Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Folkstonian

CelticRambler wrote: »

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:

This post is absolutely throbbing with French arrogance, you must have assimilated really well.

Remind me, how is France ‘behaving itself’ on EU budgetary deficit laws?

Bit cynical

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

Sure, it is just that we can't say that it was a deal between the UK and the EU. The UK have an extra step whereby parliamentary approval is needed before it is submitted to the EU.

At this stage, given the positions on both sides, I don't see a deal being reached before brexit day. Ireland, who's position was the backstop or no deal, will get what it wanted.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

Brexit revoked is as you were so fine for NI
Mays deal accepted could be disaster for NI or could be fine. Disaster if backstop can’t be negotiated away, fine if it can be. But not a risk worth taking. No deal is safer

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

Brexit revoked is as you were so fine for NI
Mays deal accepted could be disaster for NI or could be fine. Disaster if backstop can’t be negotiated away, fine if it can be. But not a risk worth taking. No deal is safer

I think you missed the part in his question on how it leaves unionism

Folkstonian

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

Britain will obviously hurt the most from no deal.

Also I think it should be added, you speak as a unionist from a very narrow and marginalised viewpoint. You try and bind yourself to fervent leavers in the rest of the U.K. but honestly in England, outside of parliament, anyone who strongly supports leaving and is set in their ways couldn’t give a toss what happens to Northern Ireland in the final deal, and in many ways see it as a complete hindrance to a ‘clean’ Brexit.

It may sound brutal, but it’s the honest truth

Seth Brundle

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

Given what all the impartial analysts are predicting about how the UK would be hammered severely whilst Ireland would hurt to a much lesser extent, what impartial analysis is your opinion based on?


(At this point I'm tired reading your pro-Brexit nonsense tarted up as naievity)

First Up

downcow wrote:

‘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

So what aspects do you think the EU should compromise on?

prawnsambo

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

The only nonsense I see is above.

If the UK crash out, NI will have exactly 60 permits to drive in the EU. That's it. Less trucks can cross the border than there are border crossings. This is not guesswork, this is a fact. If it's any consolation, the UK will have 984. That's just for starters. Then what happens when the lights go off in NI? because, yes, that's our electricity you're dependant on. And gas btw. Of course all that pales into insignificance when compared to the 45% tariffs on lamb and almost 67% tariffs on beef.

And since pretty much all NI 'exports' to UK mainland go through Dublin, that will mean a lot of queues at Larne. Because y'know, no permits.

FrancieBrady

Folkstonian wrote: »

Britain will obviously hurt the most from no deal.

Also I think it should be added, you speak as a unionist from a very narrow and marginalised viewpoint. You try and bind yourself to fervent leavers in the rest of the U.K. but honestly in England, outside of parliament, anyone who strongly supports leaving and is set in their ways couldn’t give a toss what happens to Northern Ireland in the final deal, and in many ways see it as a complete hindrance to a ‘clean’ Brexit.

It may sound brutal, but it’s the honest truth

Of course it's the truth. May, 'the fervent unionist' has tried to sell the rug from under northern Ireland unionists twice now. And may very likely succeed.

What then for unionism? They refuse to see the reality.

Bit cynical

prawnsambo wrote: »

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.

No, the discussion was about the significance of the backstop proposal in the event of no deal. It is not about what we have to do in the event of no deal, whether we are prepared etc. It was argued that the EU would hold firm to the backstop as part of any new deal even as Ireland is erecting the hard border.

It is speculation really, but I did not bring up the subject. The point I made is that in the event of no deal, the idea of the backstop as a sort of insurance policy is defunct since the thing we were insuring against has already happened. All of the WA and negotiations over it is now finished. Any new discussions, if they occur, will start afresh.

downcow

Folkstonian wrote: »

Also I think it should be added, you speak as a unionist from a very narrow and marginalised viewpoint. You try and bind yourself to fervent leavers in the rest of the U.K. but honestly in England, outside of parliament, anyone who strongly supports leaving and is set in their ways couldn’t give a toss what happens to Northern Ireland in the final deal, and in many ways see it as a complete hindrance to a ‘clean’ Brexit.

