Brexit discussion thread IV

View

CelticRambler wrote: »

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.

A “self-decided region” of the U.K. is obviously one that has chosen and continues to chose to be part of the U.K.. That’s their decision whether you agree with it or not.

You are quite correct to say that NI (and the U.K. as a whole) is our team mate on “Team EU”. That though is the current situation. It is one that is due to end in less than a year’s time. At that point they become our direct competitor, not our team mate.

As I pointed out in my previous post, if the people of NI disagree with the overall U.K. decision on Brexit, they are free to come down to Dublin and start discussing how a UI would work in practice. If, however, they chose not to do so - particularly when it is clear that the U.K. government is completely clueless, if not actively destructive, about the NI border issue - there is no point in pretending that NI will really be on our team when they will be kitted out in the “Team U.K.” strip, not the “Team EU” one, in future.

BonnieSituation

View wrote: »

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.

Partition was a choice now?

It's easy to make statements like that that white wash history and culture isn't it

I'd suggest you go to Jonesboro or Belleek or Strabane and ask our "competitors" where they see themselves.

"Get them to come firm to Dublin..."

If it were that easy do you reckon we would be post-GFA?

Nonsense post.

Enzokk

breatheme wrote: »

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.

I think people should have been aware or at least been made aware that NI was going to be a problem when it comes to Brexit. David Cameron should have put a provision in the referendum that only if NI also voted for Brexit as a region along with the rest of the UK it could be implemented. This is because of the GFA and the history in NI. This should have been just reality of the situation as at the moment the UK cannot implement a Brexit where they leave the customs union AND the single market but also keep the border open between Ireland and Northern Ireland. This is needed because you don't want to risk peace.

Just remember an open border isn't only due to customs union, it is in conjunction with the single market. You can have a customs union but you will still need to do checks to see that goods comply with the regulations of the single market of the EU. The customs union is to only avoid a check that goods doesn't have a tariff applied to them. Then you could be in the customs union and the single market but still have a border if you don't have a common travel area.

Enough has been said about the brains trust that thought out the referendum already. With each passing day my little respect for those people diminishes even more.

View wrote: »

A “self-decided region” of the U.K. is obviously one that has chosen and continues to chose to be part of the U.K.. That’s their decision whether you agree with it or not.

You are quite correct to say that NI (and the U.K. as a whole) is our team mate on “Team EU”. That though is the current situation. It is one that is due to end in less than a year’s time. At that point they become our direct competitor, not our team mate.

As I pointed out in my previous post, if the people of NI disagree with the overall U.K. decision on Brexit, they are free to come down to Dublin and start discussing how a UI would work in practice. If, however, they chose not to do so - particularly when it is clear that the U.K. government is completely clueless, if not actively destructive, about the NI border issue - there is no point in pretending that NI will really be on our team when they will be kitted out in the “Team U.K.” strip, not the “Team EU” one, in future.

Just clear up for me, the UK as whole voted to leave the EU so they must leave the EU. But the people in NI voted to remain part of the EU. So is overall authority given to the people of the UK as a whole and we dismiss the concerns of the people in NI?

I can sort of understand that Scotland will abide by the voice of the UK as a whole. They had their chance to have their own say and they decided they would rather be governed by the House of Commons. But seeing that almost all of the trouble with sorting out a deal with the EU comes down to the border with NI and Ireland and the added complication of the GFA, more weight should surely be given to the voice of the people in NI.

Article 50 wasn't written for the UK. It is a simple process for a country to leave the EU. If Hungary wants to leave the EU they will trigger it. The negotiations will be about a divorce bill and a future relationship. If Hungary decides it wants to have one of the current deals on the table it can let the EU know, or it will be dealt with as a third country. Borders will be built as soon as they given then intention if they want to leave the CU and SM and for identity checks to be done as well. Then if Hungary wants to negotiate a free trade deal separately with the EU they can but will go back of the queue. Simple.

Zubeneschamali

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Partition was a choice now?

Well, yes.

