Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Quin_Dub

robinph wrote: »

But there is no requirement for Spain to keep the border open at the same time as keeping the border closed. There is also no problem with flying stuff in*, or by boat, from the rest of the UK as it's all the same country and no kind of in at the same time as kind of out scenario going on.

*Other than the flying over EU airspace bit.

But don't a huge number of people transit on and off the island every day for work etc.

Surely if the Spanish implement full border security (as I'm sure they will) won't that just make things fairly untenable day to day?

robinph

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1088089818096193537


So to take back control they'll either ask the Polish to block an A50 extension or now just shut down parliament until Match 30th

I guess that is a positive sign then if he is genuinely thinking along those lines then he believes he's lost.

They were showing a clip of him walking along the street outside Westminster during the 1 o'clock news today, although they didn't actually give him any air time. You could see various people walking the other way past him and as they realised who it was were shaking their heads and looking disgusted to be that close to him.

robinph

Quin_Dub wrote: »

But don't a huge number of people transit on and off the island every day for work etc.

Surely if the Spanish implement full border security (as I'm sure they will) won't that just make things fairly untenable day to day?

Yes, but it would just make it a regular border crossing between two countries. No other treaties or agreements are being broken by doing so. Very annoying for those concerned, but only the same kind of issues that will exist between Dover and Calais.

Still a disaster obviously, but those borders are well defined and understood regarding what it means to control them and how.

interlocked

Meanwhile, in the land of Unicorns.....

Jacob Rees Moggs had had a public address to the Bruges Group which contained

outright lies

think at last things are going our way. We have heard stories coming out of Ireland that they would like to have a bilateral agreement to keep the border open as the EU has toughened its line on the border between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland

and fantasy

Rees-Mogg says, in 1832, when the reform bill was being debated and parliament was deadlocked, it was thought at one point that the King might have to prorogue parliament in person. He says he hopes that is not necessary this time, and that the Queen’s stay at Sandringham is not interrupted.

He says if the Commons passes a no-deal bill, there are other mechanism available to the Commons. It could prorogue parliament, he says.

What's significant is that many thought that he would advocate reluctantly backing Mays deal for fear of a no brexit, either through revocation of Article 50 or losing a second referendum.

Instead he's doubled down on the backstop misdirection.

The biggest problem is the backstop, he says.

As long as that backstop is there, I will not vote for this deal.

He says the deal needs “fundamental change”.

But he claims things “at last are going our way

This is bad, bad news for May, the hard Brexiteers are hardening their stance despite her overt overtures to them during last Mondays speech about Plan "B", the basis of which was to hang on for dear life to Plan "A" and run down the clock.

She's run completely out of road now.

murphaph

Quin_Dub wrote: »

But don't a huge number of people transit on and off the island every day for work etc.

Surely if the Spanish implement full border security (as I'm sure they will) won't that just make things fairly untenable day to day?

Gibraltar is utterly dependent on services traded within the EU (lots of gambling and insurance stuff). A hard Brexit means curtains for most of that and the jobs it supports. Gib will return to being a poor outpost of the empire.

Hurrache

On the subject of Gibraltar, Spain is pushing for it's decolonisation in the event of no deal

Spain is demanding that the European Union recognises its demand for the “decolonisation” of Gibraltar in all coming EU legislation for a Brexit ‘no deal’, the Telegraph can reveal.

In a highly provocative move, Spanish officials have demanded the inclusion of a footnote in all the EU ‘no deal’ legislative proposals that explicitly recognises Spain’s continued dispute with Britain over the sovereignty of The Rock.

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1088083723713691648

downcow

Seth Brundle wrote: »

NI is already held separate from the rest of the UK. It has different laws as has been mentioned to you loads of times.

Actually, you've been asked before so hopefully now you will reply: what positives are there for NI leaving the EU?

I have agreed that the four countries who make up the UK have many devolved laws etc which lead to variations. These are variations of each countries own making. I have said this s several times so I don’t know why you use this to equate with imposed rules which we have zero control over.

I have told you several times that I was neutral on leave /remain vote for the very reason I saw pros and cons and couldn’t see much difference in being in or out. Once our people voted out and our government decided they would uphold that wish then it was a no brainier to do it all together and not separate our nation for major economical as well as cultural reasons

I think I am answering these questions clearly and don’t understand why you want me to keep repeating.

Leroy42

But you don't see any pros to leave. That is the big issue. Want cons do you see for Remaining?

We know what will be lost, even in simple economic terms from leave for NI. An easy one is subsidies to farmers currently coming for the EU. Gone. There has also been a lot of investment from the EU in terms of peace dividend. That will be gone. Replaced by what? You think the London is going to increase subsidies to NI to make it up?

