Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Capt'n Midnight

Thargor wrote: »

Where do we even get the staff for 15000 refusals up fom 1? Is that automated?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/passport-office-recruiting-extra-staff-to-deal-with-post-brexit-demand-1.2977771

“In the short-term, to respond to the increase in demand, the passport service is recruiting over 230 temporary clerical officers, over half of which are already in place.”

We are also hiring 1,000 customs officers and vets and others.

Brexit is costing us money, and it hasn't even happened yet.

Hurrache

McGiver wrote: »

Sure, and that's why you spend the second highest money per capita on healthcare in OECD (after the US)? Because there is no money...

The money is there but it's mismanaged, wasted and stolen. HSE is clearly the most inefficient healthcare system in Europe when it comes to bang for the buck.

Indeed you're absolutely correct about the mismanagement and inefficiencies.

You can be sure the same methods would be thrown at ex NHS facilities and staff, bringing more duplication and union procedures into what was once a reasonable service.

Imreoir2

Hurrache wrote: »

We don't have the money for neither universal healthcare, nor a united Ireland, we'd really struggle to do both.

Good thing our government has the power to raise taxes then.

Rhineshark

Sam Russell wrote: »

Depends on the settlement terms.

!. UK could agree to continue subvention for, say, ten years.

2. EU could agree to give significant regional funds and investment funds.

3. EU could allow Ireland to go outside existing borrowing limits.

I would think NI would come with zero share of the UK national debt, contributing to item 3 above.

Then again, the UK could be desperate to get rid of NI and its ongoing costs, and could be super-generous.

All depends.

There is not a chance that the UK gov would continue subvention. It is more likely they'd demand payment for RoI to take NI.

Headshot

So what was the story with the DUP and the UK budget today?

Rhineshark

Headshot wrote: »

So what was the story with the DUP and the UK budget today?

They said they'd support it as of 9hrs ago. Not heard any outbursts since.

murphaph

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The NI model could be afforded rightly, as per capita spending is less than in the 26 counties.

All you need is an efficient system.



As stated by others, the affordibility of a United Ireland depends on the deal. It is very much in Britain's interest to do a good deal, just as a company might be glad of a lose making subsidiary, but I would be concerned that they might have an eye on Scotland and act the maggot.

I'd say Scotland could have already left by then.

lawred2

Rhineshark wrote: »

There is not a chance that the UK gov would continue subvention. It is more likely they'd demand payment for RoI to take NI.

I would have thought that it was more likely than not to be honest

kuro68k

They threw in plenty of extra bribes for the DUP. That was just for the budget though, those bribes won't count for anything when the brexit deal has to be passed.

flatty

The bribery of Scotland, NI, and Wales was so utterly blatant and pathetic it really was a reflection of where the tories are at.

lawred2

flatty wrote: »

The bribery of Scotland, NI, and Wales was so utterly blatant and pathetic it really was a reflection of where the tories are at.

The Tories only worry about the extremities of the union when they feel the noose of the opposition benches around their necks

Enzokk

Headshot wrote: »

So what was the story with the DUP and the UK budget today?

Rhineshark wrote: »

They said they'd support it as of 9hrs ago. Not heard any outbursts since.

I believe a quote from Sammy Wilson was in the vein of they cannot vote against the budget as there is no reason to vote against it right now. As soon as the deal on the WA is known and they object to it then you could see them voting against the Finance Bill in a few weeks.

Snickers Man

Farage is quite correct when he talks about the contradiction between the EU's desire for a more eurocentric defence policy (what he calls a European Army) and continued membership of NATO.

"You can't have a European Army and NATO existing side by side...who do you best feel protected by: a European Army or America and NATO? I think I know what the decision would be."

See it here.

Of course what Farage doesn't seem to realise is that Britain leaving the EU is the final nail in NATO's coffin. The EU doesn't seem to want it; America doesn't want to pay for it; the only people who really want(ed) it are the Brits....and they're leaving the political decision-making table in Europe.