It is true that the particular border which was imposed was drawn to capture as much land for NI as possible while guaranteeing a Unionist majority - adding any one of the 3 Ulster counties not included would have given a Nationalist majority, while some of the counties in NI had nationalists majorities...

But even without the British imposing that border, there would have either been partition or war with Unionists, and probably both.

Zubeneschamali

Enzokk wrote: »

Just clear up for me, the UK as whole voted to leave the EU so they must leave the EU. But the people in NI voted to remain part of the EU. So is overall authority given to the people of the UK as a whole and we dismiss the concerns of the people in NI?

The referendum was advisory and did not give anyone the authority to do anything.

Enzokk

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The referendum was advisory and did not give anyone the authority to do anything.

I know that, you know that. But it is being used by people as a "close your eyes and jump" authorization from the people to go ahead and do what they want. If anyone disagrees the answer is always, "are you against democracy? What about the will of the people?"

McGiver

Leroy42 wrote: »

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.

Becoming a satellite of the US is not a good idea. That is what would exactly happen to Ireland if it left the EU. Deregulation, removal of the last bits of environmental, consumer, labour and social protection/regulations, hardcore privatisation including health care, GMOs etc.

It's down to - Are you willing to pay thousand euros bills for routine medical procedures, eat toxic food and end up with no pension? If not then stay in the EU.

Being part of the EU, whatever the problems there are with it, is better than the US satellite option.

McGiver

British Chamber of Commerce patience has run out. Asking HM Gov to clarify 23 points. Unlikely, if they can't clarify few basic points to Barnier...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-uk-businesses-breaking-point-eu-trade-deal-talks-stall-a8428136.html

BonnieSituation

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, yes.

It is true that the particular border which was imposed was drawn to capture as much land for NI as possible while guaranteeing a Unionist majority - adding any one of the 3 Ulster counties not included would have given a Nationalist majority, while some of the counties in NI had nationalists majorities...

But even without the British imposing that border, there would have either been partition or war with Unionists, and probably both.

Wow.

When you're finished patting my head...

Zubeneschamali

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Wow.

When you're finished patting my head...

So you agree that partition was a choice, good.

EdgeCase

McGiver wrote: »

Becoming a satellite of the US is not a good idea. That is what would exactly happen to Ireland if it left the EU. Deregulation, removal of the last bits of environmental, consumer, labour and social protection/regulations, hardcore privatisation including health care, GMOs etc.

It's down to - Are you willing to pay thousand euros bills for routine medical procedures, eat toxic food and end up with no pension? If not then stay in the EU.

Being part of the EU, whatever the problems there are with it, is better than the US satellite option.

It's also incredibly unlikely if you look at Irish opinion polling on the issue. It's consistently extremely comfortable with EU membership. I would actually suspect the only way Ireland would leave the EU would be involuntarily i.e. if the entire EU were to unravel, again something that's rather unlikely.

Also, while Ireland shares a lot of familial ties with the US and a common language, there are enormous differences of opinion around political issues, especially neutrality. Also I think US attitudes to regulation and social policy would go down here like a lead balloon.

If you look at Irish public discourse, there's an expectation of high levels of public services here and strong regulation. We tend to get angry and ring Joe Duffy when the state fails to deliver these. Unlike the US, there isn't actually a major clamour to reduce income tax for example, rather there's a lot of annoyance about failings of the public health system, cost of housing, child care costs and so on.

I think the expectations here are *far* more in line with Northern Europe than they are with the US.

Not only that but the US is regressing on a whole load of social issues which Ireland has just progressed on. Also, unlike the US in areas like LGBT rights and also the recent removal of the 8th amendment, those reforms here have been driven by popular movements and endorsed by referenda. In the US the progress on many of those areas was driven by court rulings and surrounded by divisive political debate.

The two countries are actually moving apart on a whole range of issues. I would say Ireland had more in common with the US 30-40 years ago than it does today. We are probably more in line with Canada and New Zealand these days but also our closest neighbours, including the UK actually (even though it's leaving the EU).

