Brexit Discussion Thread VI

oscarBravo

lawred2 wrote: »

...what exactly is it that Varadkar is supposed to have done 'tonight'?

He pointed out the basic facts of a hard border. On cue, the chattering classes clutched their pearls and reached for their smelling salts.

I really hate the commenterati sometimes. Varadkar doesn't admit that a hard border will require physical infrastructure and security: why is he being coy? what's he hiding?! Varadkar admits that a hard border will require physical infrastructure and security: how dare he inflame tensions with his insensitive rhetoric!

If people can't handle facts, they should stop f*cking asking for them.

oscarBravo

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think we need to remember that if the UK crash out, then the hard border will be in place fairly soon afterwards. It is no longer a case of the backstop being insurance against the hard border just as you can't take out insurance against a crash that has already happened. There will be no open border to preserve. New solutions will have to be found. That will require flexibility. The old "we're not budging" will not work from either side.

There's one rather blatantly obvious fact you're carefully omitting: we've already arrived at a compromise.

The fact that the UK has rejected the compromise that it negotiated doesn't mean that the EU has to compromise further; it means that the UK needs to grow up and start negotiating in good faith.

CelticRambler

downcow wrote: »

The last serious polls put those wanting UI we under 25%. So relax and don’t you be worrying

Hot off the presses, the latest LucidTalk poll. Summarised by the Belfast Telegraph,

• 58% said they would vote to stay if the two options on the ballot paper were remaining in the EU or leaving on the terms of Mrs May's deal.
• 57% said they would vote to stay if there was a straight choice of remaining in the EU or leaving without a deal
• 60% of people believe that Brexit makes a united Ireland more likely in the next decade

Your turn: let's have some links to the data backing up your assertions. :cool:

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think we need to remember that if the UK crash out, then the hard border will be in place fairly soon afterwards. It is no longer a case of the backstop being insurance against the hard border just as you can't take out insurance against a crash that has already happened. There will be no open border to preserve. New solutions will have to be found. That will require flexibility. The old "we're not budging" will not work from either side.

If the UK crash out, we're in a completely different paradigm. There's no point trying to preempt that by taking away the backstop which isn't actually the main problem, despite the pronouncements from various hard brexiters. In fact it's hard to know what the main problem is because it changes from day to day. Taking the backstop away will achieve the square root of feck all. It will immediately be replaced by something else that is seen as the anathema to brexit and the will of the people.

Have you not being listening to the talk from Westminster? May's deal is 'vassalage', BRINO, weak and not what the people voted for.

downcow

oscarBravo wrote: »

He pointed out the basic facts of a hard border. On cue, the chattering classes clutched their pearls and reached for their smelling salts.

I really hate the commenterati sometimes. Varadkar doesn't admit that a hard border will require physical infrastructure and security: why is he being coy? what's he hiding?! Varadkar admits that a hard border will require physical infrastructure and security: how dare he inflame tensions with his insensitive rhetoric!

If people can't handle facts, they should stop f*cking asking for them.

I actually agree with much of what you say there. But watching from here the timing of his outburst looks like the threat of border violence being used because there are signs Eu are losing there nerve and need a bit of pressure.
And how are we supposed to take the ireland position serious we we are getting opposite statements sometimes even from the same person?

Bit cynical

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's one rather blatantly obvious fact you're carefully omitting: we've already arrived at a compromise.

The fact that the UK has rejected the compromise that it negotiated doesn't mean that the EU has to compromise further; it means that the UK needs to grow up and start negotiating in good faith.

I don't think we have. The UK only agrees to something concerning the WA when the parliament has agreed to it since the UK Notification of Withdrawal Act of 2017:

The Prime Minister may not conclude an agreement with the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, on the terms of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, without the approval of both Houses of Parliament.

First Up

downcow wrote:

Totally agree. We will see sensible compromise from both sides Of course if the backstop were in place then Eu would not be interested in any compromise

What do you think the EU should compromise on?

Bit cynical

prawnsambo wrote: »

If the UK crash out, we're in a completely different paradigm. There's no point trying to preempt that by taking away the backstop which isn't actually the main problem, despite the pronouncements from various hard brexiters. In fact it's hard to know what the main problem is because it changes from day to day. Taking the backstop away will achieve the square root of feck all. It will immediately be replaced by something else that is seen as the anathema to brexit and the will of the people.

Have you not being listening to the talk from Westminster? May's deal is 'vassalage', BRINO, weak and not what the people voted for.

Yes it is a new paradigm, a point I made in my post. But this also means that the backstop, part of previous and - in this scenario - failed negotiations. It is gone and now meaningless. The main push at that point will be for fresh agreements and a reset of of the relationship between the EU and UK.

Enzokk

downcow wrote: »

I actually agree with much of what you say there. But watching from here the timing of his outburst looks like the threat of border violence being used because there are signs Eu are losing there nerve and need a bit of pressure.
And how are we supposed to take the ireland position serious we we are getting opposite statements sometimes even from the same person?

