Brexit Discussion Thread VI

prawnsambo

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.

You seem to think that there is some sort of backstop that will work other than the one proposed. So why don't you explain what you think that might be?

J Mysterio

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.

His last name must make him so angry, i'm surprised he hasn't changed it by deed poll.

Captain Obvious

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.

What's with all the Brexiteers going on about the war?

First Up

Captain Obvious wrote:

What's with all the Brexiteers going on about the war?

It's never far away.

Infini

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.

Lsts be honest while we can be flexible what was needed with these Brexiteer fools was complete clarity because this entire debate from them is nothing more than opinionated whataboutry and evasive smoke and mirrors when confronted with cold facts. The WA would have passed with no issue had the Dumba'ss Unionist Party not been able to become the spanner in the works and been able to mess things up. Theyre of the same league as the Brexiteers.

The sad truth is the Brexiteers are utter idiots of the moat dangerous kind because theyre too incompetent and stuck in their blinkered views of the world to actually be rational and this isnt counting the likes of Moggs or Farage who likely have ulterior motives. Theres no negotiating or flexibility with those types you have to strongarm them legally so they cant weasel out of their commitments without consequence.

road_high

Captain Obvious wrote: »

What's with all the Brexiteers going on about the war?

For them they were the UKs glory days, their high water mark of moral and social superiority. A huge swath of them are still stuck there, hence Brexit

tuxy

road_high wrote: »

For them they were the UKs glory days, their high water mark of moral and social superiority. A huge swath of them are still stuck there, hence Brexit

Of course the ironic thing is if any of them understood the hardship of living through a world war they would not willingly vote for hardship.
Many of them that vote no admit that things could be very tough and seem to be looking forward to it.

Strazdas

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.

I could see this becoming a news story in Germany. This is a sitting MP of the ruling party speaking on live TV - and being very deliberate and calculated in his insults towards German people.

road_high

tuxy wrote: »

Of course the ironic thing is if any of them understood the hardship of living through a world war they would not willingly vote for hardship.
Many of them that vote no admit that things could be very tough and seem to be looking forward to it.

Stiff upper lip...and all that !

Bit cynical

prawnsambo wrote: »

You seem to think that there is some sort of backstop that will work other than the one proposed. So why don't you explain what you think that might be?

Well the one proposed is dead which is the worst sort of not working so therefore just about anything else that is proposed will work better.

I think the better approach, which is the one we will in fact end up taking but under more difficult conditions, is for the two governments to work something between them within the constraints laid down by the EU, the WTO etc.

If there's no WA as is very likely now, then these arrangements will be difficult and strained and minimal in effect. If there were to be a WA without a backstop, then greater scope would be available to the two governments.

What neither side will be doing is laying down conditions and demanding guarantees. Basically the only approach with any chance of success is one that relies on the common interest on both sides in maintaining a border that is as open as possible given the outcome of wider negotiations.

Probably the less involvement of the EU the better. They can deal with the high level trade issues as they should.

FreudianSlippers

fash wrote: »

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?

Neither Ireland nor the EU are negotiating with the UK vis-a-vis Brexit; it is entirely the remit of the European Commission and the European Commission alone.

That's the benefit of being a part of a group that understands and has compassion about the needs and desires of its members. We couldn't do this on our own and if it was the other way around we can see the UK wouldn't give a toss about this island other than their precious Kingdom.

FreudianSlippers

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.

Under the "undemocratic" bureaucratic and mean-old EU, we've become a significant player in the global economy in a very short period of time (realistically 20 or so years), from basically nothing.

megaten

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well the one proposed is dead which is the worst sort of not working so therefore just about anything else that is proposed will work better.

I think the better approach, which is the one we will in fact end up taking but under more difficult conditions, is for the two governments to work something between them within the constraints laid down by the EU, the WTO etc.

If there's no WA as is very likely now, then these arrangements will be difficult and strained and minimal in effect. If there were to be a WA without a backstop, then greater scope would be available to the two governments.

What neither side will be doing is laying down conditions and demanding guarantees. Basically the only approach with any chance of success is one that relies on the common interest on both sides in maintaining a border that is as open as possible given the outcome of wider negotiations.

Probably the less involvement of the EU the better. They can deal with the high level trade issues as they should.

You haven't answered his question

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well the one proposed is dead which is the worst sort of not working so therefore just about anything else that is proposed will work better.

It's hardly dead. You might say it's in limbo, but as far as we and the EU are concerned, it's only dead if the EU negotiate something else and there have been strong rebuttals of that from everyone concerned on that side of the negotiation.

