Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

LeinsterDub

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?

Remain fails this one, unless you think "no management of migration of workers within the EU" is fair management.

There isn't no management of migration of workers within the EU. Workers must be able able to support themselves after 3 months of moving to a country

McGiver

May's explicitly ruled out 2nd ref. Also very strong words overall.

Also Corbyn saying that he wants "sovereign UK Parliament to unilaterally withdraw from the backtop" - total unicorns.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/brexit-we-will-not-re-run-the-referendum-may-tells-british-mps-1.3697368

Jim2007

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?

Remain fails this one, unless you think "no management of migration of workers within the EU" is fair management.

That was entirely a choice for the British government. The EU rules clearly provides options on job search, short term employment, long term employment and retirement. The UK government decided to ignore those rules.

kuro68k

McGiver wrote: »

May's explicitly ruled out 2nd ref. Also very strong words overall.

It's not really up to her.

seamus

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Interesting that the agreement will face a Dáil vote - if FF unhappy with the backstop elements, would that cause a GE by breaching supply and confidence?

Remember that this is an EU/UK agreement, not an IE/EU or IE/UK agreement.

Thus, there's no real benefit in playing partisan games - the Irish government didn't negotiate this or approve this, the EU did.

FF scuppering this in order to score points rather than over genuine concerns would hurt them more than FG.

An Ciarraioch

McGiver wrote: »

May's explicitly ruled out 2nd ref. Also very strong words overall.

Also Corbyn saying that he wants "sovereign UK Parliament to unilaterally withdraw from the backtop" - total unicorns.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/brexit-we-will-not-re-run-the-referendum-may-tells-british-mps-1.3697368

Another odd statement from May is that the UK would be able to do independent trade deals and join the Trans-Pacific Partnership - how does that square with a temporary customs arrangement?

judeboy101

PMQ May categorically stated that the "back-stop" is temporary.

Nody

Jim2007 wrote: »

That was entirely a choice for the British government. The EU rules clearly provides options on job search, short term employment, long term employment and retirement. The UK government decided to ignore those rules.

This is the part that honestly really confuses me at times; why would not someone play on the "fear the immigrant" wave in government look at implementing something based on the rules? Don't have to go all ID card but let's say May's "employeer/house lord has to check" kind of part way solution to be seen as "tough on the immigrants". It seems as an easy low hanging win with in the rules.

An Ciarraioch

judeboy101 wrote: »

PMQ May categorically stated that the "back-stop" is temporary.

But not time-limited, which is the key point - the EU-Swiss bilateral deal was supposed to be temporary, but is still going 26 years later.

joe40

seamus wrote: »

Remember that this is an EU/UK agreement, not an IE/EU or IE/UK agreement.

Thus, there's no real benefit in playing partisan games - the Irish government didn't negotiate this or approve this, the EU did.

FF scuppering this in order to score points rather than over genuine concerns would hurt them more than FG.

Will the Irish government have any say in this apart from their vote at EU summit along with the other EU members.

McGiver

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Another odd statement from May is that the UK would be able to do independent trade deals and join the Trans-Pacific Partnership - how does that square with a temporary customs arrangement?

There is a limited scope for FTAs as part of the EU CU.

As Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, it has to adjust its tariffs and duties to match those of the EU. However, the free trade agreements (FTAs) signed by the EU do not extend to Turkey, so the EU's FTA partners can export to Turkey tariff-free, while maintaining tariffs on Turkish goods, unless they also conclude a separate FTA agreement with Turkey.

charlie14

briany wrote: »

Labour would probably agitate for a GE on the grounds that they can 'get a better deal' up until the 29/3/19.

Even if there wasn`t a GE before a crash out No Deal, there would be one in all likelihood shortly afterwards where they would still put it to the people that a Labour government would go back to the EU and get a better deal.

Ellian

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?

Remain fails this one, unless you think "no management of migration of workers within the EU" is fair management.

It was always my understanding that there were rules within the FOM that didn't just give a citizen of any EU country carte blanche to go anywhere they fancied - it's just that successive UK governments never implemented them. I'll stipulate that I don't actually know the intricacies of these rules, but if they exist, it might allow a Labour government to Remain and meet this test criteria.

seamus

kuro68k wrote: »

It's not really up to her.

