Brexit discussion thread III

Samaris

My surprise that they'd not yet discussed it is underwhelming.

Well, hopefully they have some notion by March. What a shambles this is.

Zubeneschamali

Nody wrote: »

The latest message coming out that they had not even talked about what FTA they wanted while constantly pushing for the FTA discussion to start for the last year or so...

I'm not surprised - they bluffed and bluffed their way through Phase 1, clearly without any plan, and then conceded on all three fronts at the last minute in order to progress to Phase 2. They are not focused on any final goal at all, just on staying in government for another month, another week.

Tell me how

joeysoap wrote:

I watched Question Time on BBC tonight and it’s clear a lot of UK citizens will believe anything and nothing. Nicky Morgan explained the reason for her vote last night but only half the audience was listening. The other half have her (+11) down as traitors.

Was staying with friends last night and realized I had forgotten to record this. Would have been rude to ask could I watch it.


I think it's a very good format for a show. Would be nice to see similar in Ireland.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Some thoughts.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Are you serious? It requires profound historical ignorance to believe that h high rates of Irish emigration arose because "the occupants of Leinster house couldn't help running things into the ground again". Irish emigration patterns were established and settled in the days of British rule, and that was when they were at their peak. How could anybody possibly not know this? And while it's obviously the case that the economic policy of successive Irish government was influential in determining how far and how fast Irish emigration would decline from its peak under British rule, the notion that it was the primary driver of that emigration is not one that you can really expect people to take seriously.

It depends on whether or not it was "emigration" when Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom. It surely would have been internal movement. I suspect probably the larger flow was from Ireland to Britain, but there was certainly movement the other way around.

I think the poster may be referring to more recent waves of migration to Britain, following the economic crisis perhaps.

murphaph wrote: »

What do you make of this Solo? Don't you think the cabinet at least should have a goal in mind at this late stage? Can you still maintain this is anything but chaos?

I don't make much of it. I'm fairly sure that there are a number of different models under consideration.

I suspect Theresa May is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't in your eyes in any case. If the red lines are too rigid then you say she should be more flexible. If she's too soft, she's simply capitulating.

Please make up your mind.

Jim2007 wrote: »

It really does not matter what you think, but it is a fact that we are an EU state and will remain one. And while the UK is an important trading partner, it ranks about the same as Belgium.

And we are one of the most pro EU states in the union:

That is a reality that you and the UK will need to learn to deal with.

Well first of all I'd be will to bet that most Germans and French people have a more factual view of Ireland than your average UK citizen. Our values, believes and expectations for the future are clearly in line with our EU partners than they are with the UK.

The fact that you are finding the reality of the situation to be unhelpful, is your problem, we for our part will make no apology for defending our side and our partners.

Your logic doesn't hold up.

The question that is asked in your image is whether EU membership has paid off. That is an entirely different question to whether or not France and Germany are closer friends to Ireland than Britain.

I don't consider that "reality" at the time of writing. The links between Ireland and Britain are much stronger than those between Ireland and France or Ireland and Germany.

I suspect that's also why the Irish economy is more tied to Britain, and I suspect that's why Britain still exerts quite a lot of cultural influence in respect to Ireland.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Culturally, and in terms of shared experience, Ireland as a nation is of course closer to Britain that it is to France or Germany. This is not likely to change.

But, politically, the UK has recently not been a good friend to Ireland - ignoring, then dismissing, then rubbishing entirely legitimate Irish concerns about the serious adverse consequences for Ireland - both parts - of decisions that the UK is taking. If Leo adopted a “bullish tone”, that’s because he had to do so in order to get the UK to pay any attention to the serious issues we were raising. The Irish border issue was raised repeatedly over many months, yet it seems to have taken the UK entirely by surprise when, in mid-November, it finally dawned on them that the EU really did expect them to address it in a realistic and constructive way.

If there has been a failure of friendship in this episode, it is not on Ireland’s part, or on Varadkar’s. It’s reasonable for Varadkar to say, in effect, that we do have other friends and that, lately, they have been better friends to us than the UK has. And, if the UK is Ireland’s friend, the UK should be able to hear that message and understand why it has been given.

I hope the British do take what he says seriously, because there’s a necessary lesson in it for them; you can’t treat your friends like that, and expect your friendship not to suffer somewhat. You need to invest in your friendships, and not take them for granted

I disagree. There are a number of ways that the Irish Government could have handled the Brexit negotiations. I think Enda Kenny was far more considerate of the relationship with Britain than Varadkar has been. Ireland could have constructively engaged with Britain from day 1 on these issues.

Ireland unfortunately, only seems to have been a fair weather friend to Britain. I find that hugely disappointing. I don't believe Ireland has "invested" in the friendship with Britain since the referendum and particularly since Varadkar took office.

It's hard to take nonsense jibes seriously, and that's the only way I interpret that comment. Extremely disappointing at least from this Irish perspective. (We need to acknowledge there are a multiplicity of Irish views on this issue. Not all of us are represented by this Taoiseach.)

Edit:

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, though for the past 26 years it has not been the only such place; there are currently 26 others. And none of those 26 is currently going through the process of trying to disengage itself from engagements like this.

I'd be very optimistic that the rights of Irish citizens in the UK under the Ireland Act and the Common Travel Area would survive the UK's current bout of small-mindedness. But I wouldn't take it absolutely for granted. After all, a few years ago I would have said that the UK would never do anything that threatened the closure of the Irish border and imperilled the Good Friday Agreement, and yet here we are.