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think the better approach, which is the one we will in fact end up taking but under more difficult conditions, is for the two governments to work something between them within the constraints laid down by the EU, the WTO etc.

This is not a solution. It's not even a framework for a solution. I asked for a specific answer to a specific question. You haven't even said whether or not a backstop would be required. And you can't have a bilateral deal whilst the UK is a member of the EU. And even after they leave, a bilateral deal would still require EU involvement and approval. It would be then an EU border.

Bit cynical wrote: »

What neither side will be doing is laying down conditions and demanding guarantees. Basically the only approach with any chance of success is one that relies on the common interest on both sides in maintaining a border that is as open as possible given the outcome of wider negotiations.

I am completely lost here. What common interest? Any kind of open border will not be in the interest of two separate jurisdictions unless both sides of the border are in the same one. There is no other mechanism possible. And you've yet to actually propose one that isn't based on wishful thinking.

downcow

Infini wrote: »

Lsts be honest while we can be flexible what was needed with these Brexiteer fools was complete clarity because this entire debate from them is nothing more than opinionated whataboutry and evasive smoke and mirrors when confronted with cold facts. The WA would have passed with no issue had the Dumba'ss Unionist Party not been able to become the spanner in the works and been able to mess things up. Theyre of the same league as the Brexiteers.

The sad truth is the Brexiteers are utter idiots of the moat dangerous kind because theyre too incompetent and stuck in their blinkered views of the world to actually be rational and this isnt counting the likes of Moggs or Farage who likely have ulterior motives. Theres no negotiating or flexibility with those types you have to strongarm them legally so they cant weasel out of their commitments without consequence.

Fixed that for you! But I mightn’t be around long because what’s good for the goose dare not be said about the gander I fear

“Let’s be honest while we can be flexible what was needed with these southern irish fools was complete clarity because this entire debate from them is nothing more than opinionated whataboutry and evasive smoke and mirrors when confronted with cold facts. Brexit would have passed with no issue had the Dumba'ss Sinn Fein Party not been able to become the spanner in the works and been able to mess things up. Theyre of the same league as the the rest of the southern Irish .

The sad truth is the Irish are utter idiots of the moat dangerous kind because theyre too incompetent and stuck in their blinkered views of the world to actually be rational and this isnt counting the likes of mary-Lou or Michelle who likely have ulterior motives. Theres no negotiating or flexibility with those types you have to strongarm them legally so they cant weasel out of their commitments without consequence.”

blanch152

Bit cynical wrote: »

Basically the only approach with any chance of success is one that relies on the common interest on both sides in maintaining a border that is as open as possible given the outcome of wider negotiations.

.

I am struggling to make sense of your posts. You appear to be suggesting that it is in the common interest of both sides to maintain an open border and I can agree with that. But you also seem to suggest that this is so, no matter the circumstances.

Say the EU agrees a deal with the US to import chlorinated chicken (currently banned in the EU and the UK), is it in the interest of the UK to have these chlorinated chickens flow over the border into the UK without inspection and without any tariff?

Bit cynical wrote: »

Probably the less involvement of the EU the better. They can deal with the high level trade issues as they should.

There is no more high level trade issue than having a border to prevent smuggling of illegal goods.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Fixed that for you! But I mightn’t be around long because what’s good for the goose dare not be said about the gander I fear

“Let’s be honest while we can be flexible what was needed with these southern irish fools was complete clarity because this entire debate from them is nothing more than opinionated whataboutry and evasive smoke and mirrors when confronted with cold facts. Brexit would have passed with no issue had the Dumba'ss Sinn Fein Party not been able to become the spanner in the works and been able to mess things up. Theyre of the same league as the the rest of the southern Irish .

The sad truth is the Irish are utter idiots of the moat dangerous kind because theyre too incompetent and stuck in their blinkered views of the world to actually be rational and this isnt counting the likes of mary-Lou or Michelle who likely have ulterior motives. Theres no negotiating or flexibility with those types you have to strongarm them legally so they cant weasel out of their commitments without consequence.”

Ahem...Brexit was passing without issue until Arlene was made stick her oar in by the boys in the backroom in Dec. 2017.

Pa8301

downcow wrote: »

Fixed that for you! But I mightn’t be around long because what’s good for the goose dare not be said about the gander I fear

“Let’s be honest while we can be flexible what was needed with these southern irish fools was complete clarity because this entire debate from them is nothing more than opinionated whataboutry and evasive smoke and mirrors when confronted with cold facts. Brexit would have passed with no issue had the Dumba'ss Sinn Fein Party not been able to become the spanner in the works and been able to mess things up. Theyre of the same league as the the rest of the southern Irish .

