Brexit discussion thread III

Water John

The right wing think tanks on both sides of the Atlantic have been colluding. They intend feeding the Brits with, the chlorinated chicken, hormone treated beef and GMO cereals.
Leaked

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/17/revealed-us-uk-rightwing-thinktanks-talks-to-ditch-eu-safety-checks

Rjd2

Good article from Helen Lewis today. Both main parties are utterly chancers when it comes to Brexit.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/02/both-left-and-right-i-ve-never-despaired-more-british-politicians

a paragraph and the link below.

The bulk of Labour’s parliamentary party is keeping quiet about still thinking Jeremy Corbyn is hopeless because they are afraid of their activists. Corbyn himself talks relentlessly about a “jobs-first Brexit” to disguise the fact he’s fine with pretty much any kind of Brexit. (He knows that, unlike him, the majority of Labour members, as well as Labour voters, are pro-European.) May pretends that Liam Fox is the best choice for the job of trade secretary, when the truth is that his globe-trotting pointlessness represents nothing more than appeasement.

Beechwoodspark

Rjd2 wrote: »

Good article from Helen Lewis today. Both main parties are utterly chancers when it comes to Brexit.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/02/both-left-and-right-i-ve-never-despaired-more-british-politicians

a paragraph and the link below.

From May’s speech this morning it seems she still has her heart set on a bespoke deal even though they’ve been told umpteen times this won’t happen.

The British are taking a very lazy, some would say arrogant, and indeed risky approach.

Strazdas

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

From May’s speech this morning it seems she still has her heart set on a bespoke deal even though they’ve been told umpteen times this won’t happen.

The British are taking a very lazy, some would say arrogant, and indeed risky approach.

The bespoke deal is doomed because you can't have some weird 'mix and match' thing with bits and pieces of the Single Market you'd like to opt into whilst opting out of many others. That's not how it works, you either are a full member of the SM or sign a basic trade deal with them. You can't be half in / half out, fully in on some parts whilst totally rejecting other parts.....the EU could never accept that with any country.

CelticRambler

Strazdas wrote: »

That's not how it works, you either are a full member of the SM or sign a basic trade deal with them. You can't be half in / half out, fully in on some parts whilst totally rejecting other parts.....the EU could never accept that with any country.

Yes, but Brexit-Britain is special, Brexit-Britain is ambitious, Brexit-Britain is going to boldly go where no other country has gone before ...

Strazdas

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yes, but Brexit-Britain is special, Brexit-Britain is ambitious, Brexit-Britain is going to boldly go where no other country has gone before ...

Whilst having a "deep and comprehensive relationship with our European partners" (whatever that means).

Sand

It seems quite striking how little the British have moved on. They are still seeking bespoke access to the Single Market on their terms. Which is exactly what the EU *cannot* grant them because the Single Market is a hard won compromise between 27 states, where everyone benefits overall even if they are unhappy with certain aspects of it, such as being under the remit of a "foreign" court of law. Should one state secure bespoke access to the Single Market, then the Single Market itself collapses as the other 27 break away in an effort to get their own cake and eat it deal.

The British *ought* to have learned by now that they absolutely cannot get a bespoke deal. I think in reality, they have learned. But they cant aknowledge it. They are so weak, and so bitterly divided, that a 'cake and eat it' deal is the only thing May and her cabinet can unite around because it doesn't require them to make any compromises. The worrying thing is there is no reason to believe the political calculations on the British side are going to change any time soon. So we could see British retro fantasy and obstinacy leading to a hard Brexit until the next British election which *might* throw up a halfway capable government. Somehow, because Corbynism is just a different variant of British retro fantasy. There is a coherent position underpinning Brexit, but the political-media classes in Britain refuse to represent it. So we get paralysis.

The UK truly is the sick man of Europe.

Capt'n Midnight

Strazdas wrote: »

The bespoke deal is doomed because ...

... of the entire history of the European project.

The four freedoms are a package deal.