Can you vote in all elections and referenda in the other 26 member states? If not then they don't give the same rights as native citizens like recedite said.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

LeinsterDub

Nody wrote: »

I'm starting to wonder if the whole UK government is actually actively trying to sabotage the Brexit process at this time; between Davis Davis and Boris statements ensuring harder controls, wording and controls to May's ineptitude in execution they appear to do their damnedest to cause as much damage as possible to the whole process. The latest message coming out that they had not even talked about what FTA they wanted while constantly pushing for the FTA discussion to start for the last year or so...

Because this is the Politics forum it's not allow but if there was ever a case for the Captain Picard face palm meme.


This has been the case from day one, remember the fight of the summer? No more than 10,20,30 bl? No ECJ oversight? It's no wonder it looks like the EU bullying the smaller kid in the UK. If you weren't informed this is exactly what it would look like.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

. . . disagree. There are a number of ways that the Irish Government could have handled the Brexit negotiations. I think Enda Kenny was far more considerate of the relationship with Britain than Varadkar has been. Ireland could have constructively engaged with Britain from day 1 on these issues.

Ireland unfortunately, only seems to have been a fair weather friend to Britain. I find that hugely disappointing. I don't believe Ireland has "invested" in the friendship with Britain since the referendum and particularly since Varadkar took office.

It's hard to take nonsense jibes seriously, and that's the only way I interpret that comment. Extremely disappointing at least from this Irish perspective. (We need to acknowledge there are a multiplicity of Irish views on this issue. Not all of us are represented by this Taoiseach.)
solodeogloria

Ireland tried repeatedly to engage with the UK on these issue from very early on, both directly and via the EU. If Varadkar's tone was less "considerate" that Kenny's, that's not necessarily because Varadkar has a less considerate style; it's because Kenny's considerate approaches failed to elicit any meaningful or constructive response from the UK, and time was ticking by. I would have thought the events that unfolded over the past couple of weeks abundantly prove that an an assertive approach to this issue was, and still is, needed.

Right from the get-go, the UK political establishment's approach to the entire Brexit project, and to the Irish border in particular, has been delay, divert, avoid, deny, fudge, prevaricate. It's apparent that they will keep doing that as long as they are let. Brexit threatens even more damage to us than it does to the UK, and this approach to the project can only magnify that threat. Given that, the suggestion that Ireland is being a fair weather friend to the UK is just bizarre. The UK's management of the Brexit project so far has not been friendly towards Ireland, and there is no point in anybody pretending otherwise.

Valmont

Valmont wrote: »

Are you serious? During the last century, every few years they welcome with open arms thousands of Irish people as de facto citizens who have to emigrate because the occupants of Leinster house couldn't help running things into the ground again.

not to mention allowing Ireland to blatently ignore issues such as abortion, defence and personal insolvency and simply offload them on to the UK.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ireland tried repeatedly to engage with the UK on these issue from very early on, both directly and via the EU. If Varadkar's tone was less "considerate" that Kenny's, that's not necessarily because Varadkar has a less considerate style; it's because Kenny's considerate approaches failed to elicit any meaningful or constructive response from the UK, and time was ticking by. I would have thought the events that unfolded over the past couple of weeks abundantly prove that an an assertive approach to this issue was, and still is, needed.

Right from the get-go, the UK political establishment's approach to the entire Brexit project, and to the Irish border in particular, has been delay, divert, avoid, deny, fudge, prevaricate. It's apparent that they will keep doing that as long as they are let. Brexit threatens even more damage to us than it does to the UK, and this approach to the project can only magnify that threat. Given that, the suggestion that Ireland is being a fair weather friend to the UK is just bizarre. The UK's management of the Brexit project so far has not been friendly towards Ireland, and there is no point in anybody pretending otherwise.

Good morning!

Respectfully I disagree. I don't think the change in Varadkar's tone is helpful. I don't think Ireland has worked or discussed as closely with the British Government than it could have. Moreover, I don't think the Irish Government have really expressed an interest to work constructively with the UK. I find the tone that has come from Ireland to be unnecessarily adversarial. That's hugely disappointing to me.

Ireland should be coming alongside the UK in seeking the best possible arrangements for both countries. A constructive approach rather than an unhelpfully adversarial approach is required.

I think Ireland is only being a fair weather friend to the UK. The second the UK vote to leave the European Union Ireland decides that it isn't too much bothered with its relationship with the UK and suddenly decided that 26 other countries it isn't anywhere near as close to on any reasonable measure are suddenly its "best friends".

It's hard to take that kind of nonsense as anything other than meaningless posturing.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Given that, the suggestion that Ireland is being a fair weather friend to the UK is just bizarre.

To understand, you have to put on your red white and blue spectacles:

England is the greatest country in the world, invented everything, gave everything to the world, and can still beat any two nations in the world with one hand behind their back (apart from the superpowers, who cheat by being so big).

The rest of the world is jealous of England, ungrateful for all the wonderful things England gave them like democracy, Ant & Dec, cricket and the Queen, and always plotting to drag England down.

With these glasses on, you can clearly see that if Ireland does what it is told by its betters in England, it will be good for everyone even the Micks, and the only reason they will not do as they are told is because they are bad friends.

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't make much of it. I'm fairly sure that there are a number of different models under consideration.

I suspect Theresa May is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't in your eyes in any case. If the red lines are too rigid then you say she should be more flexible. If she's too soft, she's simply capitulating.

Please make up your mind.

There you go with your blind faith again. Despite Davies saying that there is no work done, and saying that it hadn't even been discussed at cabinet, you are still happy to believe that there is a plan.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't consider that "reality" at the time of writing. The links between Ireland and Britain are much stronger than those between Ireland and France or Ireland and Germany.