We have a choice coming soon: do we join with the Brits and Americans or do we stick with the Europeans? Dreadful dilemma but we can't avoid it.

The days of posturing over neutrality are over. If we don't take a conscious decision ourselves, someone's going to make the decision for us one way or the other.

lawred2

Snickers Man wrote: »

We have a choice coming soon: do we join with the Brits and Americans or do we stick with the Europeans? Dreadful dilemma but we can't avoid it.

Why not? We've done exactly that for the last century.

Snickers Man wrote: »

The days of posturing over neutrality are over. If we don't take a conscious decision ourselves, someone's going to make the decision for us one way or the other.

Conscious decision to do what exactly?

The conscious decision to be part of UN peace keeping troops was made a long time ago. What other decision making needs to be done?

prawnsambo

Snickers Man wrote: »

Farage is quite correct when he talks about the contradiction between the EU's desire for a more eurocentric defence policy (what he calls a European Army) and continued membership of NATO.

"You can't have a European Army and NATO existing side by side...who do you best feel protected by: a European Army or America and NATO? I think I know what the decision would be."

See it here.

Of course what Farage doesn't seem to realise is that Britain leaving the EU is the final nail in NATO's coffin. The EU doesn't seem to want it; America doesn't want to pay for it; the only people who really want(ed) it are the Brits....and they're leaving the political decision-making table in Europe.

We have a choice coming soon: do we join with the Brits and Americans or do we stick with the Europeans? Dreadful dilemma but we can't avoid it.

The days of posturing over neutrality are over. If we don't take a conscious decision ourselves, someone's going to make the decision for us one way or the other.

Not sure it's either/or. NATO has a worldwide view whereas EUFOR is mostly dedicated to European peace-keeping. So NATO handed over peace-keeping duties in Bosnia back in 2012 to EUFOR for example.

Snickers Man

lawred2 wrote: »

Why not? We've done exactly that for the last century.

Times have changed. Strategic background is realigning. America/Britain are heading towards rivalry with Europe not alliance.

We're back on the front line.

It's not like 20th century Europe where we were no real threat to Britain. Germany couldn't get across the English Channel in 1940 because it had no navy, it was even less likely to be able to invade Ireland as a back door to Britain. (Not that it ever had any intention to do so)

And in the Cold War there was never any appetite in Ireland for a Soviet-sympathetic regime to pose a threat to Britain. Sure, there were some airy-fairy ideologues in the Workers Party aka Sinn Fein Gardiner Place aka Official Sinn Fein aka the Stickies who were in close league with their fraternal comrades in the Soviet Union but they were a minority even in their own party. They couldn't bring the Irish working class not to mention the nation with them.

But now.....Ireland is by sovereign right and volition a part of a political entity that comprises the successors to the Spanish Armada, the Grande Armee and the Luftwaffe. I know the strategic nature of war has changed with the onset of new technologies but in some ways we're right back to the 16th century and Henry VIII's break with Rome. (That parallel with Brexit has been drawn by others too)

Consult the history books for how that worked out for us.

Professor Moriarty

Snickers Man wrote: »

Times have changed. Strategic background is realigning. America/Britain are heading towards rivalry with Europe not alliance.

We're back on the front line.

It's not like 20th century Europe where we were no real threat to Britain. Germany couldn't get across the English Channel in 1940 because it had no navy, it was even less likely to be able to invade Ireland as a back door to Britain. (Not that it ever had any intention to do so)

And in the Cold War there was never any appetite in Ireland for a Soviet-sympathetic regime to pose a threat to Britain. Sure, there were some airy-fairy ideologues in the Workers Party aka Sinn Fein Gardiner Place aka Official Sinn Fein aka the Stickies who were in close league with their fraternal comrades in the Soviet Union but they were a minority even in their own party. They couldn't bring the Irish working class not to mention the nation with them.