I think the UK is going to be in for quite a shock if it ends up in the US sphere of influence as it could easily mean the unravelling of a lot of the post WWII progressive aspects of their socio-economic system too. They have far less in common with the United States than the tories and some Atlanticists, like Blair, would have them believe. On most measures the UK population has an expectation of a strong social democracy with things like excellent, free-at-point-of-use, universal public health and it's things like that have been undermined and the anger re-focused externally by spin doctors and tabloids.

The crunch politically in the UK will come when an expectation of European style social democratic type public services isn't met.

kunst nugget

Remember Mary Harney saying that spiritually, we were closer to Boston than Berlin… that seems pretty quaint now.

Zubeneschamali

EdgeCase wrote: »

Also, unlike the US in areas like LGBT rights and also the recent removal of the 8th amendment, those reforms here have been driven by popular movements and endorsed by referenda. In the US the progress on many of those areas was driven by court rulings and surrounded by divisive political debate.

And now the Trump gets to decide the majority in the Supreme Court for a generation, those decisions are going to be reversed, starting with abortion.

View

BonnieSituation wrote: »

View wrote: »

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.

Partition was a choice now?

It's easy to make statements like that that white wash history and culture isn't it

I'd suggest you go to Jonesboro or Belleek or Strabane and ask our "competitors" where they see themselves.

"Get them to come firm to Dublin..."

If it were that easy do you reckon we would be post-GFA?

Nonsense post.

The people, at the time, could have prioritised the unity of the people (and island) of Ireland over all else at the time, even if that meant that their preferred political choice was deferred or couldn’t be delivered on as a result. This, they did not do so.

Equally, in the immediate aftermath of the decision, either side could have opted to swallow their pride and reversed or modified their political position in order to prioritise the unity of the people of Ireland over achieving their political desires. This, also they did not do so.

So, yes, partition was a choice then and in the hundred years since (just as it continues to be now for the people of NI).

Equally, in the UK general election held since the Brexit referendum, they could have opted to back unity and EU membership over continuing membership of the soon-to-be Brexit UK. This, though, they did not do.

That’s their perjogative and there is no point in us either expecting any sudden change in that. Nor should we bust a gut in the Brexit negotiations over it. If they really wanted EU membership and unity, they could have found their way down to Dublin by now.

Hurrache

Verhofstadt not expecting must progress this week.

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1014086897205956608

trellheim

Coveney apparently meeting 4 UK ministers this week

View

Enzokk wrote: »

breatheme wrote: »

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.

I think people should have been aware or at least been made aware that NI was going to be a problem when it comes to Brexit. David Cameron should have put a provision in the referendum that only if NI also voted for Brexit as a region along with the rest of the UK it could be implemented. This is because of the GFA and the history in NI. This should have been just reality of the situation as at the moment the UK cannot implement a Brexit where they leave the customs union AND the single market but also keep the border open between Ireland and Northern Ireland. This is needed because you don't want to risk peace.

Just remember an open border isn't only due to customs union, it is in conjunction with the single market. You can have a customs union but you will still need to do checks to see that goods comply with the regulations of the single market of the EU. The customs union is to only avoid a check that goods doesn't have a tariff applied to them. Then you could be in the customs union and the single market but still have a border if you don't have a common travel area.

Enough has been said about the brains trust that thought out the referendum already. With each passing day my little respect for those people diminishes even more.

View wrote: »

A “self-decided region” of the U.K. is obviously one that has chosen and continues to chose to be part of the U.K.. That’s their decision whether you agree with it or not.

You are quite correct to say that NI (and the U.K. as a whole) is our team mate on “Team EU”. That though is the current situation. It is one that is due to end in less than a year’s time. At that point they become our direct competitor, not our team mate.