All the countries in the Customs Union have had to accept EU rules with no say in those rules.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/81/8105.htm

Turkey, though not a member of the EU, takes part in the customs union through an association agreement covering all industrial goods, but excluding agriculture (except processed agricultural products), services or public procurement. The Turkish arrangement does not provide access to the EU market for financial services, but does exclude free movement of labour.

...
Switzerland, through its membership of the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) and a series of bilateral agreements, has secured market access in a number of areas. Its access to the market for financial services is, however, limited to an agreement on the supervision of non-life insurance services and it is largely reliant on WTO GATS terms.

flutered

Water John wrote: »

The right wing think tanks on both sides of the Atlantic have been colluding. They intend feeding the Brits with, the chlorinated chicken, hormone treated beef and GMO cereals.
Leaked

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/17/revealed-us-uk-rightwing-thinktanks-talks-to-ditch-eu-safety-checks

no mention of animals been fed with food made from hen sch1t, which is the norm in the good ole u.s. of a

Skedaddle

The British are increasingly foodie and aware of food standards, particularly since the BSE crisis.

Personally, I think any major attempts to lower UK food standards would be met with a very harsh political reality of angry voters. It's very easy to vote to dismantle some kind of "red tape" until you realise that it's the very same red tape that prevents you from having to eat poor quality food and put up with lose environmental standards.

I'm not convinced that there's any appetite amongst the general UK electorate for this or for massive privatisation of services like the NHS or any other US style right wing economic liberalism.

The UK voters are clearly having their buttons pushed with tabloid spun jingoism, just like Trump pushed all the fear and patriotism triggers in the US and then proceeded to cut taxes on wealthy.

Leonard Hofstadter

Skedaddle wrote: »

The British are increasingly foodie and aware of food standards, particularly since the BSE crisis.

Personally, I think any major attempts to lower UK food standards would be met with a very harsh political reality of angry voters. It's very easy to vote to dismantle some kind of "red tape" until you realise that it's the very same red tape that prevents you from having to eat poor quality food and put up with lose environmental standards.

I'm not convinced that there's any appetite amongst the general UK electorate for this or for massive privatisation of services like the NHS or any other US style right wing economic liberalism.

The UK voters are clearly having their buttons pushed with tabloid spun jingoism, just like Trump pushed all the fear and patriotism triggers in the US and then proceeded to cut taxes on wealthy.

Whatever about the other aspects of Brexit, the lowering of food standards is the one thing I can't see happening - and that's based on having lived there and only just returned to Ireland.

Well, they might agree to something in theory with the US, but once the public were to become aware of it, there would be a massive uproar about it, in much the same way as there will never be fox hunting ever again in the UK.

strandroad

Skedaddle wrote: »

The British are increasingly foodie and aware of food standards, particularly since the BSE crisis.

Personally, I think any major attempts to lower UK food standards would be met with a very harsh political reality of angry voters.

It might be true for certain restaurants or supermarkets, but there is enough muck sold in takeaways or ready meals to prove that people would only be happy to see said muck become cheaper. Especially if they experience drops in income.

ancapailldorcha

I am inclined to agree. Theresa May is at risk of undoing the detoxification of her party which was accomplished under David Cameron. Things like fox hunting bring no political benefit but cost political capital and risk liberal and young voters eschewing the Conservative party for the Liberal Democrats or possible Labour if the latter elects a more pro-market leader in the future.

It's frankly baffling that simple measures like banning ivory, a pledge which was in the 2017 manifesto have not been taken. Such small, expedient measures would make voting for the party a lesser evil in the eyes of environmentally and socially conscious voters.

Lemming

Skedaddle wrote: »

I'm not convinced that there's any appetite amongst the general UK electorate for this or for massive privatisation of services like the NHS or any other US style right wing economic liberalism.

The NHS is about the last sacred cow in British socio-political circles; it is very well thought of - despite its creaking structure and problems - by the population at large and any attempts to attack it are generally met with disapproval amongst the population WITH the backing of the media. I think that any attempts to seriously attack & deconstruct the NHS vis-a-vis allowing US pharma to run amok would be met with the end of political careers.

ancapailldorcha

Lemming wrote: »

The NHS is about the last sacred cow in British socio-political circles; it is very well thought of - despite its creaking structure and problems - by the population at large and any attempts to attack it are generally met with disapproval amongst the population WITH the backing of the media. I think that any attempts to seriously attack & deconstruct the NHS vis-a-vis allowing US pharma to run amok would be met with the end of political careers.

