Brexit discussion thread IV

ArmaniJeanss

flutered wrote: »

i have read elsewhere that the white paper is being given to each eu counrtys goverment in their own language, in an effort to bypass barnier

This seems open to potential farce when it transpires that they just ran it through google translate. Or more likely that unspotted errors in the translation lead to them giving the Bulgarians a text totally different in meaning to that which the Italians receive. Or a deliberately unfaithful translator.

Leroy42

trellheim wrote: »

Boris' twitter.

Boris seems to only have a loose grasp on reality. JRM cannot be gotten to stop airing his views

Surely TM cannot just let Boris continue now. He has basically just endorsed a man that threatened a revolt against the party leader and PM unless she did what he, and his group, want.

If I was TM, I would give Boris a choice. Either stand up and publicly back me or face the sack. Sure, the line will be that he is more dangerous outside the cabinet, but that is based on the premise of cabinet collective responsibility which Boris is totally not on board with.

Rhineshark

Leroy42 wrote: »

Surely TM cannot just let Boris continue now. He has basically just endorsed a man that threatened a revolt against the party leader and PM unless she did what he, and his group, want.

If I was TM, I would give Boris a choice. Either stand up and publicly back me or face the sack. Sure, the line will be that he is more dangerous outside the cabinet, but that is based on the premise of cabinet collective responsibility which Boris is totally not on board with.

I don't know why he's still going. I wasn't convinced by the brilliance of Johnson being pit front and centre for all Brexit might hit him in the face. Foreign Sec is also a job and apparently a very important and difficult one so giving it to a buffoon like Johnson seemed to be asking for trouble.

Anyway, he'll be trouble wherever he is, but at least outside can only lead to less diplomatic incidents.

keane2097

CelticRambler wrote: »

I know I'm obviously very late to the party on this one but I've never actually been able to follow this diagram, can someone give me a five second explanation of it?!

Anthracite

Does anyone else get the sense that Johnson is desperate to get the sack before Brexit goes down?

Anthracite

keane2097 wrote: »

I know I'm obviously very late to the party on this one but I've never actually been able to follow this diagram, can someone give me a five second explanation of it?!

Those are the different existing models of relationship with EU, and the UK's red lines that rule them out (from most red lines to least).

Infini

keane2097 wrote: »

I know I'm obviously very late to the party on this one but I've never actually been able to follow this diagram, can someone give me a five second explanation of it?!

Basically those are the red line's they and the deal those state's in the upper half is the one they can have should they give up those red line's below. Basically the lower they go the lesser the deal. If they dont give up anything they end up back of the queue for everything and are basically the planet's economic kickball.

Long story short, sizable sections of their press are run by idiot's and anyone with intelligence will see them as propaganda rag's rather than news, their politicians are incoherent in Westminster and the lunatic's are running the asylum (Hai Moggle and Boris), and they're gonna crash out unless May decide's she's not gonna be the one to go down with the ship and basically face's down Boris the buffoon and Moggle and his European Trolling Group. At least if she saw the writing on the wall and faced down these idiot's, even if she lost then it would be Boris or Moggs who would get the honor of going down with the ship.

Trasna1

Rhineshark wrote: »

I don't know why he's still going. I wasn't convinced by the brilliance of Johnson being pit front and centre for all Brexit might hit him in the face. Foreign Sec is also a job and apparently a very important and difficult one so giving it to a buffoon like Johnson seemed to be asking for trouble.

Anyway, he'll be trouble wherever he is, but at least outside can only lead to less diplomatic incidents.

Johnson was made foreign secretary in order to keep him out of the way. Foreign secretary involves a lot of overseas travel so he wouldn't have time to maintain the dinner party contacts to organise a plot to get rid of May.

It was felt that giving one of the great offices of state to the brexiteers would help placate her ERG backbenchers: that she was serious about leaving.

Finally it was great it was better to have Boris in the tent pissing out, rather than have him outside pissing in. Turns out he was happy to piss inside the tent.

mickoneill31

keane2097 wrote: »

I know I'm obviously very late to the party on this one but I've never actually been able to follow this diagram, can someone give me a five second explanation of it?!

The Norway, Iceland & Liechtenstein (first 3 flags after the EU) (EEA) models are ruled out because of the red lines that the UK has dictated. So they can't have that.

So then the Switzerland model (EFTA) is rules out because of the red lines below that.

Ukraine & Turkey are the next two flags.

Canada & South Korea have signed Free Trade Agreements. This works with the UKs red lines..... Yay ....

but (not shown on the graphic)

it doesn't work with the EUs red line - no hard border in Northern Ireland.

No deal doesn't work with the EUs red line either but under No deal, the EU has no choice.
And the UK has no choice (I know some of their politicians haven't figured this bit out yet). A country trading under WTO rules would require a hard border. If they want their magical deals with the US / China / etc. then they'll need to be able to police goods coming in and out of the UK.

So while the EU / UK stick to their red lines it's not looking good.

An Ciarraioch

And it turns out there's no "third way plan" after all:

https://mobile.twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1013880759101329409

keane2097

Thanks guys, so it's 'relationship above disallowed by red line below' I gather.

mickoneill31

keane2097 wrote: »

Thanks guys, so it's 'relationship above disallowed by red line below' I gather.

Well that's an easier way of putting it

An Ciarraioch

And there appears to be utter confusion:

https://mobile.twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1013883121585082371

mickoneill31

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

And there appears to be utter confusion:

So, same as every other day so.

Imreoir2

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

And it turns out there's no "third way plan" after all:

https://mobile.twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1013880759101329409

If this was political fiction the author would rightly be lampooned for bad writing. This is literally beyond a joke at this stage.

An Ciarraioch

More detail here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-44690167?__twitter_impression=true

Capt'n Midnight

This is just insane.

They are trying to do a deal with the EU. Where the principles and policies have been on public display forever. The EU has given them all the details of how the negotations will go and what's on offer and what isn't.


It's like playing poker with someone who's already shown you their four aces and you are still trying to bluff with a pair of eights, and it's a no-limits game and have a lot more cash on the table than you.


Compared to that doing a trade deal with a third party that hides thier intentions will be a complete nightmare.

McGiver

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

More detail here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-44690167?__twitter_impression=true

The Swiss option? That would require CU and accepting all 4 freedoms. Plus the EU said they are not going to go the Swiss way again. Certainly not with the UK, not a trustable partner, unlike the Swiss.

Imreoir2

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

This is just insane.

They are trying to do a deal with the EU. Where the principles and policies have been on public display forever. The EU has given them all the details of how the negotations will go and what's on offer and what isn't.


It's like playing poker with someone who's already shown you their four aces and you are still trying to bluff with a pair of eights, and it's a no-limits game and have a lot more cash on the table than you.


Compared to that doing a trade deal with a third party that hides thier intentions will be a complete nightmare.

While your stupid haired husband keeps telling you to tip the table over and walk away if the EU keep refusing to give you one of their aces.

Dymo

Is there any truth in this, I try to read all the posts but I don't think it came up

Signs that EU is ready to extend the Brexit transition, which almost everyone agrees is too short.
But only by one year and UK would have to pay into EU budget w/o any rebate

.

https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1013750825376731137

If so I think it's a bit of a cop out buy the EU and the UK get to throw uncertainty into the marketplace for another 12 months.

Imreoir2

Dymo wrote: »

Is there any truth in this, I try to read all the posts but I don't think it came up

.

https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1013750825376731137

If so I think it's a bit of a cop out buy the EU and the UK get to throw uncertainty into the marketplace for another 12 months.

There is no transition if there is no deal.
The EU is saying they will make life a little easier for the UK if they come up with an acceptible deal. If they do not, then its crash out time in March.

Capt'n Midnight

McGiver wrote: »

The Swiss option? That would require CU and accepting all 4 freedoms. Plus EU said they are not going to go the Swiss way again. Certainly not with the UK, not a trustable partner, unlike the Swiss.

The Swiss deal was an temporary , introductory offer on the assumption that the Swiss would become full paid up members.

Switzerland would go apoplectic if the UK got the same deal on the way out. Especially since Brexit means the EU is delaying Swiss deals on the basis that the UK might be entitled to them too.


Especially since Brexit is hampering their access to the EU services market since the EU won't give the Swiss a deal in case the UK demand the same. This is also why the UK won't be a welcomed back into the EFTA either. The EEA is much smaller and the UK isn't a fellow traveller so good luck there.


Article 127 and the UK saying they are out
http://campaignforanindependentbritain.org.uk/the-continuing-relevance-of-article-127-of-the-eea-agreement/

Anthracite

Dymo wrote: »

Is there any truth in this, I try to read all the posts but I don't think it came up

.

https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1013750825376731137

If so I think it's a bit of a cop out buy the EU and the UK get to throw uncertainty into the marketplace for another 12 months.

Another year of businesses upping sticks/not investing might help focus their minds somewhat.

Water John

Just watching an old 'Have I got News for You' It's from around the time of the May/Juncker meeting. It has Boris urging the EU to hurry up and get on with the Brexit negotiations.

trellheim

The Swiss deal will not be done again because the Swiss tried to back out of Freedom of Movement while keeping everything else. This led to -basically - a mess

The Swiss climbed down
-

Their climbdown was largely due to the EU's unwavering negotiating tactic, as it was prepared to put at stake all existing collaborations between Switzerland and the European Union

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_immigration_referendum,_February_2014

The EU will not back down on FOM ; they have no wish to get involved again in such - for want of a better word - bollixology

FreudianSlippers

McGiver wrote: »

I mean can you imagine reading this in any other country? I don't think this would be seen in the any tabloid in other countries. I'm not Irish, but this article is clearly offensive. Especially given the fact that Ireland was a UK colony mere 100 years ago, they broke the country and divided into two causing mess which may never be fixed,and never apologised for any of that.

Oh no... one billion percent this could be in a mainstream US paper.

FreudianSlippers

trellheim wrote: »

The Swiss deal will not be done again because the Swiss tried to back out of Freedom of Movement while keeping everything else. This led to -basically - a mess

The Swiss climbed down
-

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_immigration_referendum,_February_2014

The EU will not back down on FOM ; they have no wish to get involved again in such - for want of a better word - bollixology

...nor should they back down on FOM.

First Up

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

McGiver wrote: »

I mean can you imagine reading this in any other country? I don't think this would be seen in the any tabloid in other countries. I'm not Irish, but this article is clearly offensive. Especially given the fact that Ireland was a UK colony mere 100 years ago, they broke the country and divided into two causing mess which may never be fixed,and never apologised for any of that.

Oh no... one billion percent this could be in a mainstream US paper.

Which one?

CelticRambler

Dymo wrote: »

https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1013750825376731137

If so I think it's a bit of a cop out buy the EU and the UK get to throw uncertainty into the marketplace for another 12 months.

Extending the transition period would/could only happen if agreement had been reached on what new relationship the EU and the UK were transitionning to. It's long been accepted that two years was going to be very tight, but Brexit means Brexit and all that, and the Brits wanted out, so the EU offered them a fast-track to freedom.


If Westminster comes to its senses and realises that (a) they need a deal; (b) that fecking around for two years making no preparations whatsoever for any kind of post Brexit life was completely stupid, and (c) they should apologise to the EU for their juvenile eejitery and ask for help, then it would be in the EU's interest, too, to let them have a slightly longer period in which to put their affairs in order. On condition that everything is agreed because everything is agreed.


There'd still be some uncertainty for businesses, but for the most part, they'd know what new tarifs/paperwork/regulations/etc to expect - or not to have to deal with - and could finally put their own transition plans into effect.

Leroy42

There is no deal possible with the current red lines as stated by May back in 2016.

For any extension the EU will be looking at some commitment that some or all of these red lines are moveable (we know they are but the UK seems to what to both have them and nt at the moment).

What do Ireland do though if the EU want to extend either A50 or the transition period without any firm commitment on NI? Should they allow the UK to once again push back any decision and we know from December that a commitment is not really worth anything?

Extending A50 would be the better option (IMO) as it ties the UK into the EU for that period rather than them being out and in some form of holding area. They would still be in the budgets, the MEP elections would have to be run etc etc. I don't see the advantage to the EU or Ireland or an extended transition.

I suppose what I am asking is what are Ireland's options as we head towards, what I think, is the inevitable fudge in December and early 2019.

BonnieSituation

Why would the EU (us) remove their firm commitment to us (EU) re NI to mollify a third country who don't know what they're at?

Leroy42

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Why would the EU (us) remove their firm commitment to us (EU) re NI to mollify a third country who don't know what they're at?

They already have. They had an agreement in December which turns out not to be much of an agreement at all (at least from the UK side). The EU are interested in getting a deal, and one thing the EU is very good at is kicking things down the road, coming to a compromise.

IMO, this is the reality that Ireland will soon be faced with. It is not that the NI is being given up on, just that it will continue to be kicked down the road. But the EU will insist on the UK continuing in the CU and SM, be that under an extension of A50 or a longer transitional period (remember that the transition period itself is a concession by the EU).

flatty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

flutered wrote: »

the uk think the eu will capitulate, to save the economies of belgium germany and ireland

I don't think so. When I see one of the tabloids spewing words that are ultimately meaningless, it's to maintain the dimming flames of their own crusade. May, Johnson and Co. know what the score is. They're not going to sacrifice that precious Conservative party unity which definitely exists that the country will now pay a steep price for. I suspect that David Cameron was expecting Nick Clegg to win a lot more seats than he ended up with so he'd have a ready-made excuse to ditch the absurd plebiscite. Unfortunately, I do not think that the British electorate is mature enough for voting reform and thus they returned a deeply fractured Conservative party to power with a narrow majority, freed from the Liberal shackles imposed by awful Mr. Clegg.

In the absence of any sort of meaningful opposition, Tories of various stripes are now free to tear each other apart knowing that their leader is caught between a rock and a stupid place. Their desperation for power means that they'll not go too far but this is sticky tape on deep party fissures. The party needs to fall apart so it can reinvent itself as it has done countless times throughout history.

The problem now is that the dragons have all been slain. Labour is just as dysfunctional and deeply divided, Trade Unions are completely toothless, the Liberal Democrats have been confined to the electoral wilderness for the ultimate act of political evil that was tuition fees, the SNP's case for another Indyref is dead in the water while the biggest beast of all, Brussels, the EC and Jean-Claude Juncker are about to be booted from our shores (or something like that).

So we're about to find out how the Conservatives manage without their usual scapegoats. Oh, sure their allies in the press will continue to blame Brussels but I'm not sure that ship will sail for long. The schisms in the party must be resolved if it is to have a future. The same of course applies to Labour but they have the advantage of the galvanising forces of a common nemesis and the possibility to get back into power to patch up their internal chasms for the time being.

One of the greatest tragedies of all is Boris Johnson. Ironically, for a man so obsessed with Winston Churchill, he's made decisions which have forever preventing him for realising his goal (I suspect) of being remembered in the same vein as the man himself. I may have opined that he's a moron. I don't know. I certainly blame him for a lot of problems. I do feel that if he'd put himself behind the Remain side and taken that sort of progressive Conservatism that he could be argued to represent could have tipped the balance in favour of Remain (so could some principles regarding a certain bus it might be argued). He's not so much a moron as a prisoner of his own greed, avarice and venality. He can't see the wood for the trees and is so driven by his own selfishness that he seems to be incapable of thinking rationally and working accordingly with the result being that he's now bolted onto this ride to economic ruin and is uttering things which would have been previously unthinkable for any Tory nevermind a holder of one of the great offices of state.

What makes you say that the case for a second Scottish independence referendum is dead in the water as a matter of interest. I'd imagine the SNP, still by far the largest party are just biding their time.
There is also an unseemly smugness running through many posts about how wonderfully pro EU we are, and how we would never ever contemplate going against them in our intelligence. People have very short memories. In 2008 they were the ultimate evil for daring to bail us out, we voted against Lisbon, and finally we have been absolutely massive financial beneficiaries through decades in which the British were contributors. Now I realise it is more nuanced than that, but there is a level of self unawareness on here bordering on arrogance. That said, I despise the good ship brexit, and all who sail in her. Brexiteers are generally loathsome.

BonnieSituation

Leroy42 wrote: »

They already have. They had an agreement in December which turns out not to be much of an agreement at all (at least from the UK side).

Exactly, from the UK side. The EU haven't moved a millimetre from their stance since.

The EU are interested in getting a deal, and one thing the EU is very good at is kicking things down the road, coming to a compromise.

The EU are interested in a deal but not at the expense of the damage a deal will do to the Union itself. And again, we are the EU so we're not exactly going to allow anything that's detrimental to ourselves.

I think with the last couple of days re the crap to do with the Chequers "Summit" it is fairly obvious that the EU don't really need to do much let alone chuck us, a member of the EU (as well as NI), under a bus.

IMO, this is the reality that Ireland will soon be faced with. It is not that the NI is being given up on, just that it will continue to be kicked down the road. But the EU will insist on the UK continuing in the CU and SM, be that under an extension of A50 or a longer transitional period (remember that the transition period itself is a concession by the EU).

The reality is that the EU are over this problem, this so-called "pebble in the shoe" so they'll go through the motions til December and then teh UK will accept what they're given.