It may sound brutal, but it’s the honest truth

And what is your point. I can’t disagree with your statement except a tad exaggerated. But what’s the point you are making?

downcow

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I think you missed the part in his question on how it leaves unionism

Apologies I see that now

Just replace NI for unionists below

Brexit revoked is as you were so fine for NI
Mays deal accepted could be disaster for NI or could be fine. Disaster if backstop can’t be negotiated away, fine if it can be. But not a risk worth taking. No deal is safer

FrancieBrady

Bit cynical wrote: »

No, the discussion was about the significance of the backstop proposal in the event of no deal. It is not about what we have to do in the event of no deal, whether we are prepared etc. It was argued that the EU would hold firm to the backstop as part of any new deal even as Ireland is erecting the hard border.

It is speculation really, but I did not bring up the subject. The point I made is that in the event of no deal, the idea of the backstop as a sort of insurance policy is defunct since the thing we were insuring against has already happened. All of the WA and negotiations over it is now finished. Any new discussions, if they occur, will start afresh.

It isn't defunct, it will come into play again in any negotiations for some sort of arrangement. If you want a trade deal, agree to the border in the Irish sea or continued no deal.

Borderhopper

downcow wrote: »

I was never away anywhere but thanks for your concern.
This might shock you but I have spent most of my life working in peace building. I suppose it’s my interest to learn from other opinions that brings me on here.
Your question is a good one. It is a connondrim for both unionists and nationalists to know what to do.
From where i am looking they should help us get rid of the backstop. They should encourage the Eu to have more confidence in its self and be prepared to negotiate a future for Eu and UK without the need for things like the backstop. They are a big block 10 times plus bigger than the UK so shouldn’t need a backstop to negotiate a good deal.
The other thing I would suggest nationalists would do, thankfully I have just witnessed them in some numbers doing this evening ie joining me in showing there disgust for anyone use the conflict and troops on the border as s cheap bargaining chip. Fair play the the nationalist of Newry who were on the news tonight.

Thanks for replying but I would appreciate less of the sarcasm. I have never disrespected anyone on this thread, least of all yourself, and it was a genuine question.

What would you feel would be an acceptable alternative? If a viable system was proposed by the U.K. thrn I'm sure both the EU and Ireland would give it serious consideration, but nothing has been. The approach seems to be "trust is Ireland, it'll be fine". This isn't acceptable. When the dust settles, who compels the U.K. to keep their promises? As others have said before, the U.K. decided to leave, let's hear their ideas.

It is not a cheap bargaining ploy to consider seriously the return of violence. What happened in Derry did not happen in a vacuum, and took a fair degree of planning. I wasn't exaggerating that previously peace supporting republicans are openly questioning what it was all for, when rights hard won are easily taken away. I don't think we're far from the point where mainstream republicanism decides that the political experiment hasn't worked.

As I said before, it doesn't take everyone to tip it into violence. Just enough

Gerry T

Our trade is intertwined. Any brexit hurts that. Because the UK exports/imports are about 40% of all its trade but less than 10% for the EU you do the maths.
When you leave the EU your out. So a border is needed. That's a UK border. But the UK has a treaty with Irl which has the EU as guarantor. In this the UK says it won't increase border controls in IRL.
It's very simple, the UK shouldn't have triggered a50 until it had a way of being outside the SM and CU and using it's technology solution to remove the need to increase border controls.
You can't say EU and IRL have taken the hump because we remind the UK of its duty. The UK needs to realise it's not the super power it once was that could do what it wanted without consequence.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

No, the discussion was about the significance of the backstop proposal in the event of no deal. It is not about what we have to do in the event of no deal, whether we are prepared etc. It was argued that the EU would hold firm to the backstop as part of any new deal even as Ireland is erecting the hard border.

It is speculation really, but I did not bring up the subject. The point I made is that in the event of no deal, the idea of the backstop as a sort of insurance policy is defunct since the thing we were insuring against has already happened. All of the WA and negotiations over it is now finished. Any new discussions, if they occur, will start afresh.

This is kind of obvious. Didn't think it needed saying tbh. I have only discussed the backstop in the context of a deal because, well, d'uh. Afterwards, is another story, but events may well have overtaken us at that stage.

