Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Peregrinus

downcow wrote: »

That’s a fairly one sided view. The UK have no intention of creating any border or checks at Irish border.

No, no. You can't take this seriously. The default condition for international borders is that they are controlled. The border in Ireland is open because of bilaterally agreed arrangements that keep it open. The UK is proposing to withdraw from those arrangements; that alone makes it impossible to say (with a straight face) that they "have no intention of creating any border or checks". It's like me removing the chair from under you, while saying that I have no intention of causing you to fall.

And where the stated reason for the UK withdrawing from those arrangements is "to take back control of our borders", it's doubly hard to take seriously the pretence that they have no intention of controlling their only land border.

downcow wrote: »

It is eu that is threatening them (which is ironic as the eu paints itself as the open all embracing one). If Eu are concerned about have checks then why not propose for them to be within their jurisdiction ie English Channel between France and ireland rather than demanding they are within the UK jurisdiction??

Because why should Ireland be cut off from its markets to facilitate the UK's Brexit policy? Brexit is a UK desire, and the UK can hardly demand that Ireland should bear the downsides of Brexit so the UK doesn't have to. Bad enough that they should impose the downside on Northern Ireland, which doesn't want to Brexit but at least gets to participate in whatever benefits are supposed to flow from Brexit, but it would be outragous to suggest that they could impose the downside on another state in order to implement a UK policy without inconvenience to the UK.

The open border in Ireland, we must remember, is not something imposed on the UK by the EU; it's a stated objective of the UK. Indeed, of all their objectives in relation to Brexit, it's the one that is stated in the strongest terms; it's a "guarantee". If the British are serious in their stated objectives, and if they wish to be taken in good faith, then people will expect that guarantee to mean that the UK is willing to agree and enter into effective arrangements to ensure that there is no hard border in Ireland; if the guarantee doesn't mean at least that, then the guarantees of the UK are empty and worthless. And that's not something, I think, that patriotic British citizens would ever wish to have said about their country.

Podge_irl

downcow wrote: »

That’s a fairly one sided view. The UK have no intention of creating any border or checks at Irish border. It is eu that is threatening them (which is ironic as the eu paints itself as the open all embracing one). If Eu are concerned about have checks then why not propose for them to be within their jurisdiction ie English Channel between France and ireland rather than demanding they are within the UK jurisdiction??

No matter how many times this is said, it is not correct. You can not simply let people and products from a different regulatory system flow unchecked across your border.

Russman

downcow wrote: »

If Eu are concerned about have checks then why not propose for them to be within their jurisdiction ie English Channel between France and ireland rather than demanding they are within the UK jurisdiction??

Why would the EU cut off one of its own members (ie Ireland) by doing that just to suit the UK ?
This craic of nobody wants to put up a border and if nobody bothers with one then everything will be fine is a bit mad. There simply has to be a border if there's no agreement, its not rocket science. The EU (which includes us) can't have a situation where there are goods of an unknown standard/nature freely entering their marketplace.

Peregrinus

downcow wrote: »

What do you mean by ‘hard’ border? And you are having a laugh if you want me to believe that the Eu interest is in ensuring UK keeps a promise with itself.

No, the UK is expected to honour the guarantee it has given to Ireland and the EU.

downcow wrote: »

And give me that definition of ‘hard’ border please

It's right there in the Joint Report, para 43:

The United Kingdom also recalls its commitment to the avoidance of a hard border, including any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls.

(And of course the mechanism by which this commitment will be honoured - if all else fails, the backstop - is also right there in the Joint Report.)

downcow

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Ah, so now as well as Brexiting, you would like the Republic to join a solo Customs Union with the UK and have a customs border with the rest of the EU?


No - you are Brexiting, not us. You are the ones changing the current peaceful status quo, not us.


I'd sooner see your lot try and enforce a hard border in Ireland. How many troops failed to do it last time, 27000 I think. About a third of your current army.

Oh dear oh dear.
I have already said I was neutral during vote, if anything I leaned towards remain. But I think you are highlighting why people like me are be pushed to an exit position.
UK has stated clearly they will absolutely not be creating any border in ireland and wto can’t insist. The only people who will insist on Irish border is Eu so it will wither be the Irish army or an Eu army that will secure it if they create it. Simple. Unless maybe this is not being reported in ireland?

Peregrinus

downcow wrote: »

Oh dear oh dear.
I have already said I was neutral during vote, if anything I leaned towards remain. But I think you are highlighting why people like me are be pushed to an exit position.
UK has stated clearly they will absolutely not be creating any border in ireland and wto can’t insist.

Link to a statement by HMG, please, which says that they will absolutely not be creating any border in Ireland.

And then, after you've done that, not before, please discuss whether you believe that statement to be credible, and why.

downcow wrote: »

The only people who will insist on Irish border is Eu so it will wither be the Irish army or an Eu army that will secure it if they create it. Simple. Unless maybe this is not being reported in ireland?

The claim has been widely reported in Ireland; it just isn't widely believed because, honestly, it doesn't look very plausible or credible.

seamus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/16/jaguar-land-rover-to-axe-up-to-5000-jobs

5000 jobs! Wow I mean just wow. And yet the reality deniers continue to pretend it's not happening

It's bizarre. I flicked onto BBC news on Sunday (might have been BBC 2, 3 or 4) and happened to have a report on Brexit - May in trouble, Ireland saying this, etc.

