Brexit Discussion Thread VI

FrancieBrady

Bit cynical wrote: »

But the GFA is not a treaty between the UK and the institution of the EU. The EU should have no business enforcing agreements at the member state level if one member is leaving, particularly if it is to the potential detriment of one of the remaining member states.

To take your example, it could well be that that Hungary has some agreements with neighbouring countries and therefore leaving the EU might put those agreements under strain. But if the EU decided to use these agreements as a means of making life hard for Hungary, then we would not regard the EU as negotiating in good faith.

The EU has every right to ensure the agreement is upheld in the context of this

The EU and the United Kingdom, as a co-guarantor with Ireland of the Good Friday Agreement, should
continue to support peace, stability and reconciliation on the island of Ireland.

Have a read:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596826/IPOL_STU(2017)596826_EN.pdf

prawnsambo

RobMc59 wrote: »

No,we have a storage tank of 90,000 tonnes and use most of that weekly so would grind to a halt in a week-the driver said there's 3 tankers a day coming over as we're not the only company using the chemical so it's anyone's guess what will happen in the event of a hard brexit-we also use drum stock chemicals from France,Germany and Switzerland amongst others!

And I imagine that adding more storage on-site would not be a simple task. I don't know if this is a solution for you, but I remember years ago, a small heating oil supply company opened up near me and they started out storing their oil in old road tankers. They now have proper oil tanks, but I think this solution gets around planning permission and oher such lengthy processes.

Leroy42

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The EU has every right to ensure the agreement is upheld in the context of this




Have a read:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596826/IPOL_STU(2017)596826_EN.pdf

And the fact that the UK has stated, many times, that it fully intends to continue with the GFA.

The GFA is not some EU device to hold the UK hostage. No serious person is talking about changing or gettting rid of the GFA. The problem with it is that it forces the Brexitees into making a decision, a decisions are exactly the opposite of what Brexit is really all about.

It is an idea, a dream, a fantasy. GFA puts a big dose of reality into that and deflates the dream to a large extent.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

But the GFA is not a treaty between the UK and the institution of the EU. The EU should have no business enforcing agreements at the member state level if one member is leaving, particularly if it is to the potential detriment of one of the remaining member states..

It was Ireland's decision to have the back stop - not the EU's. Surely you agree that Ireland is sufficiently mature to decide its own interests- and that it does not require the EU to decide on its behalf?

Bit cynical wrote: »

To take your example, it could well be that that Hungary has some agreements with neighbouring countries and therefore leaving the EU might put those agreements under strain. But if the EU decided to use these agreements as a means of making life hard for Hungary, then we would not regard the EU as negotiating in good faith.

To repeat the unanswered questions I made earlier, an FTA needs unanimous consent of the EU members (just ask Canada or Wallonia) - why should Ireland be happy with the UK putting up a border- who would feel "railroaded" and aggrieved in that case at their concerns regarding a hard border not being listened to? Should the EU put the economic well-being of England above peace in the EU, on its borders and the interests of its member states?
What would the future attitude in Ireland to the EU be if the EU ignored Ireland's concerns about a hard border "ha ha ha- you are small, nobody cares about your concerns"?

Havockk

Mod Note:

Per the charter:

Articles from blogs, newpapers, magazines etc cannot be put up in full in the politics forum due to copyright reasons. You can provide a link to the article and quote the opening paragraph or one that provides a summary of the key points. When posting or linking to a video please provide a summary of the content as not everybody has access to video sites or the time to view them.

Leroy42

What an odd story in the FT.

Only a few lines in it reads

One of the Tory party’s leading fundraisers has told friends that after a successful year in fundraising, “January has been dry but not for alcoholic reasons”

So not really any problem with fundraising, merely a timing issue.

Professor Moriarty

Havockk wrote: »

Here you go.

Unsurprising when you consider that the incumbent Tory Foreign Secretary at the time, a certain Mr Boris Johnson, said last June "F**k business." when asked about BMW and Airbus's concerns over Brexit.

Bit cynical

fash wrote: »

Should the EU put the economic well-being of England above peace in the EU, on its borders and the interests of its member states?
What would the future attitude in Ireland to the EU be if the EU ignored Ireland's concerns about a hard border "ha ha ha- you are small, nobody cares about your concerns"?

I agree that Ireland has a legitimate concern about the border, however it is not the only concern. I think that Ireland unwisely allowed its legitimate concern to be taken advantage of by the EU to make life harder for the Brits but ultimately to the detriment of Ireland. I think Ireland on its own would have adopted a more flexible, pragmatic approach rather than the legalistic one taken by the EU.

First Up

Bit cynical wrote:

I agree that Ireland has a legitimate concern about the border, however it is not the only concern. I think that Ireland unwisely allowed its legitimate concern to be taken advantage of by the EU to make life harder for the Brits but ultimately to the detriment of Ireland. I think Ireland on its own would have adopted a more flexible, pragmatic approach rather than the legalistic one taken by the EU.

I think that is the most spectacularly innacurate piece of analysis I have seen for quite some time.