But as you acknowledged, each country within the union is able to operate separate laws that suit them in particular, but for some reason the DUP have decided that that shouldn't be the case here. Once the vote to leave was passed, there was no reason why the DUP couldn't have pushed for the softest of Brexits, thereby having little to no effect. Why have they pursued the current strategy, against the wishes of the majority in NI?

It really is an odd position you have. You think there are no benefits, understand the potential negatives but are happy to go along with the majority vote against the wishes of your own country on the basis of a feeling?

downcow

CelticRambler wrote: »

To be fair to downcow, the "None" in his reply quoted above was a direct answer to my question asking more or less the same! So at least that's that cleared up.

What I'd now like to know, from a self-confessed, on-the-fence-turned-Leaver such as downcow, is: what advantages do you get from being symbolically united with the UK in a no-deal Brexit that make a hard border with the RoI a price worth paying? I say "symbolically" because - as has been discussed many times already - there is already a socio-political and physical Irish Sea border separating NI from GB.

Hard question to answer because I don’t believe there is a chance of a hard border. Help me with something! Do you believe there will be a hard border in the Irish Sea with the backstop? This is crucial because so many people talk about the Irish Sea option as some soft fluffy thing that won’t annoy anyone but if it happens at Newry it will be a Berlin Wall. I honestly don’t understand this at it’s the bit if feel suspicious about. If the two are the same then you just have to accept that a majority in Northern Ireland would rather have it at Newry that larne and that both economic and cultural. I am really interested in you answer to this.

Hurrache

downcow wrote: »

Help me with something!

Why should we? You've been asked over and over as to what you see as the pro's and benefits of Brexit, as someone who claimed to be once a neutral, without answer.

downcow wrote: »

you just have to accept that a majority in Northern Ireland would rather have it at Newry that larne and that both economic and cultural. I am really interested in you answer to this.

Don't the figures say that the majority in Northern Ireland don't want it at all?

robinph

A border in the middle of the sea is harder to throw things at in protest.

Build a physical wall down the middle of a road and it will be attacked, blown up, shot at, stuff smuggled around it etc.

Professor Moriarty

downcow wrote: »

Hard question to answer because I don’t believe there is a chance of a hard border. Help me with something! Do you believe there will be a hard border in the Irish Sea with the backstop? This is crucial because so many people talk about the Irish Sea option as some soft fluffy thing that won’t annoy anyone but if it happens at Newry it will be a Berlin Wall. I honestly don’t understand this at it’s the bit if feel suspicious about. If the two are the same then you just have to accept that a majority in Northern Ireland would rather have it at Newry that larne and that both economic and cultural. I am really interested in you answer to this.

Do you have a link to any polling that shows a preference in NI for a land border versus a sea border?

RobMc59

Leroy42 wrote: »

But you don't see any pros to leave. That is the big issue. Want cons do you see for Remaining?

We know what will be lost, even in simple economic terms from leave for NI. An easy one is subsidies to farmers currently coming for the EU. Gone. There has also been a lot of investment from the EU in terms of peace dividend. That will be gone. Replaced by what? You think the London is going to increase subsidies to NI to make it up?

It really is an odd position you have. You think there are no benefits, understand the potential negatives but are happy to go along with the majority vote against the wishes of your own country on the basis of a feeling?

Why are his admissions of loyalty to what he views as his country and sticking with that through thick or thin being questioned?

lawred2

downcow wrote: »

Hard question to answer because I don’t believe there is a chance of a hard border. Help me with something! Do you believe there will be a hard border in the Irish Sea with the backstop? This is crucial because so many people talk about the Irish Sea option as some soft fluffy thing that won’t annoy anyone but if it happens at Newry it will be a Berlin Wall. I honestly don’t understand this at it’s the bit if feel suspicious about. If the two are the same then you just have to accept that a majority in Northern Ireland would rather have it at Newry that larne and that both economic and cultural. I am really interested in you answer to this.

That statement is based on what research?

I'm not sure that that's an 'acceptable' statement at all to be honest

downcow

Leroy42 wrote: »

But you don't see any pros to leave. That is the big issue. Want cons do you see for Remaining?

We know what will be lost, even in simple economic terms from leave for NI. An easy one is subsidies to farmers currently coming for the EU. Gone. There has also been a lot of investment from the EU in terms of peace dividend. That will be gone. Replaced by what? You think the London is going to increase subsidies to NI to make it up?