Up till now yes, but UK have taken the decision to move away from the EU, and by extension, Ireland.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I suspect that's also why the Irish economy is more tied to Britain, and I suspect that's why Britain still exerts quite a lot of cultural influence in respect to Ireland.

The issue is that clearly Ireland have moved closer to Europe over the last few decades and the UK have moved away. Whilst I think we will always been very similar at the moment the two countries are moving in very different directions. UK decided that there interests were more important that any relationship they may have with Ireland.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I disagree. There are a number of ways that the Irish Government could have handled the Brexit negotiations. I think Enda Kenny was far more considerate of the relationship with Britain than Varadkar has been. Ireland could have constructively engaged with Britain from day 1 on these issues.

Ireland are not in negotiations with UK, its the EU. Ireland have managed to get the EU to side with us on issues that we feel are important, whilst the UK decided to try to use those issues as bargaining chips.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Ireland unfortunately, only seems to have been a fair weather friend to Britain. I find that hugely disappointing. I don't believe Ireland has "invested" in the friendship with Britain since the referendum and particularly since Varadkar took office.

Solo, you are hitting a whole new level with this nonsense. Ireland tried to help keep Brexit from happening, after the vote they have tried to work with the UK to get them to come to terms with some of the decisions that needed to be made. UK have flatly refused to take this seriously.

What exactly do you want Ireland to do to 'Invest' in the friendship. Leo visited the UK shortly after becoming Taoiseach.

solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Respectfully I disagree. I don't think the change in Varadkar's tone is helpful. I don't think Ireland has worked or discussed as closely with the British Government than it could have. Moreover, I don't think the Irish Government have really expressed an interest to work constructively with the UK. I find the tone that has come from Ireland to be unnecessarily adversarial. That's hugely disappointing to me.

Ireland should be coming alongside the UK in seeking the best possible arrangements for both countries. A constructive approach rather than an unhelpfully adversarial approach is required.

I think Ireland is only being a fair weather friend to the UK. The second the UK vote to leave the European Union Ireland decides that it isn't too much bothered with its relationship with the UK and suddenly decided that 26 other countries it isn't anywhere near as close to on any reasonable measure are suddenly its "best friends".

It's hard to take that kind of nonsense as anything other than meaningless posturing.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Cognitive Dissonance is the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change.

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Respectfully I disagree. I don't think the change in Varadkar's tone is helpful. I don't think Ireland has worked or discussed as closely with the British Government than it could have.

Back to the UK's divide and conquer approach? Ireland has limited scope too with with the UK in fact we can only work as closely as the EU does as we are one and the same.

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Ireland should be coming alongside the UK in seeking the best possible arrangements for both countries. A constructive approach rather than an unhelpfully adversarial approach is required.

The UK don't even know what their position is, how is Ireland supposed to come alongside them?

Basically you want Ireland to be the buffer, to help dig UK out of the hole it has dug itself. How much was the effect on Ireland that Brexit would cause discussed during the campaign?

Was the border a major issue? Was May out highlighting the close relationship and the need to stay in EU to protect it.

Has May come out since the result and said that the effect of Brexit on Ireland could be terrible and so they are going to seek to hold off Brexit until such time as all the issues are sorted?

Chips Lovell

It's important to bear in mind that the role of the Irish government is to act in the country's best interests. It isn't an aid agency, there to look after the UK. That's the UK government's job.

ThisRegard

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't think Ireland has worked or discussed as closely with the British Government than it could have.

You worked behind the scenes and are aware of the diplomatic efforts put in? How did they start off that disappointed you?

Your whole argument is that when a former friend comes up to you, gives you an almighty kick in the balls and threatens your livelihood, you still feel obliged to take them out for steak and beer because, well, you have to don't you, as you consider them a friend.

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Respectfully I disagree. I don't think the change in Varadkar's tone is helpful. I don't think Ireland has worked or discussed as closely with the British Government than it could have. Moreover, I don't think the Irish Government have really expressed an interest to work constructively with the UK. I find the tone that has come from Ireland to be unnecessarily adversarial. That's hugely disappointing to me.

Ireland should be coming alongside the UK in seeking the best possible arrangements for both countries. A constructive approach rather than an unhelpfully adversarial approach is required.

I think Ireland is only being a fair weather friend to the UK. The second the UK vote to leave the European Union Ireland decides that it isn't too much bothered with its relationship with the UK and suddenly decided that 26 other countries it isn't anywhere near as close to on any reasonable measure are suddenly its "best friends".

It's hard to take that kind of nonsense as anything other than meaningless posturing.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

This reads like Stockholm syndrome.

'Your' government have not met to gather their own thoughts on what they want to achieve from Brexit. They have not decided what outcome the want from it yet they want brexit to proceed.

Yet its EVERYbody elses fault, and everyone else is the bad guy.


Your views on the matter are getting more perplexing by the day. Thank god its christmas you might get some time off to reflect on what really matters. Britains economic situation.

Water John

There was obviously, a lot of thought and strategy put in on the Irish side from early on, well before the Referendum vote.
The approach would have been staged. Softly at first, bide your time, hope the UK gets a bit of reality. If that doesn't work and time is ticking down, things have to be ramped up. This point coincided with LV becoming Taoiseach, nothing to do with the individual in the position.

ilovesmybrick

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Respectfully I disagree. I don't think the change in Varadkar's tone is helpful. I don't think Ireland has worked or discussed as closely with the British Government than it could have. Moreover, I don't think the Irish Government have really expressed an interest to work constructively with the UK. I find the tone that has come from Ireland to be unnecessarily adversarial. That's hugely disappointing to me.