LuckyLloyd

Bit cynical wrote: »

I agree that Ireland has a legitimate concern about the border, however it is not the only concern. I think that Ireland unwisely allowed its legitimate concern to be taken advantage of by the EU to make life harder for the Brits but ultimately to the detriment of Ireland. I think Ireland on its own would have adopted a more flexible, pragmatic approach rather than the legalistic one taken by the EU.

Of course it would, because on its own it would have no clout or leverage. In Brexit negotiations, the EU have all the leverage and have acted accordingly.

Ultimately, Ireland would have been damaged anyway and in the long term it is better to expedite the kind of crazy leap the UK seems willing to take. We will never have a better foundation to deal with it than now.

Tell me how

Bit cynical wrote: »

I agree that Ireland has a legitimate concern about the border, however it is not the only concern. I think that Ireland unwisely allowed its legitimate concern to be taken advantage of by the EU to make life harder for the Brits but ultimately to the detriment of Ireland. I think Ireland on its own would have adopted a more flexible, pragmatic approach rather than the legalistic one taken by the EU.

Would you also think we would have been best to have decided to leave the EU at the same time so as not to complicate making a cosy deal with the UK while the EU 26 look on from the sideline?

Skelet0n

Bit cynical wrote: »

fash wrote: »

Should the EU put the economic well-being of England above peace in the EU, on its borders and the interests of its member states?
What would the future attitude in Ireland to the EU be if the EU ignored Ireland's concerns about a hard border "ha ha ha- you are small, nobody cares about your concerns"?

I agree that Ireland has a legitimate concern about the border, however it is not the only concern. I think that Ireland unwisely allowed its legitimate concern to be taken advantage of by the EU to make life harder for the Brits but ultimately to the detriment of Ireland. I think Ireland on its own would have adopted a more flexible, pragmatic approach rather than the legalistic one taken by the EU.

You mean we’d be easier to bend if we were on our own?

It’s almost as if being in a large union is beneficial.

seamus

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think Ireland on its own would have adopted a more flexible, pragmatic approach rather than the legalistic one taken by the EU.

Ireland on its own would have been threatened with blockades, punitive tariffs and starvation until it relented on the border issue.

That's not me being hyperbolic, that's basically what a number of UK politicians have inadvertently admitted.

Joining the EEC might be the single most important thing the country did since Independence. And this becomes more and more true every day that this rumbles on. If we were still hogtied economically to the UK, we'd be completely exposed to the whims of their politicians.

Professor Moriarty

seamus wrote: »

Ireland on its own would have been threatened with blockades, punitive tariffs and starvation until it relented on the border issue.

That's not me being hyperbolic, that's basically what a number of UK politicians have inadvertently admitted.

Joining the EEC might be the single most important thing the country did since Independence. And this becomes more and more true every day that this rumbles on. If we were still hogtied economically to the UK, we'd be completely exposed to the whims of their politicians.

Not always inadvertently. Here is Jacob's suggestion last May speaking in the context of pressurising the EU during negotiations:

"If Britain trades on WTO terms, we could potentially slap tariffs of up to 70 per cent on Irish beef. That could bankrupt Ireland, who export £800million of beef to us every year."

Bit cynical

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Yep. Fully Irish. I don't really know about my own personal right to remain. The Common Travel Area, as I learned in Tony Connelly's Brexit & Ireland, doesn't actually exist beyond a litany of vague references in the two countries' legislation and bilateral agreements. There is no bilateral CTA treaty.

Yet this, paradoxically, is perhaps the reason for its success. The CTA and the arrangement whereby nationals of the two countries can vote in each other's general elections have no international treaty behind them yet they persist. Of course they will not last forever; nothing does, but they have already outlasted the backstop (stillborn) and will probably outlast the GFA, the reason being that they rely on common interest and good will to keep them going.

Harry Palmr

The swivel eyes loons and fantasists seems to becoming quite prominent in the media right now, and that's not a shock as time starts to run out and Brexiteers fear some sort of extension or worse.

Mark Francois the Member of Parliament (MP) for Rayleigh and Wickford, giving it large to the "hun"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V7FF7ldDVs

The tone is only going to become more hardline and febrile.

El Weirdo

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The swivel eyes loons and fantasists seems to becoming quite prominent in the media right now, and that's not a shock as time starts to run out and Brexiteers fear some sort of extension or worse.

Mark Francois the Member of Parliament (MP) for Rayleigh and Wickford, giving it large to the "hun"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V7FF7ldDVs

The tone is only going to become more hardline and febrile.

Teutonic arrogance? The cheek.

megaten

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think Ireland on its own would have adopted a more flexible, pragmatic approach rather than the legalistic one taken by the EU.

The current approach is one we dictated to EU. The only difference is alone we wouldn't have had the muscle to enforce our position.

Havockk

El Weirdo wrote: »

Teutonic arrogance? The cheek.

Personally I thought D-Day was the highlight of this sketch.

EdgeCase

El Weirdo wrote: »

Teutonic arrogance? The cheek.