As I pointed out in my previous post, if the people of NI disagree with the overall U.K. decision on Brexit, they are free to come down to Dublin and start discussing how a UI would work in practice. If, however, they chose not to do so - particularly when it is clear that the U.K. government is completely clueless, if not actively destructive, about the NI border issue - there is no point in pretending that NI will really be on our team when they will be kitted out in the “Team U.K.” strip, not the “Team EU” one, in future.

Just clear up for me, the UK as whole voted to leave the EU so they must leave the EU. But the people in NI voted to remain part of the EU. So is overall authority given to the people of the UK as a whole and we dismiss the concerns of the people in NI?

I can sort of understand that Scotland will abide by the voice of the UK as a whole. They had their chance to have their own say and they decided they would rather be governed by the House of Commons. But seeing that almost all of the trouble with sorting out a deal with the EU comes down to the border with NI and Ireland and the added complication of the GFA, more weight should surely be given to the voice of the people in NI.

Article 50 wasn't written for the UK. It is a simple process for a country to leave the EU. If Hungary wants to leave the EU they will trigger it. The negotiations will be about a divorce bill and a future relationship. If Hungary decides it wants to have one of the current deals on the table it can let the EU know, or it will be dealt with as a third country. Borders will be built as soon as they given then intention if they want to leave the CU and SM and for identity checks to be done as well. Then if Hungary wants to negotiate a free trade deal separately with the EU they can but will go back of the queue. Simple.

As was pointed out the referendum was advisory but the UK politicians are choosing to accept it as a binding instruction. And, like it or not, the advice/binding instruction from the referendum was that the UK - not the UK excluding NI - should leave the EU.

Zubeneschamali

View wrote: »

As was pointed out the referendum was advisory but the UK politicians are choosing to accept it as a binding instruction. And, like it or not, the advice/binding instruction from the referendum was that the UK - not the UK excluding NI - should leave the EU.

Even if we pretend that the referendum is the Will of the People and must be obeyed, it said nothing about leaving the Single Market or Customs Union. Norway and Switzerland were both held up as examples by Leavers before the Referendum.

The sudden and inexplicable decision by May to aim for the status of North Korea is not something envisaged by anyone before the Referendum.

Imreoir2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Even if we pretend that the referendum is the Will of the People and must be obeyed, it said nothing about leaving the Single Market or Customs Union. Norway and Switzerland were both held up as examples by Leavers before the Referendum.

The sudden and inexplicable decision by May to aim for the status of North Korea is not something envisaged by anyone before the Referendum.

I think it might have been envisaged by Mogg and his fellow travelers.

jimmycrackcorm

Hurrache wrote:

Verhofstadt not expecting must progress this week.

I watched a video of mogg engaging him in negotiations. Bizarrely moggs tactic was to continually try to point out that the EU broke its own rules on budget deficits for Germany and France and should break its rules for the UK.

It just struck me that the UKs negotiating strategy is like trying to win a football game by appealing to the ref for handball.

An Ciarraioch

View wrote: »

The people, at the time, could have prioritised the unity of the people (and island) of Ireland over all else at the time, even if that meant that their preferred political choice was deferred or couldn’t be delivered on as a result. This, they did not do so.

Equally, in the immediate aftermath of the decision, either side could have opted to swallow their pride and reversed or modified their political position in order to prioritise the unity of the people of Ireland over achieving their political desires. This, also they did not do so.

So, yes, partition was a choice then and in the hundred years since (just as it continues to be now for the people of NI).

Equally, in the UK general election held since the Brexit referendum, they could have opted to back unity and EU membership over continuing membership of the soon-to-be Brexit UK. This, though, they did not do.

That’s their perjogative and there is no point in us either expecting any sudden change in that. Nor should we bust a gut in the Brexit negotiations over it. If they really wanted EU membership and unity, they could have found their way down to Dublin by now.

From the moment the Third Home Rule Bill got the Royal Assent, partition was inevitable, given the respective Volunteer forces, the only question mark surrounding its territorial extent. Initially, it seems Unionists would have been satisfied with a four-county NI (minus Tyrone and Fermanagh), and indeed it's rumoured the latter was only included because George V liked to fish there.