This weekend will see the final Tory crunch so the EU will wait and go about solving other issues like migration while the UK dither. Again.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

They already have.

No, they have not.

The EU said any deal must have no hard border in Ireland. The UK said OK.

Since then, the UK have said all sorts of nonsense and the EU have not said anything new. That is still the EUs position.

Zubeneschamali

flatty wrote: »

In 2008 they were the ultimate evil for daring to bail us out

In 2008 noisy internet idiots and professional political protestors said the EU were bad. No serious politician did.

All of those people were proven to be wrong when the bailout promptly worked, so that class of professional anti-EU noisemaker has even less credibility now than in 2008.

breatheme

Leroy42 wrote: »

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Why would the EU (us) remove their firm commitment to us (EU) re NI to mollify a third country who don't know what they're at?

They already have.  They had an agreement in December which turns out not to be much of an agreement at all (at least from the UK side).  The EU are interested in getting a deal, and one thing the EU is very good at is kicking things down the road, coming to a compromise.

IMO, this is the reality that Ireland will soon be faced with.  It is not that the NI is being given up on, just that it will continue to be kicked down the road.  But the EU will insist on the UK continuing in the CU and SM, be that under an extension of A50 or a longer transitional period (remember that the transition period itself is a concession by the EU).

The UK needs to keep an open border in order to strike a deal. Those were the three main points that took/are taking ages to get resolved... from the UK side. The Irish border. The exit bill. EU Citizens' rights.
The EU doesn't necessarily want the UK to remain in the customs union. That IS an option that would guarantee an open border, but also, leaving just NI in the customs union would keep it open, and the EU is also open to that. The problem is that the UK doesn't want to stay in the CU, NI (well, the DUP) doesn't want to be cut off from the UK... so it's a mess. All thanks to May, really. If she hadn't called that election and weren't at the mercy of the DUP right now, she could've pulled a Churchill and said "well, off you go NI, you stay in the CU". And there would've been so much progress made.

flatty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

In 2008 they were the ultimate evil for daring to bail us out

In 2008 noisy internet idiots and professional political protestors said the EU were bad. No serious politician did.

All of those people were proven to be wrong when the bailout promptly worked, so that class of professional anti-EU noisemaker has even less credibility now than in 2008.

At the risk of answering with a one liner you have a narrow personal outlook on who or what comprises a serious politician.

View

breatheme wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Why would the EU (us) remove their firm commitment to us (EU) re NI to mollify a third country who don't know what they're at?

They already have.  They had an agreement in December which turns out not to be much of an agreement at all (at least from the UK side).  The EU are interested in getting a deal, and one thing the EU is very good at is kicking things down the road, coming to a compromise.

IMO, this is the reality that Ireland will soon be faced with.  It is not that the NI is being given up on, just that it will continue to be kicked down the road.  But the EU will insist on the UK continuing in the CU and SM, be that under an extension of A50 or a longer transitional period (remember that the transition period itself is a concession by the EU).

The UK needs to keep an open border in order to strike a deal. Those were the three main points that took/are taking ages to get resolved... from the UK side. The Irish border. The exit bill. EU Citizens' rights.
The EU doesn't necessarily want the UK to remain in the customs union. That IS an option that would guarantee an open border, but also, leaving just NI in the customs union would keep it open, and the EU is also open to that. The problem is that the UK doesn't want to stay in the CU, NI (well, the DUP) doesn't want to be cut off from the UK... so it's a mess. All thanks to May, really. If she hadn't called that election and weren't at the mercy of the DUP right now, she could've pulled a Churchill and said "well, off you go NI, you stay in the CU". And there would've been so much progress made.

The U.K. doesn’t want a deal (or to be more precise it is only interested in a deal on terms that the EU countries won’t countenance discussing, much less agreeing).

All the talk about no hard border is just talk. That’s the reality that we need to accept as no one has managed to square the NI circle in the years since the U.K. referendum.

If the people of NI don’t like the idea of a hard border then let them come down to Dublin and discuss the idea of how a UI would work in practice. If they aren’t interested in doing so then there is no reason for us to bust our gut to help out a self-decided region of Brexit U.K. Such a region is - by their choice - our competitor, not our team mate.

Zubeneschamali

flatty wrote: »

At the risk of answering with a one liner you have a narrow personal outlook on who or what comprises a serious politician.