It's far more like straight talking Teutonic logic and pragmatic assesment of economic reality vs dogmatic, illogical, imperial British arrogance and exceptionalism.

What exactly does he expect Airbus to do? Go bankrupt on a matter of someone else's principles?!

The company is one of the textbook and best examples of a pan European supply chain. It's massively exposed and operates in a highly complex and competitive market.

It has very little choice but to make hard decisions to protect itself from political chaos.

Bit cynical

megaten wrote: »

The current approach is one we dictated to EU. The only difference is alone we wouldn't have had the muscle to enforce our position.

Initially we did hold that the WA should contain a clause guaranteeing no hard border. However, where the flexibility was needed was down the line when it became clear that the backstop as it was worded was a non-runner. Once the EU had picked it up, however, it would have been very hard for Varadkar to advocate a softer line while still maintaining the appearance of influence within the EU. We had no choice after that but to allow the EU to use the backstop, not to help Ireland, but as a weapon against the UK.

josip

RobMc59 wrote: »

I work in a Chemical facility and we use chemicals only available from Holland or Germany,we have tanker deliveries twice a week via Harwich of around 50,000 tonnes-I asked the Dutch driver what's been said to them about Brexit and he said the border customs at harwich said there maybe changes after 29th march but can't tell them anymore than that!-frightening!The driver predicts massive gridlock at the ports...

RobMc59 wrote: »

No,we have a storage tank of 90,000 tonnes and use most of that weekly so would grind to a halt in a week-the driver said there's 3 tankers a day coming over as we're not the only company using the chemical so it's anyone's guess what will happen in the event of a hard brexit-we also use drum stock chemicals from France,Germany and Switzerland amongst others!

Rob, are you sure it's tonnes? It seems a bit much for one driver to transport, even if he's Dutch?

Leroy42

Bit cynical wrote: »

Initially we did hold that the WA should contain a clause guaranteeing no hard border. However, where the flexibility was needed was down the line when it became clear that the backstop as it was worded was a non-runner. Once the EU had picked it up, however, it would have been very hard for Varadkar to advocate a softer line while still maintaining the appearance of influence within the EU. We had no choice after that but to allow the EU to use the backstop, not to help Ireland, but as a weapon against the UK.

A weapon against the UK? One that TM already agreed back in December 17 to?

What sort of nonsense is this?

The backstop is a result of the red lines that TM demanded and the GFA agreement. It is the natural outcome of the two contradictory, but the UK have decreed, both necessary conditions of Brexit.

The Backstop is the EU trying to work out a solution to a problem that the UK created but you have somehow worked out that it was a weapon designed and used by the EU.

Havockk

josip wrote: »

Rob, are you sure it's tonnes? It seems a bit much for one driver to transport, even if he's Dutch?

I'm sure a tanker could hold what 7000 galons? So about 30 tonne.

I think it checks out for 3 loads?

Call me Al

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The swivel eyes loons and fantasists seems to becoming quite prominent in the media right now, and that's not a shock as time starts to run out and Brexiteers fear some sort of extension or worse.

Mark Francois the Member of Parliament (MP) for Rayleigh and Wickford, giving it large to the "hun"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V7FF7ldDVs

The tone is only going to become more hardline and febrile.

Oh my but this gentleman hasn't recovered from his father's ww2 days.

This type of rhetoric sums up a good amount that is wrong with this whole debate. These elected representatives invoke a sort of hardline nostalgia that has no place in this fiasco. I mean so what if Mr Enders was a paratrooper. What on earth has that or this mans father got to do with the conversation.

Seth Brundle

Havockk wrote: »

Personally I thought D-Day was the highlight of this sketch.

I was struggling to thjnk of a way if describing thebinterview but sketch is a perfect fit.
That he needed to refer to Tom Enders stint as a German paratrooper and his own father's military service just shows how closed minded he is.

McMurphy

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The swivel eyes loons and fantasists seems to becoming quite prominent in the media right now, and that's not a shock as time starts to run out and Brexiteers fear some sort of extension or worse.

Mark Francois the Member of Parliament (MP) for Rayleigh and Wickford, giving it large to the "hun"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V7FF7ldDVs

The tone is only going to become more hardline and febrile.

Going on about German Paratroopers, and how his dad was a D-day veteran.

Lunatics running the asylum springs to mind.

prawnsambo

josip wrote: »

Rob, are you sure it's tonnes? It seems a bit much for one driver to transport, even if he's Dutch?

I took it to be litres. The maximum tonnage allowed on roads is 54 tonnes afaik, which would be roughly 50k litres, depending on the density of the liquid.

josip

prawnsambo wrote: »

I took it to be litres. The maximum tonnage allowed on roads is 54 tonnes afaik, which would be roughly 50k litres, depending on the density of the liquid.

I also, but then it was repeated in a later post about the storage tank size, so I was less certain that it was a typo.

MrMusician18

prawnsambo wrote: »

I took it to be litres. The maximum tonnage allowed on roads is 54 tonnes afaik, which would be roughly 50k litres, depending on the density of the liquid.

He was just out by a factor of 1000:pac: