianSlippers

Sam Russell wrote: »

One single Dutch trawler has 23% of the UK fishery catch, and it does not unload the catch in the UK, but rather in the Nederlands.

Common fisheries policy = problem solved.

No need to **** off mate!

FreudianSlippers

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Someone should remind them that the Civil War was fought over whether to accept a border or not. And FF were the crowd totally against it.

And that if FF get in they'd have to be even more hardline about the border to prove they are the "real" republican party, especially to take votes back from SF.

For a lot of us down here the idea that FG are actually doing something about the north is uncharted territory.

Look. I think that this is the time to be hard about the border.

I think we have an opportunity to show how a "united ireland" could work as two countries. What if we agreed that we would police the borders between the islands, if the EU subsidized us to pay for it, paid for reconciliation grants and allowed a limited common market between Ireland and the UK?


We get money from UK and EU to pay for NI plus a reunification effort payment, plus a guarantee that there is no negotiation on our corporate tax.

I just solved both brexit and Ireland.

*mic drop*

Peregrinus

josip wrote: »

You're not taking the multiplier effect into account.

http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Managing_the_economy/The_multiplier_effect.html

Sometimes it can make more macro economic sense to pay more for domestically produced goods and services.

But you're not taking reciprocity into account.

The UK firm that tendered for this contract and didn't get it, De La Rue, does a huge amount of security printing work for foreign governments - banknotes, postage stamps, passports, the lot. They produce 150 different currencies alone.

They are heavily invested in a global trading regime in which they are free to bid for these contracts, and are not discriminated against.

If the UK opts out of this trading regime so that De La Rue can be guaranteed the UK passports contract despite foreign bidders being cheaper, no amount of "multiplier effect" is going to compensate for the losses and opportunity costs suffered by De La Rue and other British companies who lose the right to tender for foreign government contracts.

The whole point of Brexit was supposed to be to allow nimble, creative, go-ahead Britain to escape the dead hand of Brussels bureaucracy and embark on a career as a world-beating economic power. Brexit hasn't even happened yet, and already Brexiters are making it clear that, no, it's all about little England protecting itself from nasty foreign competition.

Peregrinus

Really Interested wrote: »

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=200403&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=735146


I have not read decision yet but in effect I believe it says a states own printing service does not save it from having to tender including passport services.

It's relevant in that decision that the printing agency, though state-owned, was organised as a private company (like any privately-owned commercial business), and the fact that the State was the principal shareholder didn't involve "any special mechanism for State supervision" in relation to security concerns. In other words, although the Austrian state held the shares in this company, this didn't put them in any position to address public security measures in this company any more than they could in a company they didn't own.

The decision might have been different if they were printing passports, etc, in a division of one of their own government departments.

It may be that the French are going their government printing in-house - as in, a state agency is doing it, rather than a state-owned commercial venture.

Or, it may be that, based on this case, De La Rue would in fact have good grounds for a complaint to the Commission about their exclusion from the French passport-printing business. And, if they have such a claim, possibly the reason they don't pursue it is the knowledge that, however good the claim is now, it will lapse with Brexit.

Peregrinus

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The Tories seem to think the Irish attitude is all for show over "the elections"

This is a common Brexiter talking-point.

Whatever your views about the merits or demerits of the Irish border problem, it requires profound ignorance about Ireland and Irish affairs to imagine that it's a beaten-up problem, manufactured to secure electoral advantage.

But there's no shortage of profound ignorance about Ireland among Brexiters.

Skedaddle

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is a common Brexiter talking-point.

Whatever your views about the merits or demerits of the Irish border problem, it requires profound ignorance about Ireland and Irish affairs to imagine that it's a beaten-up problem, manufactured to secure electoral advantage.

But there's no shortage of profound ignorance about Ireland among Brexiters.

They're projecting their own mythology and political culture onto Ireland. Remember that is how they are thinking about everything they do - it's for electoral advantage and very little else.

They're coming up against an actual principled belief when it comes the the border.

They can't understand that people could simply be absolutely against a hard border because everyone actually believes that's a fundamentally bad thing and that they're not just saying things for the sake of political point scoring. Or that there's an Irish consensus on this issue across all parties.

Zubeneschamali

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I just solved both brexit and Ireland.

*mic drop*

Well, no. You have reset Ireland to 1914 or so when Home Rule was passed at Westminster and the Unionists and Nationalists started arming for civil war.

Thomas__.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Someone should remind them that the Civil War was fought over whether to accept a border or not. And FF were the crowd totally against it.

And that if FF get in they'd have to be even more hardline about the border to prove they are the "real" republican party, especially to take votes back from SF.

For a lot of us down here the idea that FG are actually doing something about the north is uncharted territory.

Look. I think that this is the time to be hard about the border.

I think we have an opportunity to show how a "united ireland" could work as two countries. What if we agreed that we would police the borders between the islands, if the EU subsidized us to pay for it, paid for reconciliation grants and allowed a limited common market between Ireland and the UK?


We get money from UK and EU to pay for NI plus a reunification effort payment, plus a guarantee that there is no negotiation on our corporate tax.

I just solved both brexit and Ireland.