Ireland should be coming alongside the UK in seeking the best possible arrangements for both countries. A constructive approach rather than an unhelpfully adversarial approach is required.

I think Ireland is only being a fair weather friend to the UK. The second the UK vote to leave the European Union Ireland decides that it isn't too much bothered with its relationship with the UK and suddenly decided that 26 other countries it isn't anywhere near as close to on any reasonable measure are suddenly its "best friends".

It's hard to take that kind of nonsense as anything other than meaningless posturing.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The change in tone is because the British government did not give one iota of consideration to the impact of Brexit on one of their own constituent nations, which we share a border with. Since the vote the Irish government has repeatedly told the UK that they need to have some proper conception of how the North was going to be handled and it turned out that almost no planning or thought had been put in. I'm honestly surprised that it took Varadkar so long to take a more forceful tone.

Also Ireland is an EU member, the same EU that helped modernise and improve Irish society and infrastructure. Our responsibility is to the EU, not to the UK and they're the body we should be alongside. Brexit is the UK's decision and you can hardly be surprised when EU members align themselves with the EU. Ireland is willing to work with the UK, but under the context that it is an EU member state.

Also I will point out that Ireland has had some incredibly long standing historical trading and migration connections with large portions of France, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands. These are countries that we have had a close relationship for several centuries. We are in a currency union with 18 other countries, so fiscally we are closer to them than the UK, we are in a political union with soon to be 26 other countries, so we are closer politically to them than the UK.

The EU have shown themselves willing to understand the complexity of the EU border and the unique relationship between Ireland and Brexit, senior EU politicians have spent the past 12 months visiting both Dublin and the border region to understand these issues, and they have supported us on this in pretty much every way conceivable. What has the UK done to demonstrate their interest in supporting the relationship between our two nations in this difficult time? I can't recall how many times Theresa May visited either Dublin or the North as PM...

solodeogloria

Deleted User wrote: »

Cognitive Dissonance is the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change.

Good morning!

There's nothing contradictory in my views unless you're holding to the assumption that Ireland's relationship with the United Kingdom is predicated on being a member of the European Union.

I don't think that's true at all.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Back to the UK's divide and conquer approach? Ireland has limited scope too with with the UK in fact we can only work as closely as the EU does as we are one and the same.

This is also nonsense. If you think meeting with members of states and discussing with them about the impacts of Brexit and how to mitigate them is "divide and conquer" you could argue that Barnier meeting different British politicians, and regional politicians is also "divide and conquer".

Ireland could have put the pressure on the EU from day one to say that Ireland needs a good relationship with the UK in respect to trade and the border rather than putting the pressure on the UK. The pressure from day one has been misdirected.

The idea that Ireland can't discuss anything as a sovereign nation because the EU is one and the same is nonsense. The EU isn't a superstate.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Basically you want Ireland to be the buffer, to help dig UK out of the hole it has dug itself. How much was the effect on Ireland that Brexit would cause discussed during the campaign?

Was the border a major issue? Was May out highlighting the close relationship and the need to stay in EU to protect it.

Actually, several people on both the leave and the remain side discussed the Irish border during the referendum campaign.

It was discussed a lot during the campaign judging by a quick Google search of the campaign period from the 20th of February to the 23rd of June 2016.

Basically - I want Ireland to be arguing that a good progressive relationship with the UK post-Brexit is in everyone's interests. That's the simple truth of the matter.

The adversarial approach is just going to damage relations further.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Has May come out since the result and said that the effect of Brexit on Ireland could be terrible and so they are going to seek to hold off Brexit until such time as all the issues are sorted?

The UK have been unequivocal on the Irish border from day 1.

Edit:

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

It's important to bear in mind that the role of the Irish government is to act in the country's best interests. It isn't an aid agency, there to look after the UK. That's the UK government's job.

Agreed, but what's actually in Ireland's best interests?

To pursue the best relationship with the UK possible post-Brexit on trading and other terms, particularly since Ireland has a land border with the UK at the time of writing.

Anything else is purely destructive.

ThisRegard wrote: »

You worked behind the scenes and are aware of the diplomatic efforts put in? How did they start off that disappointed you?

Your whole argument is that when a former friend comes up to you, gives you an almighty kick in the balls and threatens your livelihood, you still feel obliged to take them out for steak and beer because, well, you have to don't you, as you consider them a friend.

Brexit doesn't need to be "an almighty kick in the balls". A positive outcome can be secured from these talks if the EU desire it. The UK are clear that they want a positive outcome from the talks.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

A positive outcome can be secured from these talks if the EU desire it.

There is no positive outcome if the UK ever actually leaves, Brexit is lose-lose for the UK and the EU.

But the less Brexity the outcome (which I measure by how unhappy the likes of Rees-Mogg get), the less we all lose. It is in everyone's interests for the Irish Government to hold the UK to its commitment to stay in regulatory alignment, aka the Customs Union by another name.

solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

There's nothing contradictory in my views unless you're holding to the assumption that Ireland's relationship with the United Kingdom is predicated on being a member of the European Union.

solodeogloria wrote: »

....The second the UK vote to leave the European Union Ireland decides that it isn't too much bothered with its relationship with the UK and suddenly decided that 26 other countries it isn't anywhere near as close to on any reasonable measure are suddenly its "best friends"....

What do you make of the UK's decision that it isn't too much bothered with its relationship with 27 other states?

solodeogloria

Deleted User wrote: »

What do you make of the UK's decision that it isn't too much bothered with its relationship with 27 other states?