But as you acknowledged, each country within the union is able to operate separate laws that suit them in particular, but for some reason the DUP have decided that that shouldn't be the case here. Once the vote to leave was passed, there was no reason why the DUP couldn't have pushed for the softest of Brexits, thereby having little to no effect. Why have they pursued the current strategy, against the wishes of the majority in NI?

It really is an odd position you have. You think there are no benefits, understand the potential negatives but are happy to go along with the majority vote against the wishes of your own country on the basis of a feeling?

I don’t agree with the two negatives you outline
I trust the UK to maintain any support farmers are getting (as long as they don’t give the whole £350million to the health service lol). Do you really believe that the farmers subsidies are coming from some mystery money factory in the eu - they are coming from uk tax payers
The peace fund is basically over anyway and did you think that money was coming from the same Eu factory.
Is that you all out of negatives cause I don’t mind those ones

Nody

Hurrache wrote: »

On the subject of Gibraltar, Spain is pushing for it's decolonisation in the event of no deal

For Spanish government (both main parties) it's a great "Oh look over there" thing to have Gibraltar to point to to be fair. If they got it back it would be pretty much useless to them beyond "hey monkies!" but much as Brexit it's not about facts but feelings.

downcow

robinph wrote: »

A border in the middle of the sea is harder to throw things at in protest.

Build a physical wall down the middle of a road and it will be attacked, blown up, shot at, stuff smuggled around it etc.

So the reasoning is about giving in to threat? If we were about to do that then there would have been a UI in 1970

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

Why are his admissions of loyalty to what he views as his country and sticking with that through thick or thin being questioned?

SHould they not be? Is blind loyalty to a cause he accepts he doesn't really care either way about (Brexit I mean not NI or the UK) something to be simply accepted.

He is a raft of contradictions. For example, he wants Ni to be treated the same as UK, except where it isn't.

It is perfectly acceptable to be loyal, nationalistic and fully believe in your country and your part in it. But I would also want my country to not be actively trying to make things more difficult for an entire section simply to get some unknown benefits that may take 50 years to happen

Leroy42

downcow wrote: »

I don’t agree with the two negatives you outline
I trust the UK to maintain any support farmers are getting (as long as they don’t give the whole £350million to the health service lol). Do you really believe that the farmers subsidies are coming from some mystery money factory in the eu - they are coming from uk tax payers
The peace fund is basically over anyway and did you think that money was coming from the same Eu factory.
Is that you all out of negatives cause I don’t mind those ones

Fair enough, you just trust that everything will simply be ok.

And if they aren't sure you'll be fine and those that lose out will just have to accept it I guess.

downcow

lawred2 wrote: »

That statement is based on what research?

I'm not sure that that's an 'acceptable' statement at all to be honest

It is based on this continual reference to ‘hard’ border and how it will alienate northern nationalists. My statement is based on dozens of polls which show there are more people in NI who feel British rather than Irish So if it is such a severe border so as to diminish nationality then the rest follows. Very few people here want a border at all but I just believe the intransigence of Eu and roi are forcing a border. Although that may be moving today. The cracks are appearing so hopefully very soft border wherever

Nody

downcow wrote: »

So the reasoning is about giving in to threat? If we were about to do that then there would have been a UI in 1970

No the reasoning that you glossed over is there will be customs checks no matter what the deal is; it's a simple fact of life.

Now if they are in the Irish sea there is not only a limited number of crossings available but also existing controls in place which means processes, infrastructure etc. Hence this has the benefit of not only being easier to expand on but easier to control and run and businesses are going through said controls already today. Overall this is the cheapest and safest option.

If the controls are placed in Ireland at the IE/UK land border instead not only does new infrastructure needs to be put up but it needs to cover over 300 locations compared to a handful, it will require further land (parking area, buildings etc.) to be taken by the state (i.e. forced buy out) and it is likely to become a target for sectarian violence from both sides while costing significantly more.

Hence with the two options on the table why pick the option that will not only cost significantly more (I'd guesstimate in the 10x region) but also cause further uproar (forced buyouts of land, visible border etc.) as well as implementing further disruption to local trade that is currently not there today? There is no positive side to having the border on land instead of in the sea beyond DUPs refusal to accept that they are in any way different than the mainland (even though they already have separate legal rules and already are going through said controls today albeit at 10% rather than 100%).

ancapailldorcha

RobMc59 wrote: »

Why are his admissions of loyalty to what he views as his country and sticking with that through thick or thin being questioned?

That's not what's being questioned. Downcow has been asked for examples of benefits to Northern Ireland from Brexit and hasn't given an answer yet.

Loyalty doesn't mean withholding all criticism. It's about wanting what's best for your country. Anyone who views Northern Ireland as their country should oppose Brexit. Unless of course, their loyalty is to the British right and Brexit itself.