EdgeCase

kunst nugget wrote: »

Remember Mary Harney saying that spiritually, we were closer to Boston than Berlin… that seems pretty quaint now.

Well, Massachusetts is probably one of, if not the, most social democratic states in the union. The issue is more that Boston might be far closer to Irish, Canadian and European thinking than it is to the current administration in Washington DC!

The notion that it was ever a choice between Boston and Berlin was a bit of an unfortunate choice of comparator, as Boston’s very unrepresentative of the current mainstream of US politics and extremely Irish American.

The choice is more like one between Buchanan County, Virginia and Berlin.

If anything, we are probably increasingly closer to Amsterdam, Stockholm, Helsinki, Antwerp and Brussels, Luxembourg and so on than we are to Berlin, Paris or Washington. Ireland’s definitely a closer fit to those kinds of places than it is to the US or big, Central European states. There’s a large number of countries in Europe that we should be, and are, building a lot of relations with.

Outside the EU we are very close to Ottawa, Wellington and even Canberra than we are to The current US administration. We’ve also got quite a lot of common interests outside the Anglosphere too.

Ireland should keep strong relations with the aspects of the US where we so have things in common. That’s not likely to be the Trunmpish bits through!!

flatty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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?

Just because you and your vanilla right of centre cohort don't agree with them, doesn't mean they aren't serious politicians. There's plenty on here would happily have joined in the jeering of the 1916 rebels. I may not agree with them, but it doesn't mean they aren't serious politicians. Perhaps I'm a bit more open minded the the fools who call the catch cries and all that.

An Ciarraioch

flatty wrote: »

Just because you and your vanilla right of centre cohort don't agree with them, doesn't mean they aren't serious politicians. There's plenty on here would happily have joined in the jeering of the 1916 rebels. I may not agree with them, but it doesn't mean they aren't serious politicians. Perhaps I'm a bit more open minded the the fools who call the catch cries and all that.

To take the middle ground between your two positions, there's certainly a strong argument to be made for movement towards a "social Europe", reflective of grassroots concerns, but the pertinent aspect of EU reform is that it cannot occur in isolation in any single country. Rather, whether from the left or right, it requires pan-European developments in both European and national elections.

flatty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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.

I can too.
To be frank though, suggesting indy ref 2 is dead in the water because the Scots are fed up of voting is an odd argument. If the effects of brexit are as catastrophic as everyone here assumes they will be, then the Scots will certainly not use apathy as a reason not to try to rejoin as an independent nation. They will be furious I'd imagine. They also allow voting at 16, so there will be a strong pro Europe sway potentially sufficient to finally untie the apron strings. I think they'll be perfectly capable of applying enough pressure to gain Westminster approval of another referendum. The primary aim of the majority of the Scottish Parliament has the main aim of Scottish independence. They will just be strategising to try and achieve that. Brexit is a major lever, but not the primary target for them. Their tactics will be interesting. They nearly won the last time. Unfortunately, cowardice held sway. The vote was won with one eye on the wallet. If the finances look skewed the other way post brexit, the indy ref 2 will be successful.

flatty

Finally, whether or not you, I or anyone else prefers Nicola sturgeon in a UK parliament is neither here nor there.
The little English deserve brexit and every calamity it brings. Unfortunately there are over 17 million people who don't, and a generation or more of children.

flatty

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

Just because you and your vanilla right of centre cohort don't agree with them, doesn't mean they aren't serious politicians. There's plenty on here would happily have joined in the jeering of the 1916 rebels. I may not agree with them, but it doesn't mean they aren't serious politicians. Perhaps I'm a bit more open minded the the fools who call the catch cries and all that.

To take the middle ground between your two positions, there's certainly a strong argument to be made for movement towards a "social Europe", reflective of grassroots concerns, but the pertinent aspect of EU reform is that it cannot occur in isolation in any single country. Rather, whether from the left or right, it requires pan-European developments in both European and national elections.