This was a large component of British opposition to TTIP, probably the heart of it if I'm being honest. Things like chlorine-washed chicken seem to be mountains made out of molehills but there is no way the British public will tolerate US HMO's being allowed anywhere near the NHS. I don't know whether or not the press would back public opinion on this but I suspect that they would. It's remarkable in a country as culturally and ethnically diverse in the UK that such a unifying quasi-religion exists but the NHS seems to be it, despite the myriad problems it is facing and still has to face. The Spectator and similarly rabid free market publications would likely support it but they're very much marginal publications. The last thing British society needs is to be more divided and its politicians to be more isolated from the public. This would be an excellent way to broaden and deepen that schism.

Leroy42

Food standards. Most people don't even know, and won't pay attention. Its the price.
What was the political cost of the horsemeat scandal?
Its not like the chicken is advertised of chlorinated, and since standards will be removed will there even need to be a notice on the label? Doubt it.

NHS. There is already massive privatisation within the NHS. Any deal won't result in US flags flying over the local hospital. It will mean ownership of hospitals will change hands etc, not even noticeable but most (just like the current privatisation).
People will continue to enjoy free access, just that the money paid will ultimately go to go US corp rather than the NHS.

J Mysterio

flutered wrote: »

no mention of animals been fed with food made from hen sch1t, which is the norm in the good ole u.s. of a

Really? The truly do have horrible food practices there.

Leonard Hofstadter

Leroy42 wrote: »

Food standards. Most people don't even know, and won't pay attention. Its the price.
What was the political cost of the horsemeat scandal?
Its not like the chicken is advertised of chlorinated, and since standards will be removed will there even need to be a notice on the label? Doubt it.

NHS. There is already massive privatisation within the NHS. Any deal won't result in US flags flying over the local hospital. It will mean ownership of hospitals will change hands etc, not even noticeable but most (just like the current privatisation).
People will continue to enjoy free access, just that the money paid will ultimately go to go US corp rather than the NHS.

I'm not saying the Tories wouldn't do it (especially with Liam Fox in charge of trade and his fetish for anything American), but the other parties would have a field day if there were lower food standards and any sort of NHS privatisation is absolutely guaranteed to make sure that what little hope the Tories have of attracting more under-40s to vote for them (their actions on Brexit have already cost them a lot of support with younger voters) will be gone entirely.

As Michael Heseltine was pointing out especially around the time he was sacked by Theresa May (for those that don't know he is one of the few Europhiles in the Conversative party along with Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry, Nicky Morgan and Ruth Davidson), the Tories are losing 2% of their vote every year because of old people dying off (who backed Brexit and subsequently, the Tories for implementing Brexit) and the younger voters are simply not voting for them (for the same reason, plus other factors, like £9,000 a year tuition fees, house prices, lower wages than their parents at the same time in their career paths etc).

There's more than enough voters out there to make a huge fuss about lower food standards in particular. You can be sure Labour, the Lib Dems and the rest would have a field day attacking them for being the 'nasty party' and it would work.

Professor Moriarty

captainspeed wrote: »

I'm not saying the Tories wouldn't do it (especially with Liam Fox in charge of trade and his fetish for anything American), but the other parties would have a field day if there were lower food standards and any sort of NHS privatisation is absolutely guaranteed to make sure that what little hope the Tories have of attracting more under-40s to vote for them (their actions on Brexit have already cost them a lot of support with younger voters) will be gone entirely.

As Michael Heseltine was pointing out especially around the time he was sacked by Theresa May (for those that don't know he is one of the few Europhiles in the Conversative party along with Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry, Nicky Morgan and Ruth Davidson), the Tories are losing 2% of their vote every year because of old people dying off (who backed Brexit and subsequently, the Tories for implementing Brexit) and the younger voters are simply not voting for them (for the same reason, plus other factors, like £9,000 a year tuition fees, house prices, lower wages than their parents at the same time in their career paths etc).