Go on, give us a laugh: what serious politician said the EU were evil when they bailed us out?

trellheim

The EU said any deal must have no hard border in Ireland. The UK said OK.

I did post up-thread : in fairness the UK did include no hard border backstop into the EU withdrawal bill.

blanch152

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Go on, give us a laugh: what serious politician said the EU were evil when they bailed us out?

Well Pearse Doherty travelled to Greece to support the mad Yannis against the EU.

http://www.thejournal.ie/greece-troika-terrorism-2197885-Jul2015/

"Sinn Féin stands in solidarity with the people of Greece and firmly against austerity,” he said in a statement last night.

“The actions of the Troika in relation to Greece in recent months have been akin to those of the schoolboy bully.

“Unfortunately, our own government and Michael Noonan in particular has not only stood with the bullyboys but actually put the boot in himself when the opportunity arose."

But you would have to accept that Pearse is a serious politician.

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

They already have. They had an agreement in December which turns out not to be much of an agreement at all (at least from the UK side). The EU are interested in getting a deal, and one thing the EU is very good at is kicking things down the road, coming to a compromise.

IMO, this is the reality that Ireland will soon be faced with. It is not that the NI is being given up on, just that it will continue to be kicked down the road. But the EU will insist on the UK continuing in the CU and SM, be that under an extension of A50 or a longer transitional period (remember that the transition period itself is a concession by the EU).

Art 50 wont be extended unless the UK has capitulated and is willing to accept a workable deal including the backstop and an extension is needed to ratify the treaty in Europe and the UK. Without this capitulation, there wont be an extension.

As for the transition, there will be no transition unless there is a treaty. If the UK does not capitulate, there will be no treaty.

Kicking the can down the road is only usefull if there is something to be gained by it. If the UK does not capitulate, then kicking the can down the road is only extending the period of uncertanty, which harms business, before they leave with no deal.

ancapailldorcha

flatty wrote: »

What makes you say that the case for a second Scottish independence referendum is dead in the water as a matter of interest. I'd imagine the SNP, still by far the largest party are just biding their time.

Because the Scottish electorate is fed up of going to the ballot box and, more importantly the nauseating amount of campaigning that goes with it. Since 2014, they've voted in two general elections, two referenda, one set of European elections, local elections and elections to Holyrood. That's a lot of trips to the ballot box for 4 years.

Then there is the fact that Westminster needs to sign off on another Indyref. They only did it last time because they were confident it would fail and thus neutralise the SNP. This is of course pre-Brexit which was a very different ball game. Even if the government wasn't so tied up with Brexit, it would be unlikely to authorise another referendum in any case. I'm happier to have Nicola Sturgeon making some sort of attempt at opposing the current government since Jeremy Corbyn seems uninterested.

flatty wrote: »

There is also an unseemly smugness running through many posts about how wonderfully pro EU we are, and how we would never ever contemplate going against them in our intelligence. People have very short memories. In 2008 they were the ultimate evil for daring to bail us out, we voted against Lisbon, and finally we have been absolutely massive financial beneficiaries through decades in which the British were contributors. Now I realise it is more nuanced than that, but there is a level of self unawareness on here bordering on arrogance. That said, I despise the good ship brexit, and all who sail in her. Brexiteers are generally loathsome.

Can you be more specific? I knew Brexit was a terrible idea before the get go. Many people did. It was somewhat inevitable to people who'd research the subject but I would completely understand why a lot of people would be put off voting. I was working in a University at the time. Someone there wanted to vote Leave and kept debating me on the subject. She ended up being torn between the points I made and wanting to vote Leave and ended up abstaining.
I feel like a lot of the time Politics, especially British Politics with its outdated institutions and unrepresentative voting system is designed to put people off. I don't think people who didn't read the FT or The Economist to educate themselves are stupid or anything like that.

Ultimately, though Brexit is about more than just the UK. It affects Ireland and when you have senior advocates of dubious moral standing lie Jacob Rees-Mogg posturing about impoverishing Ireland then I can understand why Liberals, Europeans and the Irish themselves adopt a "F**k 'em" attitude. The British establishment is wholly unrepresentative of the country as a whole and is dragging it to Economic ruin to preserve its own unity which is becoming ever more fragile.

Water John

Just because, on balance, we are pro EU, doesn't mean we think it's perfect, far from it. For example, we largely, along with the majority of populations in all EU countries, don't want a United Sates of Europe.
That is why we voted against Lisbon 1. Yes, we were treated badly by Trichet, to protect the German and French Banks, who had lent us the money, but didn't want any of the downside. But we have survived well within the club.