Good morning!

Quite frankly - your interpretation is nonsense.

The UK is convinced of its role in European security through NATO.
The UK is convinced that it wants to continue trading on a good basis with European countries.
The UK is convinced that it wants to cooperate diplomatically, and in respect to intelligence sharing.

The UK isn't convinced that it needs to give a huge amount of sovereignty over to the European Union to be able to do this. The reason why the UK wants to leave the European Union is because it isn't suited to European Union membership. The European Union demands too much control, and Britain has decided it wants to seek a better relationship with the EU on more appropriate terms.

The UK is leaving the European Union, but it isn't leaving Europe.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There is no positive outcome if the UK ever actually leaves, Brexit is lose-lose for the UK and the EU.

I would go further than this, and think that even if there were some event which brought the UK around to choosing to remain within the EU, there is no positive outcome that way either.

The poisoning of the well, 20+ years of it, in UK media and politics will not be easily fixed. I see no way of turning around that oil tanker.

Ireland is pro-EU by and large, and being absolutely narrow minded, there is certainly the case to be made that the UK's relationship with the EU has become utterly toxic, and a situation which saw the UK remain within the EU would be poisonous for all of the EU in the medium-to-long term.

It is my opinion that the UK must leave the EU. I would have preferred them to vote to remain, but they did not. That the vote was clouded in this that and the other is secondary. The ramifications of this are large, but must be borne. Democracy doesn't enforce 'good' decision making on anyone, and moral hazard suggests that we should 'pay' for our bad ones.

That being said, I believe that the UK can leave the EU without doing long term damage. Just not by following the path set out by May, Boris and Gove.

kowtow

Deleted User wrote: »

What do you make of the UK's decision that it isn't too much bothered with its relationship with 27 other states?

Perhaps it is like the relationship of a sensible kind teacher with the big bunch of toddlers in her care.

She let's them throw their tantrums, and choose their games, and plays along with whatever rules they make up, and puts up with a certain amount of name calling - but all the while she gets on quietly doing the best she can to deliver what she must deliver.

And still she loves them regardless. She knows that in due course all of this will be forgotten and they will come to thank her for what she did for them.

It's a deep and special relationship.

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK isn't convinced that it needs to give a huge amount of sovereignty ver to the European Union to be able to do this.

How many times does that myth need putting to bed?

solodeogloria wrote: »

The reason why the UK wants to leave the European Union is because it isn't suited to European Union membership.

Says you.

Can I see a rational, evidence-based case to justify your claim?

The summary version will do (or a link to an earlier post), but I shan't accept any 'regain control' arguments and similar other rethorical guff. Because that does not answer the definition of "evidence".

solodeogloria wrote: »

The European Union demands too much control

Et bis repetita

If you please, and with taking into account Cameron's deal of February 2016.

solodeogloria wrote: »

and Britain has decided it wants to seek a better relationship with the EU on more appropriate terms.

Completely irrespective of its wisdom (-or otherwise), guess how Britain was able to take and then implement that decision?

Wouldn't have anything to do with sovereignty, by any chance, would it? :pac:

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Quite frankly - your interpretation is nonsense.

The UK is convinced of its role in European security through NATO.
The UK is convinced that it wants to continue trading on a good basis with European countries.
The UK is convinced that it wants to cooperate diplomatically, and in respect to intelligence sharing.

The UK isn't convinced that it needs to give a huge amount of sovereignty over to the European Union to be able to do this. The reason why the UK wants to leave the European Union is because it isn't suited to European Union membership. The European Union demands too much control, and Britain has decided it wants to seek a better relationship with the EU on more appropriate terms.

The UK is leaving the European Union, but it isn't leaving Europe.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Thats not what was asked. They never mentioned leaving Europe. The mentioned the 27 member states.

Are you trying to suggest that a vote to leave the EU is not a vote to change the relationship?

Of course it is. UK are leaving the EU because they don't like the current relationship, be that sovereignty, money or whatever. UK have decided to walk out and now they are calling for the one of their ex's to be nicer to them?

Ireland joined the EU with the UK, but the UK have decided that the partnership is not worth the price of membership.

You can try to dress it anyway you like, but instead of focusing on how poorly you think Leo et al are performing on behalf of the UK, I think you would be much wiser to reflect on how poorly May and her cabinet, the entire political class and the media have been performing both since the vote and also prior to it.

solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

Quite frankly - your interpretation is nonsense.

The torch you hold to the Irish Government is very different from the torch you hold to the UK Government's activities.

As discussed before, the UK is absolutely able to leave the EU without causing extreme economic damage to its neighbours, without putting up borders, without disrupting relationships, bilateral organisations, legal agreements etc.

That is not the direction that the UK Government has gone though, they have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

And in that scenario, the Irish Government is absolutely right, and proper, to move closer to the countries that it does and will work closely with, instead of trying to hold onto a country seemingly determined to 'exercise its sovereignty' without any consideration of the costs.

flaneur

Deleted User wrote: »

What do you make of the UK's decision that it isn't too much bothered with its relationship with 27 other states?

I see it as a very bad omen for their prospect of making trade deals in the modern world.

They're not even prepared to do a deep trade deal with the EU, their closest neighbour and a system they would be totally familiar with, yet they're planning to do deals with the US and others on some kind of new basis?

Any trade deal they do with any serious economic player is going to require things like harmonisation of standards and acceptance of court like arbitration. It's not the 19th century and the days of the East India Company and they'll never be in that kind of situation again.