And she knows it. I think to a certain extent, she'd be delighted to be relieved of her position, but she knows that she can't just step down out of frustration. Her career destroyed, and a laughing stock of a legacy.
So she has to be ousted. But the party don't want to oust her, because nobody else wants the PM role right now either.

So she talks in absolutes and definites. So if parliament decide a re-run is the way to go, then she can step aside with her head held high. "I tried to deliver on Brexit, but I was blocked at every turn. I promised there would be no re-run, so I cannot in good conscience lead a government into this referendum".

charlie14

seamus wrote: »

Remember that this is an EU/UK agreement, not an IE/EU or IE/UK agreement.

Thus, there's no real benefit in playing partisan games - the Irish government didn't negotiate this or approve this, the EU did.

FF scuppering this in order to score points rather than over genuine concerns would hurt them more than FG.

In fairness to all political parties and individual TDs they unlike in Westminster have all been on the same page as to what they wish from this deal, so if it is anywhere near that I cannot see anyone attempting to scupper it pointlessly.

Sam Russell

Nody wrote: »

This is the part that honestly really confuses me at times; why would not someone play on the "fear the immigrant" wave in government look at implementing something based on the rules? Don't have to go all ID card but let's say May's "employeer/house lord has to check" kind of part way solution to be seen as "tough on the immigrants". It seems as an easy low hanging win with in the rules.

ID cards go a long way to solve most migrant problems. Mandatory registration following entry to the UK (within say one month) and obtaining an ID card would make the other checks easy and defendable in the event of a dispute. If work was anticipated, a NI no would be provided following registration, and would give evidence of employment and self-sufficiency.

Previous attempts at ID cards in the UK failed because they were attempting to make them to elaborate and contain too much information, such as to compromise privacy and were hugely expensive. Simple ID cards - Name; Address; DoB; National Ins no; picture; - would suffice and should be easily checked against a Database. I can check the MOT status of a vehicle if I know the make and reg.

An Ciarraioch

Ellian wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?

Remain fails this one, unless you think "no management of migration of workers within the EU" is fair management.

It was always my understanding that there were rules within the FOM that didn't just give a citizen of any EU country carte blanche to go anywhere they fancied - it's just that successive UK governments never implemented them. I'll stipulate that I don't actually know the intricacies of these rules, but if they exist, it might allow a Labour government to Remain and meet this test criteria.

Indeed - after the 2004 accession states joined, only Ireland, the UK and Sweden elected to give them immediate access to the labour market.

judeboy101

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

But not time-limited, which is the key point - the EU-Swiss bilateral deal was supposed to be temporary, but is still going 26 years later.

Our dear leader promised us multiple times NO temporary backstop, so did our deputy.

Nody

Sam Russell wrote: »

ID cards go a long way to solve most migrant problems. Mandatory registration following entry to the UK (within say one month) and obtaining an ID card would make the other checks easy and defendable in the event of a dispute. If work was anticipated, a NI no would be provided following registration, and would give evidence of employment and self-sufficiency.

Previous attempts at ID cards in the UK failed because they were attempting to make them to elaborate and contain too much information, such as to compromise privacy and were hugely expensive. Simple ID cards - Name; Address; DoB; National Ins no; picture; - would suffice and should be easily checked against a Database. I can check the MOT status of a vehicle if I know the make and reg.

I'd agree but national IDs to be carried appears to be anathema in England in the "How dare you question my right to be here?!" kind of attitude; hence the calling out without IDs.

Sam Russell

judeboy101 wrote: »

Our dear leader promised us multiple times NO temporary backstop, so did our deputy.

No, that is not correct it was never temporary.

Never was it a 'time limited' backstop.
Never was it a 'unilateral' backstop.

It was always temporary 'unless and until ...' the unicorns were discovered.

Spook_ie

Nody wrote: »

And yet another coin has fallen down in the UK:
Exactly as said a year ago and predicted because hey, Eurpol requires you to be an EU member. Curious to see how many more climb downs will come in the weeks and months to come as reality starts to assert itself and that EU rules are not recommendations but actually binding requirements.