There's more than enough voters out there to make a huge fuss about lower food standards in particular. You can be sure Labour, the Lib Dems and the rest would have a field day attacking them for being the 'nasty party' and it would work.

Rudd and Hamilton would be considered to be pro-Europe.

Leroy42

All true, but you fail to take into account the media and politics ability to spin anything as good.

Brexit being the best example of it. So the public will be told that there is nothing wrong with chlorinated chicken, that its the un-elected bureaucrats in Brussels that have been lying to them all the time, probably to keep German fat cat farmers wealthy.

We will then have to sit through countless hours where pro-us chicken politicians come on the TV/Radio to tell people that 'experts' know nothing, that both chicken and chlorine have been around long before the EU and that the US is the biggest economy in the world so that must mean something.

And anybody that raises questions will be trying to re-run the brexit ref, going against the democratic will of the people who clearly voted to have bigger trade with the US. The government is simply doing the best deal for Britain. And this will result in not only in bigger chickens, but cheaper too. Which is more money in your pocket, money that used to go the the pockets of those elites in Brussels.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

All true, but you fail to take into account the media and politics ability to spin anything as good.

Brexit being the best example of it. So the public will be told that there is nothing wrong with chlorinated chicken, that its the un-elected bureaucrats in Brussels that have been lying to them all the time, probably to keep German fat cat farmers wealthy.

We will then have to sit through countless hours where pro-us chicken politicians come on the TV/Radio to tell people that 'experts' know nothing, that both chicken and chlorine have been around long before the EU and that the US is the biggest economy in the world so that must mean something.

And anybody that raises questions will be trying to re-run the brexit ref, going against the democratic will of the people who clearly voted to have bigger trade with the US. The government is simply doing the best deal for Britain. And this will result in not only in bigger chickens, but cheaper too. Which is more money in your pocket, money that used to go the the pockets of those elites in Brussels.

Do you work for the Daily Mail or Telegraph? That is a very convincing line.

The problem with chlorine washed chicken is not that the resulting chicken is dangerous to eat (providing it is properly cooked), but it is that the chlorine is used to cover up poor animal hygiene and husbandry that could cause serious problems to other foods prepared nearby.

Also, if chicken was correctly labelled, purchasers could avoid it. However, in a restaurant, or take-away, how can the diner be certain that the chicken is not of this doubtful type?

Look at how long it took to sort out the UK originated BSE food problem (mad cow disease), but how quick the horse-meat scandal was controlled (by those faceless, un-elected bureaucrats in Brussels). Foot and mouth disease is another scourge visited on us from the UK and their poor vigilance. Lower standards are not to be countenanced.

Use the proper names of publications please.

CelticRambler

We're back here to the "problem" of the many agents and agencies of the EU doing such a good job behind the scenes that few people know how much of their "take it for granted" daily life is as good as it is because of what the EU has done and continues to do to keep it that way. Unless you're involved with some part of the process, you're unlikely to really appreciate the value of the rules and regulations that so annoy the Brexiteers and their like.

Specifically regarding BSE, I remember being told at the height of the crisis by an advisor to the Dept of Agriculture "of course we find more cases here than in the US: in Europe, we test more cattle in a week than they test in a whole year!" That's one of the reasons that I don't think there's any likelihood of the Brexit deal allowing the UK to freely trade agri-products with the outside world and have direct access to the EU. It's not just chlorine - it's hormones, antibiotics, GM, and dozens of pollutants, heavy metals and other unwanted contaminents.

One of the many ironies in all of this is that Britain has, in fact, been very active within the EU in getting standards raised for environmental protection, animal welfare and other food-related regulations. I personally think we'll more likely to see a partial privatisation of the NHS sooner than we'll see them downgrade their food hygiene and bio-security protocols.

Sam Russell

CelticRambler wrote: »

I personally think we'll more likely to see a partial privatisation of the NHS sooner than we'll see them downgrade their food hygiene and bio-security protocols.