We are heading towards no deal. When do you think he should have said it? Two days before? Like the post you replied to said if he says nothing then he is lambasted for not facing reality. When he states reality then people are upset that he is talking up the threat of violence.

blanch152

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. 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.

So you have a default option, otherwise known as a backstop until you know what the trading relationship is going to be.

Glad you understand.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

There will be no open border to preserve. New solutions will have to be found. That will require flexibility. The old "we're not budging" will not work from either side.

There will still be the GFA to preserve, and there will still be the unfortunate geographical reality that NI is part of the island of Ireland and not part of GB.

Oh, and there will still be a deep distrust of the UK by the EU, and the (un)likelihood that Britannia will keep any of her promises. So "flexibility" is hardly going to be a feature of the EU's short and medium term negotiating position. Maybe when the UK has shown that she can behave herself (by gestures of good faith, such as agreeing a special arrangement for NI) some small concessions could be made ... :rolleyes:

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

Yes it is a new paradigm, a point I made in my post. But this also means that the backstop, part of previous - and in this scenario - failed negotiations. It is gone and now meaningless. The main push at that point will be for fresh agreements and a reset of of the relationship between the EU and UK.

Do you not see that that ship has sailed? May is playing to the brink to get her deal past the HoC and there's no chance that any further negotiations will take place. So yes, it will be a crash out or her deal or they call the whole thing off. It's in their hands now and we are the spectators. This is the point that blinking does not happen. If you're getting weak at the knees at the prospect, well, just as well you're not a negotiator.

CelticRambler

downcow wrote: »

Totally agree. We will see sensible compromise from both sides

We had a sensible compromise between both sides back in December 2017. Then the DUP got involved and all good sense went out the window.

lawred2

downcow wrote: »

I actually agree with much of what you say there. But watching from here the timing of his outburst looks like the threat of border violence being used because there are signs Eu are losing there nerve and need a bit of pressure.
And how are we supposed to take the ireland position serious we we are getting opposite statements sometimes even from the same person?

What signs are there? Please don't say that Polish utterance! That has no support anywhere in the EU. Irrelevant too given how Poland has already approved the Withdrawal Agreement in its own Parliament. If that's all you've got to hand then I'd retire that line of thinking.

Anyway - it's not an outburst. It's a statement of reality. Brexit is a central topic at Davos this year and with 2 months to go the British Parliament is imploding with no deal..

That's the timing of it.

Irishmale0399

downcow wrote: »

I actually agree with much of what you say there. But watching from here the timing of his outburst looks like the threat of border violence being used because there are signs Eu are losing there nerve and need a bit of pressure.
And how are we supposed to take the ireland position serious we we are getting opposite statements sometimes even from the same person?

Who is losing there nerve??? The EU have been straight from the first moment and havent changed their stance unlike your friends in WM. The deal is on the table....its the UK that are trying to play the victim and change it. Cherry picking because they still dont realise they are on a slippery slope.



Before making such comments lock all MPs you lot elected in WM and allow them to finally come to an agreement n what exactly it is they want. Then they can come out and ask the EU politely to reopen talks. You seem to forget....the EU have been saying the backstop must stay otherwise its a hard Brexit....the EU dont need the UK.


A hard Brexit means an EU border between Ireland and Northern Ireland....that will be controlled by customs, cops and army. The UK government will not want an open door for refugees coming into the UK from the Republic will they. At the moment the only problem is sitting in London.......like a group of kids at playschool trying to decide who gets the last sweet.

FrancieBrady

prawnsambo wrote: »

Do you not see that that ship has sailed? May is playing to the brink to get her deal past the HoC and there's no chance that any further negotiations will take place. So yes, it will be a crash out or her deal or they call the whole thing off. It's in their hands now and we are the spectators. This is the point that blinking does not happen. If you're getting weak at the knees at the prospect, well, just as well you're not a negotiator.

One of the 3 options - no deal - may very well be off the table shortly, so just Mays deal or scrap the whole thing. Win win for us really. And northern Ireland.

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

But watching from here the timing of his outburst looks like the threat of border violence being used because there are signs Eu are losing there nerve and need a bit of pressure.
And how are we supposed to take the ireland position serious we we are getting opposite statements sometimes even from the same person?

Firstly how is someone talking calmly in a sit-down interview an "outburst"?
Secondly, none of what he said was wrong.
Thirdly as the EU haven't changed position, how are they supposedly "losing there(sic) nerve"?
Lastly, what opposing statements have been made by someone (and who was that)?

Bit cynical

prawnsambo wrote: »

Do you not see that that ship has sailed? May is playing to the brink to get her deal past the HoC and there's no chance that any further negotiations will take place. So yes, it will be a crash out or her deal or they call the whole thing off. It's in their hands now and we are the spectators. This is the point that blinking does not happen. If you're getting weak at the knees at the prospect, well, just as well you're not a negotiator.

No, I am talking about the scenario, raised by another poster, in which a no deal brexit has occurred. I'm not talking about fresh thinking happening between now and Brexit day.

Seth Brundle

FrancieBrady wrote: »

One of the 3 options - no deal - may very well be off the table shortly, so just Mays deal or scrap the whole thing. Win win for us really. And northern Ireland.