Could be Europol's loss though without GCHQ

Sam Russell

Nody wrote: »

I'd agree but national IDs to be carried appears to be anathema in England in the "How dare you question my right to be here?!" kind of attitude; hence the calling out without IDs.

It is not necessary to carry an ID card.

The ID card would need to be produced under certain conditions - like taking up employment, or taking up accommodation, or attending hospital or other NHS facilities, or claiming benefits.

These are the same conditions where the UK Gov expects providers of these services to check that people using their services have the legal right to be in the UK, or those providers face severe punishment if it is found that they did not check.

LeinsterDub

judeboy101 wrote: »

They have just pulled a sneaky one. My reading of this is we keep a backstop, but its not really a backstop. It makes everyone look good, meanwhile they push out the day of reckoning in the hopes that the EU comes under internal pressures from some other source. And then they push hard.

You've been seeing a back stab at every turn for the last 5 months, which still hasn't emerged ! Perhaps you can lay off the back stab idea until such time we are actually back stabbed!

RobMc59

charlie14 wrote: »

In fairness to all political parties and individual TDs they unlike in Westminster have all been on the same page as to what they wish from this deal, so if it is anywhere near that I cannot see anyone attempting to scupper it pointlessly.

I disagree,there is a definite desire,on this forum anyway(I think the Irish government has done this also) of"whats in this for us,can we gain out if this,maybe engineer a UI?"there is nothing wrong with that,the French have looked at how they can gain from the UK leaving and so have Spain with regards to Gibraltar-but whether anyone would scupper the deal for their own countries interests reasons remains to be seen.

LuckyLloyd

I eagerly await the text of the deal and the actual detailed analysis to stem from it. My expectation is that the UK has essentially conceded on all key remaining points understanding the EU made its big concessions a couple of week's ago:

- all UK CU
- mutual review process around backstop

The remainder will confirm a successful conclusion to the agreement from the EU perspective. Can she deliver it? Who knows. But either way this has finally crystallized into reality what many of us knew to be the case all along: the WA was always going to be a very specific and narrow agreement offering a strong platform to the EU for the coming future relationship negotiations process. It might take 10 years to conclude the kind of far reaching trade deal the EU / UK seek but this arrangement protects the EU against that process dragging out and - in its ultimate crunch provisions on NI - the UK seeking to extract leverage from such talks. Job done.

Brexit lies exposed as fallacy, and the long hard game of trade negotiations may now begin with that in the bag.

bob mcbob

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1062608192327372800

Nicola: Throw this on the giant pile marked kindling for indy ref 2!

Agreed, I think the article below also gives the petrol and spark for it.

I think fishing is going to be a big issue going forward.

If the fishing communities switch back to the SNP then ......

https://www.ft.com/content/6133d3c6-e669-11e8-8a85-04b8afea6ea3

Havockk

bob mcbob wrote: »

Agreed, I think the article below also gives the petrol and spark for it.

I think fishing is going to be a big issue going forward.

If the fishing communities switch back to the SNP then ......

https://www.ft.com/content/6133d3c6-e669-11e8-8a85-04b8afea6ea3

Can you give a synopsis of the link, it's paywalled.

MrMusician18

judeboy101 wrote: »

Our dear leader promised us multiple times NO temporary backstop, so did our deputy.

The backstop was always to be temporary. It's unless and until it is replaced with something equivalent.

Ireland has a veto over the future trade deal, so we can reject the future deal if it doesn't contain an invisible border.

judeboy101

Sam Russell wrote: »

No, that is not correct it was never temporary.

Never was it a 'time limited' backstop.
Never was it a 'unilateral' backstop.

It was always temporary 'unless and until ...' the unicorns were discovered.

no, no, no. Leo and simon never used "unless and until" in their soundbites until today. It was always " a temporary backstop is not a backstop". funny how their language has changed. Mamma merkl must of had words last night.

LuckyLloyd

judeboy, I'm as vociferously anti - Brexit / Republican / whatever you like as anyone on here. This is not a shafting! It contains none of the essential properties of a shafting that I can see.