They are hell bent now on privatisation of the NHS. They first starve it of funds - 10% cut currently. Then they pursue them for not meeting the targets, then bring in contractors to help them out to meet these targets but then restore the funds to pay the contractors. Rinse and repeat.

All ready in train.

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

They are hell bent now on privatisation of the NHS. They first starve it of funds - 10% cut currently. Then they pursue them for not meeting the targets, then bring in contractors to help them out to meet these targets but then restore the funds to pay the contractors. Rinse and repeat.

All ready in train.

Privatisation has worked so well...water...rail... Oh, Carillion anyone?

Leroy42

I just don't see how they are going to get back the lost trade with the EU without reducing the standards. The key line is that leaving the EU will allow them set up trade deals with non EU countries, although many of them already have trade deals with the EU.

Based on the calls for London to be the next Singapore, for UK to be a tax haven etc, it is pretty clear that the UK see the ability to reduce the regulations as a key ability to undercut the EU (for that is the position we are going to be in, the UK a direct competitor to the EU).

Take traceability of beef for example. If the other country (lets pick the US for example) don't value it then why would the UK continue it. It certainly adds costs to the whole process.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

I just don't see how they are going to get back the lost trade with the EU without reducing the standards. The key line is that leaving the EU will allow them set up trade deals with non EU countries, although many of them already have trade deals with the EU.

Based on the calls for London to be the next Singapore, for UK to be a tax haven etc, it is pretty clear that the UK see the ability to reduce the regulations as a key ability to undercut the EU (for that is the position we are going to be in, the UK a direct competitor to the EU).

Take traceability of beef for example. If the other country (lets pick the US for example) don't value it then why would the UK continue it. It certainly adds costs to the whole process.

You are assuming that there is logic to Brexit - there is no logic - it is national self harm. They have had other adventures before - Suez - Falklands - this is just another one.

Only this time it will be harder to get back from.

CelticRambler

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Privatisation has worked so well...water...rail... Oh, Carillion anyone?

And schools. A while ago (a couple of years, maybe) I watched a report on the outcome of various public-private partnerships in the UK. It included a variety of school (re)building projects where the PPP landlords oversaw the out-of-hours usage of school halls and sports grounds drop down to almost nothing because they started charging local groups for access to the facilities.

These were grass-roots charities with no money keeping children off the streets in the evenings and during the holidays, and had a good working relationship with the school governors, who knew what kind of trouble the children were likely to get into if they had nothing better to do. When the PPP took over, they were only interested in the financial aspect, so the halls/fields stayed empty.

I'm sure we'll see the same thing with shiny new hospitals - built at tax-payers' expense, then stand empty either because they can't get the (EU migrant) staff to work there, or because the local health service won't have the money to pay for whatever care was supposed to be provided there.

jm08

J Mysterio wrote: »

Really? The truly do have horrible food practices there.

Rolling Stone did an expose on it. Its truly horendous. Well worth a read.

https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/belly-beast-meat-factory-farms-animal-activists

flutered

Lemming wrote: »

The NHS is about the last sacred cow in British socio-political circles; it is very well thought of - despite its creaking structure and problems - by the population at large and any attempts to attack it are generally met with disapproval amongst the population WITH the backing of the media. I think that any attempts to seriously attack & deconstruct the NHS vis-a-vis allowing US pharma to run amok would be met with the end of political careers.

the trouble is the media will lead the sell out of the nhs, as they have led the brexit charge

ancapailldorcha

flutered wrote: »

the trouble is the media will lead the sell out of the nhs, as they have led the brexit charge

I don't think so. Recall that one of the principal reasons for voting to leave was increasing NHS funding.

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't think so. Recall that one of the principal reasons for voting to leave was increasing NHS funding.

And no doubt there will be some additional funding. But that funding will now be going to the US corp rather than direct to the NHS. So the headline number will be sold as great, but look at the real value and you will see profits being taken out of the country by the US corp

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't think so. Recall that one of the principal reasons for voting to leave was increasing NHS funding.

But that was a lie.

NHS was used as a bait but the funding for it had already been reduced by 10% so there was no intention to honour such a promise. The reduction in funding had made the system heavily overloaded when the NHS needed extra funding to cope with the extra population.