No deal is the default. It cannot be removed from the table.

downcow

Enzokk wrote: »

We are heading towards no deal. When do you think he should have said it? Two days before? Like the post you replied to said if he says nothing then he is lambasted for not facing reality. When he states reality then people are upset that he is talking up the threat of violence.

I am agreeing with you if he would just stick with what he sees as reality. I may not happen (and in my view it won’t) but it would be honest and that would really help the process

FrancieBrady

Seth Brundle wrote: »

No deal is the default. It cannot be removed from the table.

Sorry, I wasn't pedantic enough - parliament will take control and not allow a no deal to happen

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

No, I am talking about the scenario, raised by another poster, in which a no deal brexit has occurred. I'm not talking about fresh thinking happening between now and Brexit day.

And that should only be looked at when it happens. Because we have no idea of the extent of the preparations that have been made for such a scenario. Except that preparations have been made. So no point panicking now.

prawnsambo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry, I wasn't pedantic enough - parliament will take control and not allow a no deal to happen

But they do have to make a decision. And if it's not May's deal and it's not a crash out, it has to be a revocation.

downcow

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Firstly how is someone talking calmly in a sit-down interview an "outburst"?
Secondly, none of what he said was wrong.
Thirdly as the EU haven't changed position, how are they supposedly "losing there(sic) nerve"?
Lastly, what opposing statements have been made by someone (and who was that)?

Maybe I am losing the plot. I could have swore he has been saying that under no conditions will there be a hard border “it won’t happen”. Today he’s talking troops. Would you agree those are opposing statements?

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

Maybe I am losing the plot. I could have swore he has been saying that under no conditions will there be a hard border “it won’t happen”. Today he’s talking troops. Would you agree those are opposing statements?

Would I agree that your poor recollection of his words is that they're contradictory? :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Maybe I am losing the plot. I could have swore he has been saying that under no conditions will there be a hard border “it won’t happen”. Today he’s talking troops. Would you agree those are opposing statements?

There isn't a hard border and you guys are looking more scared to make the leap into the unknown as time moves on. Gone is the early bluster to be replaced by whinging about how unfair the EU is being, despite the fact that our position has not changed from day one. Remember the EU will come crawling for a deal rhetoric?

oscarBravo

downcow wrote: »

...watching from here the timing of his outburst looks like the threat of border violence being used because there are signs Eu are losing there nerve and need a bit of pressure.

You need to take off your Brexit-tinted glasses. The EU is not losing its nerve. If you are drawing conclusions from the assumption that the EU is losing its nerve, your conclusions will inevitably be wrong.

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't think we have. The UK only agrees to something concerning the WA when the parliament has agreed to it since the UK Notification of Withdrawal Act of 2017:

That in no way changes what I said. The UK and the EU negotiated a compromise. The UK then decided not to support the compromise that its own negotiating team had agreed to. That doesn't imply that the EU needs to compromise more; it implies that the UK needs to get its sh*t together.

If the UK crashes out without a deal and belatedly realises what a catastrophically moronic thing that was to do - something that literally everybody on the planet who isn't a Brexiteer can see clearly - then, when the UK comes crawling back looking for a deal, there's one ready and waiting.

downcow

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

You seem to forget....the EU have been saying the backstop must stay otherwise its a hard Brexit....the EU dont need the UK.

‘Need’ is a bit of a subjective term. Depending on how you interpret it nobody really needs anybody but that would be a sad way forward.
Who Would you say needs each other relationship most
UK needs Eu
UK needs ire
Ire needs UK
Ire needs NI
NI needs ire
NI needs UK
I firmly believe they will all be enhanced going forward with good relationships with each other but it feels like because the UK don’t want quite as close an arrangement the Eu and ire have taken the hump.
We will all be friends again soon

downcow

oscarBravo wrote: »

You need to take off your Brexit-tinted glasses. The EU is not losing its nerve. If you are drawing conclusions from the assumption that the EU is losing its nerve, your conclusions will inevitably be wrong.



That in no way changes what I said. The UK and the EU negotiated a compromise. The UK then decided not to support the compromise that its own negotiating team had agreed to. That doesn't imply that the EU needs to compromise more; it implies that the UK needs to get its sh*t together.

If the UK crashes out without a deal and belatedly realises what a catastrophically moronic thing that was to do - something that literally everybody on the planet who isn't a Brexiteer can see clearly - then, when the UK comes crawling back looking for a deal, there's one ready and waiting.

You need to take off your rose tinted glasses.
If it is a no agreement then the Eu will hurt somewhat, the UK will hurt a little more, but ire will def hurt most.
I am confident everyone will be crawling back then to get a good deal and there will be no backstop considered

This nonsense that only the UK will suffer

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

You need to take off your rose tinted glasses.
If it is a no agreement then the Eu will hurt somewhat, the UK will hurt a little more, but ire will def hurt most.
I am confident everyone will be crawling back then to get a good deal and there will be no backstop considered

This nonsense that only the UK will suffer

If Brexit is revoked or May's deal is accepted, where do you think that leaves Ulster unionism?