I'm not taking a position, but the dismissal a politician as "not serious" because one disagrees with them is arrogant in the extreme.

Leroy42

Jebus though. If you were Liam Fox wouldn't you be pushing for an extension? The man has had nothing to do for 2 years and is possibly looking to go a whole government lifetime without doing, or even being allowed, to do anything.

It must be a dream job tbf.

Leroy42

flatty wrote: »

I'm not taking a position, but the dismissal a politician as "not serious" because one disagrees with them is arrogant in the extreme.

I think the point being made was that by going with the line that we should leave the EU in search of a magical money tree they were shown to be less than serious as it was, at best, a naive position to take and sounded at the time to be little more that populist nonsense.

It has since been proven to be the case. Much like Brexit, they didn't like the situation we were in and wanted to leave on the basis that simply leaving would solve everything. There was no actual policy there.

Strazdas

View wrote: »

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.

It was generally understood of course that a second referendum on Lisbon was a strong possibility. There was no sense of panic at all when it was voted down the first time.

What the Brits did was insane and reckless in comparison. Voting to leave the EU was ten times more serious than voting down Lisbon and it was accepted that there would be no second referendum and Britain would have to leave.

An Ciarraioch

The UK had thought they might be able to pick off the more sceptical Central and Eastern EU governments, but Austria's Sebastian Kurz remains steadfast:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-eu-member-talks-austria-prime-minister-sebastian-kurz-theresa-may-a8428826.html

An Ciarraioch

Robert Peston has seen leaked elements of the White Paper, and it would appear to be the worst of all worlds, combining the customs partnership plan to collect taxes on behalf of the EU, with max fac smart technology at the Border. All in all, hard to see Brussels being remotely impressed.

https://m.facebook.com/1498276767163730/posts/2093159307675470/

Zubeneschamali

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-eu-member-talks-austria-prime-minister-sebastian-kurz-theresa-may-a8428826.html

British diplomats have been frustrated that the EU will only let Britain negotiate with Michel Barnier of the European Commission rather than speak to member states directly.

I strongly doubt that any actual diplomats are frustrated by this.

Brexiteer politicians, possibly, who imagine that Barnier is part of the EU conspiracy against them, and that if only they could speak directly to other Eurosceptics like themselves who must surely be important in other countries...

Eh, no lads, they aren't.

Imreoir2

Strazdas wrote: »

It was generally understood of course that a second referendum on Lisbon was a strong possibility.

Was it not even the case that people on the no side in that referendum were arguing that a no vote would force the governemt to go back and get guarantees on x, y and z? The no vote was framed as "vote no now to get a better deal in the second vote".

VinLieger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

British diplomats have been frustrated that the EU will only let Britain negotiate with Michel Barnier of the European Commission rather than speak to member states directly.

I strongly doubt that any actual diplomats are frustrated by this.

Brexiteer politicians, possibly, who imagine that Barnier is part of the EU conspiracy against them, and that if only they could speak directly to other Eurosceptics like themselves who must surely be important in other countries...

Eh, no lads, they aren't.

Also hilarious that they are purposely misunderstanding one of the strongest aspects of the EU, we negotiate as 1 which makes us all stronger so we cannot be divided and therefore weekened *cough* exactly what Putin wants *cough*.



They are trumpesque in this idiocy as he last year had to have merkel explain this key fact to him i think 5 times before he gave up when he kept asking to do a trade deal with Germany.

VinLieger

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Was it not even the case that people on the no side in that referendum were arguing that a no vote would force the governemt to go back and get guarantees on x, y and z? The no vote was framed as "vote no now to get a better deal in the second vote".

Yeah I remember it happening kind of like this tbh.

Dymo

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Robert Peston has seen leaked elements of the White Paper, and it would appear to be the worst of all worlds, combining the customs partnership plan to collect taxes on behalf of the EU, with max fac smart technology at the Border. All in all, hard to see Brussels being remotely impressed.

https://m.facebook.com/1498276767163730/posts/2093159307675470/

Looks like the Good Friday Agreement is been torn up and a border is being put in place.