I just see a massive self contradiction in the UK's position. On the one hand it's using language of wanting to be a "Global Britian", yet on the other hand in its actions and in the discussions they're having in the media, it's all about closing the country to the world and refusing to accept any degree of cooperation on trade standards or international bodies.

You can't have your cake and eat it outside the EU anyone than you can inside it. It's all annoy trade, building relationships and often compromise.

I honestly think if they don't snap out of this kind of politics, they'll be having a painful encounter with economic and political reality over the next few years.

kowtow

kowtow wrote: »

Perhaps it is like the relationship of a sensible kind teacher with the big bunch of toddlers in her care.

She let's them throw their tantrums, and choose their games, and plays along with whatever rules they make up, and puts up with a certain amount of name calling - but all the while she gets on quietly doing the best she can to deliver what she must deliver.

And still she loves them regardless. She knows that in due course all of this will be forgotten and they will come to thank her for what she did for them.

It's a deep and special relationship.

Revealing to say the least.

flaneur

flaneur wrote: »

I see it as a very bad omen for their prospect of making trade deals in the modern world.

They're not even prepared to do a deep trade deal with the EU, their closest neighbour and a system they would be totally familiar with, yet they're planning to do deals with the US and others on some kind of new basis?

Any trade deal they do with any serious economic player is going to require things like harmonisation of standards and acceptance of court like arbitration. It's not the 19th century and the days of the East India Company and they'll never be in that kind of situation again.

I just see a massive self contradiction in the UK's position. On the one hand it's using language of wanting to be a "Global Britian", yet on the other hand in its actions and in the discussions they're having in the media, it's all about closing the country to the world and refusing to accept any degree of cooperation on trade standards or international bodies.

You can't have your cake and eat it outside the EU anyone than you can inside it. It's all annoy trade, building relationships and often compromise.

They absolutely are. It's all they ever talk about.

However, being prepared and being well prepared are two very different things.

Tell me how

solodeogloria wrote:

Much thanks, solodeogloria

This isn't a personal dig, but I have to ask. Why do sign off on every post?
Your name is right there beside the post.

I ask because I think it could be seen that you are trying to imply a sense of authority by doing so. As in, this is a formal communication and so should be taken as fact. It reads more like a statement than a part of a discussion.

Feel free to ignore this post, you don't need to explain yourself on this but I am curious.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

That being said, I believe that the UK can leave the EU without doing long term damage.

Really? Some kind of Norway/Switzerland deal? Even these unlikely solutions will have costs, which means permanent barriers of some kind to some sorts of trade, which means everyone ends up a bit worse off.

flaneur

Deleted User wrote: »

They absolutely are. It's all they ever talk about.

However, being prepared and being well prepared are two very different things.

Not other than on very unfair terms they're not.
If you look at the rhetoric - it's all about refusal to accept harmonisation of trade regulations, no arbitration other than in their own courts and so on and if they don't get just that, they stamp their feet and yell "it's sooo unfair!!"

What they seem to want is unfettered market access without rules. That simply isn't going to happen in the EU, or in the US or anywhere really. Very few countries or entities with serious markets are ever likely to accept those kinds of T&Cs or lack there of.

They're continuing to be utterly unrealistic about what their position is.

Add to that that they currently have a government and an opposition both of which resemble a pub brawl more than a cohesive political organisation, I can't see any of this really working out very well.

Trade deals with any serious country or trade bloc will take years to hammer out and the reality of geopolitics and economics will just clash rather painfully with the rhetoric bubbling away in the English media and political world.

Watch what happens if they try to do a trade deal with the US without accepting near universal American jurisdiction on things like agriculture standards, financial regulation, state aid etc etc etc

Chips Lovell

solodeogloria wrote: »

Agreed, but what's actually in Ireland's best interests?

Best outcome: Persuading Britain to reverse course and not leave, but that seems unlikely, at least at the moment.

Next best: Ensuring Britain remains a de facto member of the single market and customs union for foreseeable future. That's far more achievable.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Really? Some kind of Norway/Switzerland deal? Even these unlikely solutions will have costs, which means permanent barriers of some kind to some sorts of trade, which means everyone ends up a bit worse off.

If the UK is uncomfortable with the political & social chapter of the EU, then they absolutely have the avenue available to them to work within the EEA / EFTA.

The 'Norway Option' is the most suitable option for a purely economic relationship with the EU and the Single Market.

It would have allowed them to craft their own trade deals with other countries.

It even would have allowed them to 'slow the tide of economic migrants' (which contribute greatly to their economy) through the Article 112 of the EEA if they really wanted to.

This would have still necessitated a border on the island of Ireland, however it would be a border alike the Norway/Sweden border, and not like the Swiss.

The EEA would have allowed the UK to chose to remain parts of programs such as Euratom, Erasmus etc.

The UK Government seems to be going out of its way to get away from the EEA/EFTA and then come back and negotiate almost exactly the same deal. Which is bananas.

I mentioned that the UK could leave the EU without causing long term economic damage. The short term effects of any change in the relationship are obviously negative.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Last post for today.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Thats not what was asked

The question was:

Deleted User wrote:

What do you make of the UK's decision that it isn't too much bothered with its relationship with 27 other states?

It is a loaded question. I don't believe the UK "isn't too much bothered" with these 27 countries. I explained tangibly how in my reply.

Deleted User wrote: »

The torch you hold to the Irish Government is very different from the torch you hold to the UK Government's activities.

As discussed before, the UK is absolutely able to leave the EU without causing extreme economic damage to its neighbours, without putting up borders, without disrupting relationships, bilateral organisations, legal agreements etc.