But now.....Ireland is by sovereign right and volition a part of a political entity that comprises the successors to the Spanish Armada, the Grande Armee and the Luftwaffe. I know the strategic nature of war has changed with the onset of new technologies but in some ways we're right back to the 16th century and Henry VIII's break with Rome. (That parallel with Brexit has been drawn by others too)

Consult the history books for how that worked out for us.

We're a very long way from a Europe V US and Britain war. If we get there, which we won't, everybody is toast. As Einstein said, WW IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

Snickers Man

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

We're a very long way from a Europe V US and Britain war. If we get there, everybody is toast. As Einstein said, WW IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

Oh that's very true. It won't be war; it will be sabre rattling, pushing and shoving, eyeballing. You know..like the Cold War was.

MrMusician18

Snickers Man wrote: »

Farage is quite correct when he talks about the contradiction between the EU's desire for a more eurocentric defence policy (what he calls a European Army) and continued membership of NATO.

"You can't have a European Army and NATO existing side by side...who do you best feel protected by: a European Army or America and NATO? I think I know what the decision would be."

See it here.

Of course what Farage doesn't seem to realise is that Britain leaving the EU is the final nail in NATO's coffin. The EU doesn't seem to want it; America doesn't want to pay for it; the only people who really want(ed) it are the Brits....and they're leaving the political decision-making table in Europe.

We have a choice coming soon: do we join with the Brits and Americans or do we stick with the Europeans? Dreadful dilemma but we can't avoid it.

The days of posturing over neutrality are over. If we don't take a conscious decision ourselves, someone's going to make the decision for us one way or the other.

Ireland, by virtue of it's location will never be able to make a decision by itself in who it aligns to, that will be made for it by others.

Irish neutrality never has existed, not never will exist. It's an illusion at best.

With regards to a European Army, that would be a backstop if something happens to NATO. The idea of having it is that the Allies, particularly the USA will become more engaged with NATO if their position of influence is threatened.

lawred2

Snickers Man wrote: »

Oh that's very true. It won't be war; it will be sabre rattling, pushing and shoving, eyeballing. You know..like the Cold War was.

well then less reason to take sides

trellheim

There is no European army at the moment. All CSDP/EUFOR missions are collaborations between some member states

Strazdas

trellheim wrote: »

There is no European army at the moment. All CSDP/EUFOR missions are collaborations between some member states

The EU treaties don't even allow for an EU army. If someone tried to set one up, it would be completely illegal under current EU rules. It would require a major new Treaty on the scale of Lisbon.

Snickers Man

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Irish neutrality never has existed, not never will exist. It's an illusion at best.

I quite agree. It was and is an illusion.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Ireland, by virtue of it's location size and military strength, or lack of it, will never be able to make a decision by itself in who it aligns to, that will be made for it by others.

Our supposed neutrality was tolerated and tolerable by our nearest rival so long as we were no threat to them (which we are not and never were in our own right) and we would only become a threat if we fell under the influence of a larger British rival.

In the 20th century there was little real fear of that happening. Who were Britain's rivals? The Germans. OK so they could support troublemaking in Ireland by providing BOTH sides in the Home Rule crisis with weapons, in fact providing far more to the Unionists than they ever did to their "gallant allies" in the GPO, but they were never going to commit large numbers of their own troops to a campaign in Ireland, even though they probably did have a large enough navy to support such an invasion. But it would have been too costly, too risky (they would have had to start from Germany and sail through the English Channel or go the long way round Britain) and they had more important things to do.

In the Second World War they could at least have started out from France but they didn't have a navy worth its name in that conflict and an airborne invasion would not have been possible, given the lack of range and carrying capacity of aircraft at the time. If they couldn't get over the English Channel, they couldn't get across St George's Channel either.

Who else? The soviets? Never much backing among the Irish population for soviet style communism, even in the late 1960s when the dreadfully serious were pontificating that "the seventies will be socialist". The Cold War style was to support like minded dissidents in your enemy's back yard, but we were not and are not Cuba. Or Nicaragua.