The sad truth is the Irish are utter idiots of the moat dangerous kind because theyre too incompetent and stuck in their blinkered views of the world to actually be rational and this isnt counting the likes of mary-Lou or Michelle who likely have ulterior motives. Theres no negotiating or flexibility with those types you have to strongarm them legally so they cant weasel out of their commitments without consequence.”

That makes no sense.

Bit cynical

megaten wrote: »

You haven't answered his question

I think I have answered it. The questioner assumed that I thought that there might be a better version of the backstop. My position is that the backstop is the wrong approach for the reasons given.

prawnsambo

downcow wrote: »

Fixed that for you! But I mightn’t be around long because what’s good for the goose dare not be said about the gander I fear

“Let’s be honest while we can be flexible what was needed with these southern irish fools was complete clarity because this entire debate from them is nothing more than opinionated whataboutry and evasive smoke and mirrors when confronted with cold facts. Brexit would have passed with no issue had the Dumba'ss Sinn Fein Party not been able to become the spanner in the works and been able to mess things up. Theyre of the same league as the the rest of the southern Irish .

The sad truth is the Irish are utter idiots of the moat dangerous kind because theyre too incompetent and stuck in their blinkered views of the world to actually be rational and this isnt counting the likes of mary-Lou or Michelle who likely have ulterior motives. Theres no negotiating or flexibility with those types you have to strongarm them legally so they cant weasel out of their commitments without consequence.”

Unfortunately that doesn't even make sense. So if you had a point to make, it was lost in the rush to get yourself banned. Or whatever your motivation was. It certainly wasn't to have a discussion on the matter.

FreudianSlippers

Bit cynical wrote: »

If there's no WA as is very likely now, then these arrangements will be difficult and strained and minimal in effect. If there were to be a WA without a backstop, then greater scope would be available to the two governments.

How?!

MrMusician18

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.

The presenter should've called him out on his xenophobic grandstanding and not allowed his interview to be used in such a way.

downcow

Pa8301 wrote: »

That makes no sense.

Yes, it or the pre-edited version

Bit cynical

blanch152 wrote: »

There is no more high level trade issue than having a border to prevent smuggling of illegal goods.

However you can't know what sort of border you need until you know what the trading relationship is going to be. That is the normal order of consideration. Countries that want minimal border need to ensure that trade is free enough that minimal border is needed.

FreudianSlippers

Bit cynical wrote: »

However you can't know what sort of border you need until you know what the trading relationship is going to be.

Which is the point of the backstop.

downcow

prawnsambo wrote: »

Unfortunately that doesn't even make sense. So if you had a point to make, it was lost in the rush to get yourself banned. Or whatever your motivation was. It certainly wasn't to have a discussion on the matter.

Why would that get me banned. I was just replicating one example of the endless stream of very derogatory stuff directed at my community which see to be completely acceptable on here

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think I have answered it. The questioner assumed that I thought that there might be a better version of the backstop. My position is that the backstop is the wrong approach for the reasons given.

Well no you didn't. Because the post I questioned said that "the backstop as it was worded was a non runner". Hence my asking you if you had a better version.

So you now seem to be saying that no backstop is needed and it's not a matter of wording?

prawnsambo

downcow wrote: »

Why would that get me banned. I was just replicating one example of the endless stream of very derogatory stuff directed at my community which see to be completely acceptable on here

I'm sorry, are brexiteers a community now?

lawred2

downcow wrote: »

Fixed that for you! But I mightn’t be around long because what’s good for the goose dare not be said about the gander I fear

“Let’s be honest while we can be flexible what was needed with these southern irish fools was complete clarity because this entire debate from them is nothing more than opinionated whataboutry and evasive smoke and mirrors when confronted with cold facts. Brexit would have passed with no issue had the Dumba'ss Sinn Fein Party not been able to become the spanner in the works and been able to mess things up. Theyre of the same league as the the rest of the southern Irish .

The sad truth is the Irish are utter idiots of the moat dangerous kind because theyre too incompetent and stuck in their blinkered views of the world to actually be rational and this isnt counting the likes of mary-Lou or Michelle who likely have ulterior motives. Theres no negotiating or flexibility with those types you have to strongarm them legally so they cant weasel out of their commitments without consequence.”

This what passes for neutrality now? Old fashioned anti Irish racism?

Bit cynical

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Which is the point of the backstop.

Unfortunately it is too crude an approach to trade. It presupposes that the UK will forever remain, in full or in part, in some form of customs union. It may be that the UK will opt for something less than that but in such circumstances it is still in the interest of both sides to minimise the impact of the border to the greatest extent possible.

The backstop was prematurely introduced into the negotiations in a way which has proved unhelpful.