That is not the direction that the UK Government has gone though, they have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

And in that scenario, the Irish Government is absolutely right, and proper, to move closer to the countries that it does and will work closely with, instead of trying to hold onto a country seemingly determined to 'exercise its sovereignty' without any consideration of the costs.

I agree that Brexit is the right course of action. I also agree that trying to regain as much control as possible is the right course of action.

My point was that actually, membership of a political union like the European Union isn't required in order to be a good friend to other countries. Ireland has a close relationship with the United States without having to be in a political union with it.

When the terms of that political union are unsuitable - then the UK is right to leave. I personally want to see it finished as soon as possible.

The problem is that there are all kinds of emotive feelings about the European Union and the lofty European project that it is very upsetting to the more Euro-federalist types when someone says they want to chart a different course.

A more rational, pragmatic attitude to the European Union would be helpful. It would mean that a nation could consider that they should be out without emotive feelings about it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

The UK Government seems to be going out of its way to get away from the EEA/EFTA and then come back and negotiate almost exactly the same deal.

I wonder if early soundings told them the EEA didn't want them?

solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

It is a loaded question. I don't believe the UK "isn't too much bothered" with these 27 countries. I explained tangibly how in my reply.

It was only as 'loaded' as your suggestion of the Irish Government's position.

They were your words.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I agree that Brexit is the right course of action. I also agree that trying to regain as much control as possible is the right course of action.

I cannot attribute malice, but this is very underhanded if on purpose. I did not suggest that at all, quoting me and 'agreeing' with something I didn't put forward is very poor form.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is also nonsense. If you think meeting with members of states and discussing with them about the impacts of Brexit and how to mitigate them is "divide and conquer" you could argue that Barnier meeting different British politicians, and regional politicians is also "divide and conquer".

Ireland could have put the pressure on the EU from day one to say that Ireland needs a good relationship with the UK in respect to trade and the border rather than putting the pressure on the UK. The pressure from day one has been misdirected.

The idea that Ireland can't discuss anything as a sovereign nation because the EU is one and the same is nonsense. The EU isn't a superstate.

The cabinet of the UK Government, from the same party, hasn't even met to determine what deal they want from Brexit. The EU has gone to all the players in the UK to find out their views, but yes, its the EU that's at fault here.

I think it is plainly obvious that you are one of those supporters that will overlook anything that the UK Government does or will excuse any decision but will look for negatives with your own government and the EU.

Let me ask you, has Theresa May gone to the SNP, Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein to find out what they were looking at? Or is it only a Conservative/DUP view that needs to prevail? Why only the DUP so far and why only Conservative voices?

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

The problem is that there are all kinds of emotive feelings about the European Union and the lofty European project that it is very upsetting to the more Euro-federalist types when someone says they want to chart a different course.

A more rational, pragmatic attitude to the European Union would be helpful.

I am against Brexit for the reasons Thatcher was for the Single Market - the UK inside the EU makes us all better off, and outside costs us all money.

Can't get much more pragmatic than that.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I wonder if early soundings told them the EEA didn't want them?

Iceland's Foreign Minister suggested they would be welcomed into EFTA

https://www.politico.eu/article/icelandic-foreign-minister-to-uk-please-join-efta/

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

I agree that Brexit is the right course of action. I also agree that trying to regain as much control as possible is the right course of action.

My point was that actually, membership of a political union like the European Union isn't required in order to be a good friend to other countries. Ireland has a close relationship with the United States without having to be in a political union with it.

When the terms of that political union are unsuitable - then the UK is right to leave. I personally want to see it finished as soon as possible.

The problem is that there are all kinds of emotive feelings about the European Union and the lofty European project that it is very upsetting to the more Euro-federalist types when someone says they want to chart a different course.

A more rational, pragmatic attitude to the European Union would be helpful. It would mean that a nation could consider that they should be out without emotive feelings about it.

You are very happy to be worse off, or if you are not affected personally for others to be worse off, because of emotional reasons. The problem I have with Brexit is exactly that, it is an emotional decision and not a rational one. I feel the EU is bad, I feel like I don't belong in my own country.

flaneur

This is the problem though - Brexit was far from the decisive victory they’re claiming it to be. They fairly narrowly won a referendum that was conducted in an atmosphere of lies, misleading alternative facts and vitriolic, toxic politics.

The result is also badly regionally split showing a huge rift with Scotland and Northern Ireland and also a huge rift between London and urban wealthy parts of England and the poorer parts of post industrial England that have been left behind and are where the core Brexit vote is based.

The Tories are internally split on the issue and the Labour Party isn’t much better.

Then to top it all off they had an early election that resulted in a hung parliament and brought in one side of the Northern Ireland conflict into the mix ?!? A far right party, steeped in religion, that has views that are way out of whack with even the most conservative English voters and looks more like something from the US Bible Belt.

You really couldn’t write this stuff! It’s an absolute train wreck and unmitigated disaster that just seems to keep getting worse by the day.

flaneur

flaneur wrote: »

Not other than on very unfair terms they're not.
If you look at the rhetoric - it's all about refusal to accept harmonisation of trade regulations, no arbitration other than in their own courts and so on and if they don't get just that, they stamp their feet and yell "it's sooo unfair!!"

What they seem to want is unfettered market access without rules. That simply isn't going to happen in the EU, or in the US or anywhere really. Very few countries or entities with serious markets are ever likely to accept those kinds of T&Cs or lack there of.

They're continuing to be utterly unrealistic about what their position is.

Add to that that they currently have a government and an opposition both of which resemble a pub brawl more than a cohesive political organisation, I can't see any of this really working out very well.