Who else? Gadaffi? Well he gave the provos a lot of semtex and they caused a bit of trouble but that was the limit of his capabilities. And he's dead now anyway.

But what about today? If, as looks likely, NATO is about to break up and Britain and USA become estranged, if not outright hostile, to the EU and Ireland is now part of a rival power bloc, how much trust will the British put in "good relations" and the "peace dividend" from the Good Friday Agreement which they are in the process of tearing up unilaterally as part of the inevitable process of Brexit?


I take issue with your contention that we can't make a decision by ourselves and that others will make it for us. They will if we try to avoid taking the decision ourselves. But we can at least choose which side we cosy up to: Britain/USA or the EU?

It's a terrible choice.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

With regards to a European Army, that would be a backstop if something happens to NATO. The idea of having it is that the Allies, particularly the USA will become more engaged with NATO if their position of influence is threatened.

NATO is falling apart under its own contradictions. The Europeans don't want it; the Americans don't want to pay for it; who's complaining?

Only the Brits and they're outta here.

Call it an amicable divorce.

RobMc59

Russia would love NATO to collapse and the EU to fracture,thats why they`re pumping so much money into fake news and propaganda via russia today and sputnik news.I think you possibly need to read up on the history of Europe and WW2 as quite a large amount of your post is factually incorrect.

charlie14

RobMc59 wrote: »

Russia would love NATO to collapse and the EU to fracture,thats why they`re pumping so much money into fake news and propaganda via russia today and sputnik news.I think you possibly need to read up on the history of Europe and WW2 as quite a large amount of your post is factually incorrect.

Russia would not be alone in that.

The present US administration would also love to see the EU fracture and they do not appear to give a toss for NATO either.
As to history and WW2. Russian soldiers killed or missing 11,000,000. USA killed or missing 400,000.
Without Russia in WW2 the Allied invasion of Europe would have been either impossible or would have resulted in massive casualties.
Sometimes like the present situation in Syria and ISIS, Russia can actually be the lesser of two evils.

Calina

https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1057269504047267840

So if no deal, employers will need to verify right to work as of next April.

So much for the UK unilateral actions then.

RobMc59

charlie14 wrote: »

RobMc59 wrote: »

Russia would love NATO to collapse and the EU to fracture,thats why they`re pumping so much money into fake news and propaganda via russia today and sputnik news.I think you possibly need to read up on the history of Europe and WW2 as quite a large amount of your post is factually incorrect.

Russia would not be alone in that.

The present US administration would also love to see the EU fracture and they do not appear to give a toss for NATO either.
As to history and WW2. Russian soldiers killed or missing 11,000,000. USA killed or missing 400,000.
Without Russia in WW2 the Allied invasion of Europe would have been either impossible or would have resulted in massive casualties.
Sometimes like the present situation in Syria and ISIS, Russia can actually be the lesser of two evils.

Yes-You are correct-China would probably want NATO to collapse

charlie14

RobMc59 wrote: »

Yes-You are correct-China would probably want NATO to collapse

I imagine China could care less either way.

oscarBravo

Calina wrote: »

So if no deal, employers will need to verify right to work as of next April.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like any systems will be in place to facilitate such verification. CBI is not happy.

Calina

oscarBravo wrote: »

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like any systems will be in place to facilitate such verification. CBI is not happy.

It must be frustrating on so many fronts given that there have been proBrexit supporters claiming that the UK had done this that and the other thing for the EU citizens (and what did the EU do, huh).

I just see this as a unfolding tragedy. And while it's easy to say that the people who voted for it in the poorer parts of Britain will be in the front line (and good luck to him), there are so many families who are likely to run into major problems owing to changes here. And when you point out the human cost, you get a platitude about "we should allow the best in" from people who don't want to allow any foreigners in, external to the EU or internal to the EU. It's just an excuse.

It'd be nice for the impact of this to be limited to the people who wanted it. Unfortunately, it does not work that way.