But for clarity, if the UK crash out, they will be in no position to dictate any terms. They will have repudiated a negotiated settlement and refused to pay their dues. There will be little appetite to engage, as any talks will be so protracted as to be irrelevant in the short term.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course it's the truth. May, 'the fervent unionist' has tried to sell the rug from under northern Ireland unionists twice now. And may very likely succeed.

What then for unionism? They refuse to see the reality.

Off thread and I don’t want in trouble so briefly.
Shinners have been telling is that for 50 years. Gerry promised UI for 2016. It’s not happening.
And with regard to how people feel. The south of England does not own the UK Shetland has as much right to be in the UK as the city of London So you are on the wishful thinking stuff again.

Kermit.de.frog

Have to giggle at all the British journalists running after Varadkar today.

"Are you going to compromise!!??????????????", said no British government to an Irish government ever.

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1088811267060654090

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Off thread and I don’t want in trouble so briefly.
Shinners have been telling is that for 50 years. Gerry promised UI for 2016. It’s not happening.
And with regard to how people feel. The south of England does not own the UK Shetland has as much right to be in the UK as the city of London So you are on the wishful thinking stuff again.

I have no interest in bartering a UI out of this ****show. I am more interested in keeping people safe and in a stable progressive environment.

Unionists once again are digging in the dirt for some ideological abstract nonsense that anyone with an eye in their head can see does not exist.

May has tried to shaft you twice now and you people are supposed to hold the balance of power. What do you think is going to happen when you are on the sidelines again? The UK and the UK government does not care about you and hasn't for a long time.

Bit cynical

prawnsambo wrote: »

This is kind of obvious. Didn't think it needed saying tbh. I have only discussed the backstop in the context of a deal because, well, d'uh. Afterwards, is another story, but events may well have overtaken us at that stage.

Sure but I was making the point to another poster who said: "The backstop is simply not up for grabs, nor can it ever be. If the uk find wto rules not to their liking they will still have to grab the nettle in the trade talks."

But for clarity, if the UK crash out, they will be in no position to dictate any terms. They will have repudiated a negotiated settlement and refused to pay their dues. There will be little appetite to engage, as any talks will be so protracted as to be irrelevant in the short term.

The UK will be in a weak position I agree. They have always been in a fairly weak position but weaker again because they will have no established free trade deals at that point.

But I think if they do get going again, they will be in better faith on both sides.

Capt'n Midnight

Last Leg : Boris told May to channel the sprit of JCB to the backstop.

In reality people used to use JCB's to reopen closed roads as fast as the army were closing them.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

But I think if they do get going again, they will be in better faith on both sides.

Is that a suggestion that the backstop was not proposed in good faith? Because before the DUP got involved, it was pretty much a slam dunk.

prawnsambo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Last Leg : Boris told May to channel the sprit of JCB to the backstop.

In reality people used to use JCB's to reopen closed roads as fast as the army were closing them.

And Boris got paid £10,000 by JCP a few days earlier. But no connection with him making a speech at JCB in front of JCBs and mentioning JCB many times in the speech.

Infini

downcow wrote: »

Mays deal accepted could be disaster for NI or could be fine. Disaster if backstop can’t be negotiated away, fine if it can be. But not a risk worth taking. No deal is safer

Its a disaster HOW?
Its not a risk worth taking HOW?
No deal is safer? HOW?
Again every time you make statements you fail to say HOW....

Seriously its like your not even willing to take in the information and give a response that has factual backup here just repeat opinions and feeling.

Let's be clear the backstop is not a disaster for anyone but a few narrominded ideologues, it has no PRACTICAL drawback and next to nothing to leave NI at a disadvantage. Every buisness in NI is supporting this. This is purely an IDEOLOGICAL issue not a practical one in otherwords hating for the sake of it.

No deal is not safer either it's a trap for fools and deniers of reality. NI wont exist long past a no deal crashout it's corrosive by nature and your pretty much unwilling to see that.

Panrich

There is a possibility that extreme Brexiters strategy is to break the SM/CU by trying to fudge the UK border issue. The monies and efforts poured into the Brexit campaign was not for the benefit of the British population so the question is what was the real motives behind it? If they could weaken the EU/SM by flooding in unregulated produce and goods, then the whole thing falls apart like a stack of dominos.