FreudianSlippers

The DUP have already ruled out an Irish Sea border... why are we still talking about this?

Professor Moriarty

downcow wrote: »

It is based on this continual reference to ‘hard’ border and how it will alienate northern nationalists. My statement is based on dozens of polls which show there are more people in NI who feel British rather than Irish So if it is such a severe border so as to diminish nationality then the rest follows. Very few people here want a border at all but I just believe the intransigence of Eu and roi are forcing a border. Although that may be moving today. The cracks are appearing so hopefully very soft border wherever

Watch those polls switch 180 degrees if a hard border is put up. Did you know that 65% of people in NI would rather abandon Brexit completely than have a hard border?

ancapailldorcha

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The DUP have already ruled out an Irish Sea border... why are we still talking about this?

Ideally, the UK would just cancel Brexit.

Failing that, if May succeeds in obtaining a Parliamentary majority for her deal then the DUP can go back to being the malevolent storm in a teacup it's always been.

FreudianSlippers

downcow wrote: »

Very few people here want a border at all but I just believe the intransigence of Eu and roi are forcing a border.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the EU and Ireland (why you continue to post about the soccer team is ultimately very confusing) - the UK will need a border in the event of a no-deal Brexit to comply with WTO trading rules. Trying to sell this as something the EU is forcing on Ireland/NI is ridiculous.

FreudianSlippers

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Ideally, the UK would just cancel Brexit.

Failing that, if May succeeds in obtaining a Parliamentary majority for her deal then the DUP can go back to being the malevolent storm in a teacup it's always been.

The problem is that if the Tories even suggested this, the DUP would pull support and there'd be a GE before HoC could vote on this I believe?

VinLieger

downcow wrote: »

Do you really believe that the farmers subsidies are coming from some mystery money factory in the eu - they are coming from uk tax payers

You really don't understand how free trade works and is intrinsically linked into everything do you?


Yes the UK is a net Contributor to the EU HOWEVER they can afford to give so much thanks to all the free trade they can avail of on their goods and services being sold to other EU member states that is then recouped in taxes that the government can use to fund the EU payments etc etc etc.


When they leave without a FTA and businesses shut because they cannot afford the tarriffs for selling to their previous customers and people lose their jobs for that and various other reasons, the tax take then goes down therefore X money that farmers would have gotten from the EU via UK member payments doesnt suddenly just come straight out of the UK budget because simply put that money won't exist anymore.

An Ciarraioch

The BBC adds Brussels to its shortlist for a post-Brexit EU base, alongside Dublin and Amsterdam:

https://www.lalibre.be/culture/medias-tele/la-bbc-songe-a-s-installer-a-bruxelles-5c4844fc7b50a60724f18610

Dytalus

downcow wrote: »

I don’t agree with the two negatives you outline
I trust the UK to maintain any support farmers are getting (as long as they don’t give the whole £350million to the health service lol). Do you really believe that the farmers subsidies are coming from some mystery money factory in the eu - they are coming from uk tax payers
The peace fund is basically over anyway and did you think that money was coming from the same Eu factory.
Is that you all out of negatives cause I don’t mind those ones

The EU has, from it's EAFRD (European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development) provided just shy of €170 million so far during the 2014-2020 funding cycle for Northern Ireland. This funding is dedicated to development of farming regions, rather than direct subsidies to farmers.

Meanwhile, through the common agricultural policy funding, Northern Ireland was given roughly €220 million for 2014-2020 in pillar 2 funding, and over €2 billion in Pillar 1.

That's a lot of money the UK is going to have to start paying their farmers in Northern Ireland to make up for lost EU Funding on top of the already £10 billion a year they spend propping up NI anyway. To say this is not a problem (or, as you phrased it "I don’t agree with the two negatives you outline") is being a little bit too hopeful.

True, the UK contributes considerably more than that per year to the EU budget, but that all gets pooled into other funds, like the various EU Structural and Investment Funds..which prioritise the poorer regions of Europe in terms of giving funding - a lot of which are in the UK. Are those regions going to be getting money alongside NI farmers? How much? Will the UK be able to afford it, or will it all get pooled into London like so much of their money does?

Since the EUSF are geared towards propping up poorer regions, the underdeveloped parts of the UK have been supported - effectively - by the wealthier regions in Germany and France which get proportionately less due to their greater development. Do you think the British government will properly balance the funding and subsidies which previously came out of EUSF funding, or will they (as HMG has a history of doing) prioritise Britain over NI?

You're pinning a lot on the good will of HMG towards NI, when they've shown time and time again that NI is considered more a thorn in their side than an worthwhile member of the Union.