And it was the EU migrants were blamed for it being overloaded, while many of those EU migrants were the staff trying to keep the wheels on the bus (No not that bus - that was BoJo's bus - the one with the big lie on the side).

ancapailldorcha

I'm well aware that it was a lie but many people believed it at the time.

Skedaddle

There are plenty of reasonable arguments in favour of a rerun of the referendum based on the public discovery of new facts and the misleading and irresponsible way the campaigns ran.

Sam Russell

Skedaddle wrote: »

There are plenty of reasonable arguments in favour of a rerun of the referendum based on the public discovery of new facts and the misleading and irresponsible way the campaigns ran.

Unfortunately there are no reasonable arguments politicians in favour of a rerun of the referendum based on the public discovery of new facts and the misleading and irresponsible way the campaigns ran.

Skedaddle

Well, no obviously not. I can only assume the vast costs to the economy will be worth it to them. I mean maybe they really don't care and are happy to be a lot poorer, as long as they aren't in the EU. It's irrational and illogical but, it does seem to be the majority British point of view.

Capt'n Midnight

Speaking of food.
98% of UK sheep meat exports go to the EU. Default tariff would increase price by 50%

Two-thirds of food imported into the UK is from EU, default WTO tariff is 22%

If the UK drops tariffs on imported food , they have to do it for everyone, then a lot of the UK farmers will get wiped out.

Yes there's a Brexit Farming Fund but there's already concern that will become income support for the super rich.

CelticRambler

A re-run of the referendum won't solve anything. As has been discussed before, the margin of victory, even if in favour of Remain, would still be small, so we'd have the same Them vs Us bickering for years to come.

The only option would be to have a court declare the whole process invalid on account of outside interference, failure to respect the code of conduct (e.g. the DUP campaigning in London) and a blatant misrepresentation of what was being asked/offered ... but that's no more likely to happen now than it is in respect of Trump's election.

LeinsterDub

CelticRambler wrote: »

A re-run of the referendum won't solve anything. As has been discussed before, the margin of victory, even if in favour of Remain, would still be small, so we'd have the same Them vs Us bickering for years to come.

At least the Them v Us bickering wouldn't cost them billons if they had a second vote

CelticRambler

It would, because you'd have the campaign costs, aswell as the delay in getting to a second vote, not to mention the uncertainty of it possibly ending up with another Leave result anyway, plus months/years of a defeated Leave cult undermining what's left of the Tories trying to not commit to anything proposed by a thouroughly fed-up EU and businesses deciding they don't want to continue trying to trade in such a toxic environment.

No; the only way to "fix" the current mess would be to say the original process was rotten to the core, cannot be taken to represent the will of the people and the government's decision to invoke Article 50 was invalid. That would re-set the clock to David Cameron's promise to hold a referendum, and that partiular can could be kicked as far down the road as possible.

But that's as much a fantasy now as any Brexiteer's cake!

Water John

The fear of discord is no reason not to do the right thing. Of course extreme Brexiteers will bitch and complain. So what? This is politics. You fight for what you believe in, using all legal means.
I will be delighted on the day I see Farage p****ing against the wind.

trellheim

Assume a hard border goes up in ROI/NI in March 2019 ( never mind the "will it won't it" for a moment)

Hypothesize that it will.

If a poll was taken in the knowledge that a hard border would go up, would Ireland also vote to leave under Article 50 as the only way to avoid it ?

( Don't focus on "never happen" , just assume the hard border for a moment )

BonnieSituation

trellheim wrote: »

Assume a hard border goes up in ROI/NI in March 2019 ( never mind the "will it won't it" for a moment)

Hypothesize that it will.

If a poll was taken in the knowledge that a hard border would go up, would Ireland also vote to leave under Article 50 as the only way to avoid it ?

( Don't focus on "never happen" , just assume the hard border for a moment )

No

Nate--IRL--

trellheim wrote: »

If a poll was taken in the knowledge that a hard border would go up, would Ireland also vote to leave under Article 50 as the only way to avoid it ?