LeinsterDub

There is no more road. This week the can hits the wall. Theresa May must present her Brussels negotiators with an agreed cabinet template for Brexit, or they, and she, will slither into chaos. She must end the intransigence of her rebel cabinet members, who must accept her leadership or go. The public interest requires that this week be Boris Johnson’s last as foreign secretary.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/02/theresa-may-tory-brexit-rebels-norway-model-cabinet

Opinion from the Guardian. May must clear the cabinet of dissenters and pursue the Norway option.

I can't see either of these happening to be honest . May hasn't been and isn't strong enough.

listermint

flatty wrote: »

What makes you say that the case for a second Scottish independence referendum is dead in the water as a matter of interest. I'd imagine the SNP, still by far the largest party are just biding their time.
There is also an unseemly smugness running through many posts about how wonderfully pro EU we are, and how we would never ever contemplate going against them in our intelligence. People have very short memories. In 2008 they were the ultimate evil for daring to bail us out, we voted against Lisbon, and finally we have been absolutely massive financial beneficiaries through decades in which the British were contributors. Now I realise it is more nuanced than that, but there is a level of self unawareness on here bordering on arrogance. That said, I despise the good ship brexit, and all who sail in her. Brexiteers are generally loathsome.

You said it yourself.


Basically very little of what you wrote makes sense when you obviously know its more nuanced than that.

Surveys have concluded time and time again Ireland is pro EU, Now come back with some serious examples of Ireland not being actually pro EU.

Without the nuance.

This is not the case in the UK, there is ongoing resentment of anything EU related, in fact its only just tolerable to many.

View

Water John wrote: »

Just because, on balance, we are pro EU, doesn't mean we think it's perfect, far from it. For example, we largely, along with the majority of populations in all EU countries, don't want a United Sates of Europe.
That is why we voted against Lisbon 1. Yes, we were treated badly by Trichet, to protect the German and French Banks, who had lent us the money, but didn't want any of the downside. But we have survived well within the club.

Neither the Lisbon Treaty nor any of the other EU Treaties say anything whatsoever about a “United States of Europe”, nor do they contain any commitment whatsoever to the creation of one (be it named that or not).

Hence our vote against Lisbon 1 was very comparable to the “enthusiastic but utterly misinformed” decision made by the British electorate in their referendum.

Leroy42

I also think that many Irish see it as the best option available. Is it perfect? Far from it. But what other options do we have. Tie ourselves directly to the UK or maybe the US.

Both of them have serious downsides, just as the EU does. The difference being that there currently isn't any real option of the other two and removing ourselves from the EU would not make a massive difference in terms of what we could achieve with either the UK or the US.

Certainly in the case of the US, being part of the EU is seen as a major driver of FDI.

Brexit has changed the dynamic in terms of the UK. And it would appear, from all the evidence that I have seen, that majority can seen that a future with the EU is better positioning Ireland that leaving the EU to tie back up with the UK.

So I don't think its smugness (although there is a certain amount of that in terms of watching what we were lead to believe was a strong and stable country make such a mess of things) but rather an acceptance that, whilst it has many faults, we are doing the right thing.

CelticRambler

View wrote: »

If the people of NI don’t like the idea of a hard border then let them come down to Dublin and discuss the idea of how a UI would work in practice. If they aren’t interested in doing so then there is no reason for us to bust our gut to help out a self-decided region of Brexit U.K. Such a region is - by their choice - our competitor, not our team mate.

NI is part of the Island of Ireland; it is not part of the Island of Great Britain; as a region; thanks to the GFA, NI is our team-mate and no longer a competitor. All of this was formalised in the 90s, has been working pretty well ever since, and this "self-decided region" (whatever that means) voted to remain part of the EU.


In the light of the above, the EU came up with a perfectly reasonable suggestion for the UK as a whole: keep the semi-autonomous, geographically-separate, fly-in-the-ointment region of Northern Ireland in the CU/SM and let Britain live by any of the red lines it chooses to keep. Before the referendum was held, and ever since, that was and remains the only sensible, practical way to resolve the "no hard border" stalemate.



If the DUP don't want a United Ireland, they would do well to spend time in London, not Dublin, telling Theresa May that they're reconsidered their position and will take the golden opportunity that was offered them.