Who gains from the demise of the EU? Certainly some shady characters in the US who don't like regulations and a strong European trading bloc and looking east we have the malign influence of the Russians whose interests are in the same direction.

Bit cynical

prawnsambo wrote: »

Is that a suggestion that the backstop was not proposed in good faith? Because before the DUP got involved, it was pretty much a slam dunk.

I think the DUP are only part of it. It was generally highly contentious in Westminster. I don't think for Ireland it was in bad faith, at least initially, but the EU, I think hopped on to it with suspicious enthusiasm, imo. Commissioner Hogan said he had never seen anything like the support it got.

FrancieBrady

Infini wrote: »

Its a disaster HOW?
Its not a risk worth taking HOW?
No deal is safer? HOW?
Again every time you make statements you fail to say HOW....

Seriously its like your not even willing to take in the information and give a response that has factual backup here just repeat opinions and feeling.

Let's be clear the backstop is not a disaster for anyone but a few narrominded ideologues, it has no PRACTICAL drawback and next to nothing to leave NI at a disadvantage. Every buisness in NI is supporting this. This is purely an IDEOLOGICAL issue not a practical one in otherwords hating for the sake of it.

No deal is not safer either it's a trap for fools and deniers of reality. NI wont exist long past a no deal crashout it's corrosive by nature and your pretty much unwilling to see that.

It's the Never Never Never well Maybe mentality. And it'll flounder just like it did on the AIA, the GFA and Flegs and Marches.

Cannot fathom why they keep going up these cul de sacs that weaken them bit by bit. Their choice I suppose.

Infini

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think the DUP are only part of it. It was generally highly contentious in Westminster. I don't think for Ireland it was in bad faith, at least initially, but the EU, I think hopped on to it with suspicious enthusiasm, imo. Commissioner Hogan said he had never seen anything like the support it got.

It's essentially the most practical that's probably the most likely. The border by design is an artificial creation by the British a century ago but it's was an incredibly bad implementation (expecially that road that crosses the border twice for example). The simple truth is that checking at ports and airports is viable and straightforward its prohibitively costly to have a land border and a drain of resources.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course it's the truth. May, 'the fervent unionist' has tried to sell the rug from under northern Ireland unionists twice now. And may very likely succeed.

What then for unionism? They refuse to see the reality.

The problem/reality some unionists have understanding is that regardless of their personal beliefs that they are British to the average person in the UK their Irish and nothing else.

Unionists have been a handy prop for the conservative party for generations. While May and others in the conservative party would throw them under a bus in a heartbeat, given that it's politicians we're talking about all will be forgiven by the next unionists party when there is another chance to help prop up the conservatives and get a little something for themselves.

The conservative party has especially since MT was in power screwed over the vast majority of its own people. Labour haven't been much better and this allows for the rise of the likes of UKIP as a lot of people want to blame Johnny foreigner for the fact that their own country men and women have sold them out.

Brexit just looks like the latest **** sandwich their being served, but they were the ones that voted for it and they are the ones that are going to be hurting along with those that voted remain. It will affect us here in Ireland too that's obvious in terms of prices and jobs in sectors closely tried to the UK.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think the DUP are only part of it. It was generally highly contentious in Westminster. I don't think for Ireland it was in bad faith, at least initially, but the EU, I think hopped on to it with suspicious enthusiasm, imo. Commissioner Hogan said he had never seen anything like the support it got.

That's the only bit that matters. It's completely irrelevant what other people thought of it, if we were proposing it for the purposes described. And nobody to date has been able to come up with a viable alternative. And the more the brexiters screamed about it and tried to time limit it, the more it was obvious that they wanted to renege on it at the first chance. Which is all you need to know as to why it's necessary.

I really don't see what your problem is with this. It's not what's keeping the WA being agreed at Westminster. It's just one target in a target rich environment for the brexiters. But as always with that cohort, putting something down on paper as an alternative, always seems to escape them. All the way down the line and all the way down the years. Cameron should have copped this and made them come up with a plan first. We'd still be waiting and they'd be a laughing stock.