Zubeneschamali

Dymo wrote: »

Looks like the Good Friday Agreement is been torn up and a border is being put in place.

If there is a no-deal Brexit, a hard border is inevitable.

I'm not sure if May seriously thinks she can get the EU to drop Free Movement of people from the Freedoms, or if she is still just tapdancing until the real, real last minute.

Dymo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If there is a no-deal Brexit, a hard border is inevitable.

I'm not sure if May seriously thinks she can get the EU to drop Free Movement of people from the Freedoms, or if she is still just tapdancing until the real, real last minute.

But this new plan has no option but a border, so either way their is going to be a border. The DUP has May wrapped around their finger.

EdgeCase

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

British diplomats have been frustrated that the EU will only let Britain negotiate with Michel Barnier of the European Commission rather than speak to member states directly.

I strongly doubt that any actual diplomats are frustrated by this.

Brexiteer politicians, possibly, who imagine that Barnier is part of the EU conspiracy against them, and that if only they could speak directly to other Eurosceptics like themselves who must surely be important in other countries...

Eh, no lads, they aren't.

Based on a growing pile of evidence, it would actually seem far more likely that the Tories are part of a loose conspiracy of factions that would like to take out the EU, as they see it as a growing world power. Putin, Trump and so on all fit that bill.

The EU really has no choice but to be quite steadfast in its positions when it comes to negotiating with the UK on Brexit. It's in the narrow interests of the Brexiteers to get some kind of a fudge, but it's against the interests of hundreds of millions across the EU who could be facing the EU falling apart if it starts cutting special deals all over the place.

The UK media is incredibly myopic about this and really seems to just be a vicious cycle of self-feeding toxicity that believes most of its own negative hype about the EU.

The EU itself is far from perfect, but it's a lot better than the alternative model which is a bunch of small and medium EU countries being played off each other by big powers. You can evolve and change the EU to fix many of the issues that emerge from time to time, like any system, it's always a work in progress.

The alternative is the US and China playing European countries off each other and Russia meddling on the side.

It's very much a case of 'we all hang together, or we'll all be hanged separately."

Imreoir2

The #DespiteBrexit hashtag is a bit of a laugh. Apparently the continued existance of the UK economy is evidence that Brexit is great.

EdgeCase

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The #DespiteBrexit hashtag is a bit of a laugh. Apparently the continued existance of the UK economy is evidence that Brexit is great.

Well, they forget that :

1. They are still in the EU
2. GBP has fallen in value, giving them a temporary boost.
3. Brexit has yet to happen and most of the markets seem to still believe it probably won't.

You cannot conclude anything from the current economic conditions.

Zubeneschamali

Dymo wrote: »

But this new plan has no option but a border, so either way their is going to be a border. The DUP has May wrapped around their finger.

Well, no, because this will obviously be rejected.

And then at the real last minute, May will have to either crash out with no deal (Mad Max Brexit) or take one of the deals on offer, and dare the DUP and Moggies to take her down and cause a crash out.

Infini

EdgeCase wrote: »

Well, they forget that :

1. They are still in the EU
2. GBP has fallen in value, giving them a temporary boost.
3. Brexit has yet to happen and most of the markets seem to still believe it probably won't.

You cannot conclude anything from the current economic conditions.

Pretty much this. That being said if No Deal Brexit become's reality or even if the threat of it become's serious enough they'll be changing their tune as thing's start to snowball. What's happening with the British Buisness community atm is the precusor to a serious recession as many of those have no information to realistically work on. Should it look all but certain that a Hard Brexit will happen I wouldn't be suprised if they start pulling capital and whatever they can out of the UK and into Europe to try and cushion the inevitable shock. That's when the real chaos begins.