*mic drop*

Your suggestion is not working in reality and you haven't solved anything, it rather would feed the extremists on both sides in NI to start another Trubles era.  
The best thing would be that the UK would simply abandon NI and leave it to reunite with the Republic and preparations should be made to keep the militant Unionists in check (which is easier said than done but nonetheless necessary) militant Dissos would also had to be under surveilliance in case they would use that for some retaliations.

demfad

Just a query:

Would it be possible to have coorporations, companies and businesses based in Northern Ireland registered as ROI entities for tax purposes and membership of the single market?

I'm sure a whole raft of EU, UK and ROI law might prohibit but just putting it out there.

This type of situation always struck me as a likely vehicle for a transition to a UI should that situation arise.
It might also serve as a half way house after Brexit, where companies that did more trade locally or with ROI and/or EU could register in EU.

Zubeneschamali

demfad wrote: »

This type of situation always struck me as a likely vehicle for a transition to a UI should that situation arise.

That is why the Unionists would rather die than allow anything like that.

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

There is this constant refrain from Brexiteers that the Remainers wull2nor accept the vote.

Nobody is claiming the vote is invalid. What remainers are claiming is that the vote does not give a blank cheque to the government to do whatever it wants. It cannot simply ignore the 48% that voted to remain or assume that every leave vote was on the basis of whatever the cost.

It is a trite line trotted out by the like of IDS and JRM to avoid having to deal with the genuine concerns that are being raised.

And when did democracy stop? My understanding is that a vote doesn't mean the losing side needs to shut up and accept whatever happens. It is the job of MPs to continue to serve their constituents and if that means raising doubts over Brexit then so be it.

This campaign to shut down any opposition is the worst aspect of all this. For a country that seemingly wanted to take back control there seems to be many that believes that means control only to them.

I think a number of people are now rightly claiming that the result is now in serious doubt.

On the Leave side:

• Russia today and other Russian propaganda outlets spent more money than any other Leave campaign on the referendum
• As with the US, Russian bots and trolls dominated the leave discussion on social media. eg Leave related tweets accounted for 80-90% of activity in weeks before referendum dissapearing to 10-20% the day after.
• Russia used information warfare to change the behaviour of two target groups: radicalise leavers on an emotional level, and supress the vote of remainers.
• Tools used are fake news, social media microtargetting, disinformation, kompromat etc
• It is illegal to coordinate campaign groups: ALL campaign groups paid the then obscure company AggregateIQ monies. AggregateIQ was not even discoverable on a google search. Robert Mercer who owns Cambridge Analytica owns the Intellectual Property for AIQ. Every time CA is officially contracted, AIQ is also. BeLeave paid ALL its £700,000 allowance to AIQ. They were set up just to allow more money to be passed to AIQ/CA. THomas Borthwick (working for savethe8th) headed the official Leave the EU comms department.
• Leave.eu used Cambridge Analytica probably to the value of a 7 figure sum but closer to 8. Brittany Kaiser reported as responsble for dirty tricks in Nigeria (kompromat, incitement resulting in many deaths) was at the leave.eu launch. Arron Banks main (official) leave.eu and UKIP sponsor said that they had a massove SM database from CA. As did Andy Wigmore.
  Think about this: The Official Leave campaign paid £3.9 million of it's £7million allowance to AggregateIQ.
• CAs methods have been exposed in the last week. They used information warfare on the British population just as they did in the US. They used it with an illegal database of indepth SM profiles of UK voters.
• CA is being investigated by Mueller for coordinating with Russia in the US election of Donald Trump. In Many CA operations St Petersburg trolls have been subcontracted to CAs efforts.

Personally I have no doubt that Cambridge Analytica's or Russian interference in Brexit swung the result. Taking into account both it's a 55:45 win for remain or better IMO.

I can't be sure. The result is 'valid' in the legal sense (until ruled otherwise).
But nobody can have any confidence now that this result was fair.

Parliament should NOT take the advice from this result and revoke A50 or hold a fair referendum if politically expedient.

The fact that there is still not a national outcry over the result is testament to how deeply the Russian/Mercer oeration has suceeded in the UK.

demfad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That is why the Unionists would rather die than allow anything like that.

The DUP would rather die. I would wager that Unionist businesspeople might not be so dismissive when the daily sliced pan is at risk.

Leroy42

They don't care. It would appear that the idea of democracy is more important that the actual.

There was a vote, and whether is was directly targeted as Demfad says or simply skewed by the outright and now fully accepted lies on the leave side, it is clear that people were duped.

But most people I have heard, and the polls seem to back this up, seem to be of the opinion that once a vote is taken it can't be re-run and they simply need to plow ahead and accept whatever happens.

Even the likes of IDS and JRM have stated that any transition deal needs to be seen in light of the overall goal. Don't worry about anything, once Brexit is delivered the details don't matter

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

They don't care. It would appear that the idea of democracy is more important that the actual.

There was a vote, and whether is was directly targeted as Demfad says or simply skewed by the outright and now fully accepted lies on the leave side, it is clear that people were duped.

But most people I have heard, and the polls seem to back this up, seem to be of the opinion that once a vote is taken it can't be re-run and they simply need to plow ahead and accept whatever happens.

Even the likes of IDS and JRM have stated that any transition deal needs to be seen in light of the overall goal. Don't worry about anything, once Brexit is delivered the details don't matter

The likes of IDS and JRM's position is understandable. JRM has met recently with Bannon who devised the CA election weapon.
The impotence of everyone else is a sign of the success of the attack where such a massive once a century scandal disapears into the sea of hype and other disinformation in the hyper-normalised world.