Trade deals with any serious country or trade bloc will take years to hammer out and the reality of geopolitics and economics will just clash rather painfully with the rhetoric bubbling away in the English media and political world.

Watch what happens if they try to do a trade deal with the US without accepting near universal American jurisdiction on things like agriculture standards, financial regulation, state aid etc etc etc

The regulations and harmonisation debate is again a prime example of poisoning the well through the politics and media in the UK.

All trade deals, with any countries, rely on at the very least recognising each others standards.

There are global bodies such as UNECE which decide upon standards to simplify this process at the national level. The EU is part of those discussions, but moreso than not the standards and rules that the EU applies are already set.

The rabble from Gove/Johnson/Fox et al about ripping up red tape is folly. The EU doesn't set arbitrary standards that make it impossible to trade into or out of, they have been working for many many years towards a reduction in 'standards differences' between all.

The UK appears to be proposing moving back away from this global (or at least supranational) standards setting, and create divergences where nobody needs them.

Enzokk

As an example of why Brexit is the stupidest idea, a caller on LBC now was complaining about EU migrants that are putting a strain on services in the UK. He likes those EU migrants that he knows, but there are just so many others that are the problem.

The strain on public services is a legitimate concern, but its not the fault of the EU. Its not the fault of the migrants from the EU. Its local politics that has decided not to invest in local services and to cut it to the bone in the name of austerity. The blame was conveniently moved to the EU by the newspapers and those in power were more than happy to allow it to happen. They stood by and allowed the EU and its citizens to become the reason for all the ills of the UK, so when the time came to defend the EU they couldn't stand up to the messages they allowed for so many years.

For that reason there should be no sympathy for the likes of David Cameron or any of his ministers that stood by while this was happening. They fed the monster and allowed it to take the UK down a path where they already have lost out and will continue to lose out. And the saddest part is some people still believe it is the way to go.

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

Can I see a rational, evidence-based case to justify your claim?

The summary version will do (or a link to an earlier post), but I shan't accept any 'regain control' arguments and similar other rethorical guff. Because that does not answer the definition of "evidence".
Et bis repetita

I've asked for this repeatedly and got absolutely nothing so I'd leave that there to be honest. I am now firmly convinced that no such evidence exists.

The problem is that while it's becoming clearer and clearer almost on a daily basis that this is both folly and hubris, the ruling classes are sticking their fingers in their ears ignoring the facts and spouting meaningless soundbytes instead.

flaneur

flaneur wrote: »

This is the problem though - Brexit was far from the decisive victory they’re claiming it to be. They fairly narrowly won a referendum that was conducted in an atmosphere of lies, misleading alternative facts and vitriolic, toxic politics.

The result is also badly regionally split showing a huge rift with Scotland and Northern Ireland and also a huge rift between London and urban wealthy parts of England and the poorer parts of post industrial England that have been left behind and are where the core Brexit vote is based.

The Tories are internally split on the issue and the Labour Party isn’t much better.

Then to top it all off they had an early election that resulted in a hung parliament and brought in one side of the Northern Ireland conflict into the mix ?!? A far right party, steeped in religion, that has views that are way out of whack with even the most conservative English voters and looks more like something from the US Bible Belt.

You really couldn’t write this stuff! It’s an absolute train wreck and unmitigated disaster that just seems to keep getting worse by the day.

Let's consider a continuum of 'relationship with EU-ness' where 0 is being a member state of the United States of Europe and 100 is having a relationship with the EU akin to North Korea's.

Perhaps we can place UK 2010 @ around 30 on the continuum.

The majority (slim though it was) voted against continuing to remain at this 'point', and I think it fair to suggest a larger majority would vote against 'moving towards 0'.

It is now up to the UK Government to figure out where between 30 and 100 it must try to 'move' the UK to on the back of this vote.

I would be conservative and suggest maybe a small step to ~35 might be in order, potentially this would have a large swell of support.

The UK Government however has suggested a far larger move away, all the way out to 50. Seemingly on the back of no polling data, losing a majority in the Commons on the back of a manifesto proposing this, with zero impact assessments drawn up, on the backdrop of a ticking clock.

It's mad Ted.

flaneur

I honestly don’t see this being resolved, unless there’s a massive political shift in the UK like an emergence of a centrist party taking aspects of the Tories, Labour and maybe even Lib Dems and forming a centrist government.

It’s also worth remembering that part of the background of this is also ideologically driven cuts to social supports that are leading to real reductions in people’s quality of life and opportunities in the very places that voted for Brexit in the highest numbers.

I just think the English (rather than U.K.) political system is an absolute tinderbox at the moment. Something is going to spark eventually and I think you’ll be heading for a 1970s style period of chaos fairly soon.

Calina

The whinging from Solo about Varadkar misses a key point. For Brexit to be successful in any manner at all economically, the UK will depend on the kindness of friends. Like Ireland. Like many other EU members. Like Norway if they want to return to EFTA

But the UK is not behaving like a friend. Friendship is a two way process. The UK needs to start dealing with reality and acting like a friend too.

flaneur

Rory Big Chef: The problem is that there is no such scale available.

You can either be in a stable married relationship, in a purely business relationship, a friendly neighbour cooperating on some things within agreed parameters ... Or, you've no relationship at all.

What you can't do is live in a small castle in the front garden, operating a competing business and occasionally threatening to burn the house down when you get drunk and go on a rant about how much you hate the concept of houses, relationships and so on.

That's kind of where the the UK would appear to be heading ...

I still have no idea what the UK wants and I honestly doubt that even Theresa May knows the answer to that one either. They can sort of tell you what they don't want but that about as far as it goes.