The only reason they don't see the real damage atm is because it's a slow car crash scenario with the damage happening over time. However a Hard Brexit would be a torpedo in their little economic boat and really hit them hard. They'd also begin losing control very quickly as thing's escalate too unless they were to abandon A50 before its too late.

mickoneill31

EdgeCase wrote: »

Based on a growing pile of evidence, it would actually seem far more likely that the Tories are part of a loose conspiracy of factions that would like to take out the EU, as they see it as a growing world power. Putin, Trump and so on all fit that bill.

Well that doesn't make sense. The UK is part of the EU and was a powerful member. So the EU gaining in power would be a good thing for them.

With that said though making sense isn't really a Tory strong point at the moment. It makes as much sense as the rest of Brexit.

Zubeneschamali

Infini wrote: »

That being said if No Deal Brexit become's reality or even if the threat of it become's serious enough they'll be changing their tune as thing's start to snowball.

If No Deal Brexit looks like a real possibility, there could be a revolt by the Remoaners in Parliament.

If Brexit In Name Only looks like a real possibility, there could be a revolt by the Brexit wing of the Tory party.

So May continues to waffle, and stays in #10 for another week.

But eventually her time will run out - latest March 2019.

https://howmanydaystill.com/its/brexit-6

briany

Infini wrote: »

Pretty much this. That being said if No Deal Brexit become's reality or even if the threat of it become's serious enough they'll be changing their tune as thing's start to snowball. What's happening with the British Buisness community atm is the precusor to a serious recession as many of those have no information to realistically work on. Should it look all but certain that a Hard Brexit will happen I wouldn't be suprised if they start pulling capital and whatever they can out of the UK and into Europe to try and cushion the inevitable shock. That's when the real chaos begins.

The only reason they don't see the real damage atm is because it's a slow car crash scenario with the damage happening over time. However a Hard Brexit would be a torpedo in their little economic boat and really hit them hard. They'd also begin losing control very quickly as thing's escalate too unless they were to abandon A50 before its too late.

Let's say it is a no-deal scenario and the effects are catastrophic for the UK - at what point does the UK politicians/public/press admit that maybe Brexit wasn't the best course of action? See, my fear is that people have an almost limitless capacity to deny being wrong about something, that increases proportionally with the scale of the wrongdoing.

It sounds pessimistic to say, but I wouldn't see either side lowering the finger of blame even in the event of food shortages, mass unemployment and public protest. I just foresee things getting even uglier from there.

Imreoir2

briany wrote: »

Let's say it is a no-deal scenario and the effects are catastrophic for the UK - at what point does the UK politicians/public/press admit that maybe Brexit wasn't the best course of action? See, my fear is that people have an almost limitless capacity to deny being wrong about something, that increases proportionally with the scale of the wrongdoing.

It sounds pessimistic to say, but I wouldn't see either side lowering the finger of blame even in the event of food shortages, mass unemployment and public protest. I just foresee things getting even uglier from there.

The hardcore Brexiteers wont change their spots, but the Remainers are 48%, it won't take much to swing them into the driving seat. A no-deal brexit will see the whole thing discredited fairly swiftly, after which any remainer worth his or her salt should have no trouble shouting down the brexiteers.

listermint

mickoneill31 wrote: »

Well that doesn't make sense. The UK is part of the EU and was a powerful member. So the EU gaining in power would be a good thing for them.

With that said though making sense isn't really a Tory strong point at the moment. It makes as much sense as the rest of Brexit.

It makes complete sense the Tory's never wanted a strong core EU whether they were part of the grouping or not. It was always seem as an opposition to a strong UK.

This trick acting is right up the alley of various factions in the Tory party who've wanted to destroy the union for the last forty years. Regardless of who they have to collude with to achieve it.

McGiver

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Dymo wrote: »

Looks like the Good Friday Agreement is been torn up and a border is being put in place.

If there is a no-deal Brexit, a hard border is inevitable.

I'm not sure if May seriously thinks she can get the EU to drop Free Movement of people from the Freedoms, or if she is still just tapdancing until the real, real last minute.

And the solution was so simple, without leaving the EU - 3 months no work, go home. As in Denmark or Germany or France or Spain!