No.

Nate

HugoRune

trellheim wrote: »

If a poll was taken in the knowledge that a hard border would go up, would Ireland also vote to leave under Article 50 as the only way to avoid it ?

No, May never. No May never no more.

But there is another way. Implement a one way border. A semi-hard, if you will, and let the Brexiters have their phyrric victory. All goods/people into ROI subject to tariffs and control checks. Anything going the other way is waved on though with the blessings and goodwill of the nation.

trellheim

I have a thought that there are some in the UK who consider that this is one of the options - that Ireland also leaves, and are gambling somewhat on it.

From their viewpoint it is a valid solution.

Stop for a moment and assume the absolute worst - that a hard border does go up.


We joined with the UK in '73 ; there has been no period where we one or other have not been members

Water John

Then the're having a higher degree of fantasy than we ever feared.

Lemming

captainspeed wrote: »

I
As Michael Heseltine was pointing out especially around the time he was sacked by Theresa May (for those that don't know he is one of the few Europhiles in the Conversative party along with Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry, Nicky Morgan and Ruth Davidson), the Tories are losing 2% of their vote every year because of old people dying off (who backed Brexit and subsequently, the Tories for implementing Brexit) and the younger voters are simply not voting for them (for the same reason, plus other factors, like £9,000 a year tuition fees, house prices, lower wages than their parents at the same time in their career paths etc).

What hasn't been mentioned is not only would the Tories lose any notions of younger support even faster, but they would also come under attack from those same baby boomers that they rely upon for their main voting base as this is the demographic most likely to interact with the NHS on a regular basis.

flutered wrote: »

the trouble is the media will lead the sell out of the nhs, as they have led the brexit charge

I really don't think a lot of folk on this forum have grasped just how 'cherished' - for want of a better term - the NHS is to the UK population. The closest I can come to explaining it is that it's a bit like how the nurses are (or were at any rate) held up as a scared cow-that-is-also-an-angel-with-a-halo in Ireland. The organisation is considered by many older voters as a point of pride that they've had a system that was the (perceived) envy of much of the world for decades, and taken for granted by pretty much everyone else.

It's funny how - as ACP has already commented - something can unify an entire country with so much cultural differences. Half the population can be fooled by big red buses with big white writing on them when it comes to "them wots foreign" because it plays to inferiority/superiority complexes, notions of empire days long gone that never were anyway, casual racism, or about a hundred other reasons none of which can be considered flattering, but the same people would question the same red-bus tactics applied to the NHS.

First Up

HugoRune wrote: »

trellheim wrote: »

If a poll was taken in the knowledge that a hard border would go up, would Ireland also vote to leave under Article 50 as the only way to avoid it ?

No, May never. No May never no more.

But there is another way. Implement a one way border. A semi-hard, if you will, and let the Brexiters have their phyrric victory. All goods/people into ROI subject to tariffs and control checks. Anything going the other way is waved on though with the blessings and goodwill of the nation.

Goodwill of which nation?

Sam Russell

HugoRune wrote: »

No, May never. No May never no more.

But there is another way. Implement a one way border. A semi-hard, if you will, and let the Brexiters have their phyrric victory. All goods/people into ROI subject to tariffs and control checks. Anything going the other way is waved on though with the blessings and goodwill of the nation.

We do not need to worry.

A hard border will be first implemented in Dover/Calais. Trucks will not pass either way as there is no infrastructure on either side to cope. That is much more serious for the UK than anything happening on the island of Ireland.

We can put up a few customs posts on the main roads, and a few flying columns of customs boyos to catch those that try a fast one, but the real action will be England/France/Netherlands/Belgium. The movement of a few cows or even tankers of milk will be nothing compared to thousands of HGVs backed up the M20 with exports, and thousands of HGVs carrying perishable food and badly needed car parts on the Autoroutes into the channel ports. It will be great for all those would be immigrants trying to find their way into the UK.

The thought should be enough to soften any Brexiteers cheers at being free at last.

We should not forget the Scottish Tories that could well rebel and there are more of them than there are DUP MPs. I think they may be enough to prevent total madness.