The last piece was about the high street. Sales are down on the UK high street, again. As it has been for 3 or 4 years in a row. With one notable exception - online sales in the UK are also down.

Economic growth up, Xmas sales down. Odd combination.

What's the cause of this? According to their analyst, British people are paying down their debt from the last financial crisis rather than spending it in shops.

Not even a hint of the B-word, or the state of Sterling. Other media are more than happy to talk about Brexit uncertainty hurting the economy, but not the BBC.

Russman

downcow wrote: »

Oh dear oh dear.
I have already said I was neutral during vote, if anything I leaned towards remain. But I think you are highlighting why people like me are be pushed to an exit position.
UK has stated clearly they will absolutely not be creating any border in ireland and wto can’t insist. The only people who will insist on Irish border is Eu so it will wither be the Irish army or an Eu army that will secure it if they create it. Simple. Unless maybe this is not being reported in ireland?

Surely that negates one of the main arguments for Brexit and taking back control of borders yadda yadda yadda ? How will they stop the potential car load of terrorists/contraband/smugglers who get the ferry from France to Rosslare and drive up to Larne and head across to Britain if there are no checks ? Not only would there be no checks but they'd have no say in framing the rules around there being no checks.

Jim2007

downcow wrote: »

UK has stated clearly they will absolutely not be creating any border in ireland and wto can’t insist. The only people who will insist on Irish border is Eu so it will wither be the Irish army or an Eu army that will secure it if they create it. Simple. Unless maybe this is not being reported in ireland?

To be clear there is no WTO requirement for a hard border but there is a requirement to treat all members the same. Meaning if the UK wishes to do anything other than trade with the dozen or so non members, they will either have completely open borders or put a hard border in NI.

Perhaps you should consider posting your crap on the Daily Mail as it is not up to the standards here.

downcow

Peregrinus wrote: »

And where the stated reason for the UK withdrawing from those arrangements is "to take back control of our borders", it's doubly hard to take seriously the pretence that they have no intention of controlling their borders.

I accept this is a fair comment.
Although if it gives you reassurance UK has also stated that free movement across these two islands before Eu and will continue after Eu membership.

Captain Obvious

downcow wrote: »

Oh dear oh dear.
I have already said I was neutral during vote, if anything I leaned towards remain. But I think you are highlighting why people like me are be pushed to an exit position.
UK has stated clearly they will absolutely not be creating any border in ireland and wto can’t insist. The only people who will insist on Irish border is Eu so it will wither be the Irish army or an Eu army that will secure it if they create it. Simple. Unless maybe this is not being reported in ireland?

The only thing being highlighted here is ignorance. Ignorance of regulations, trade, customs unions immigration. Take your pick. Can you tell me how the UK plans to stop all these bad immigrants, a core reason for Brexit, if they don't close their border with the EU i.e. Ireland?

downcow

Jim2007 wrote: »

To be clear there is no WTO requirement for a hard border but there is a requirement to treat all members the same. Meaning if the UK wishes to do anything other than trade with the dozen or so non members, they will either have completely open borders or put a hard border in NI.

Perhaps you should consider posting your crap on the Daily Mail as it is not up to the standards here.

Again only part of the truth. There is clear allowance for special circumstances in wto re sensitive borders. Irish border meets that criteria and therefore can stay open

Hurrache

downcow wrote: »

But I think you are highlighting why people like me are be pushed to an exit position.

I can never understand the level of ignorance that would push someone in the direction of madness when the plain facts of the consequences are shown to them.

Zubeneschamali

downcow wrote: »

Exactly. The Eu is trying to dictate what happens in a country outside the Eu ie NI They should focus on solving their problem within their jurisdiction

So you are OK with a Hard Border between North and South, wholesale smuggling by you-know-who, thousands of troops roving the landscape, a return to the 80s?


The EU are trying to "dictate" that that does not happen because an EU member state (Ireland) really, really does not want that to happen.



Westminster are saying they don't want it to happen, but doing everything they can to wriggle out of actually making certain it doesn't happen.

downcow

Captain Obvious wrote: »

The only thing being highlighted here is ignorance. Ignorance of regulations, trade, customs unions immigration. Take your pick. Can you tell me how the UK plans to stop all these bad immigrants, a core reason for Brexit, if they don't close their border with the EU i.e. Ireland?

It is simple. Of course what you refer to as ‘bad immigrants’ can enter NI/UK but the concerns from brexiteers (not a concern of mine) was that they get benifits, free healthcare, free house, etc, etc. No of this will be available to an illegal immigrant from eg France but they will get this all in Dublin so why on earth would the want to come to Belfast?

dr.fuzzenstein

downcow wrote: »

Again only part of the truth. There is clear allowance for special circumstances in wto re sensitive borders. Irish border meets that criteria and therefore can stay open

So the entire "controling our borders" argument falls down right there.

Fr Tod Umptious

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So you think Labour should have deliberately done badly in the election so that the Tories could win outright and do exactly as they wanted?


I can see why Corbyn might not agree.

You are missing my original point.

Had Labour been stronger post 23/6/2016 then May would not have tried the snap election in 2017.

She would have lived with her majority, would not have had the DUP involved and would have had a WA wrapped up months ago.

However because Labour were perceived as being weak under JC she went for the election, made a dog's dinner of it and ended up with a minority.

The Labour left, where JC comes from, are anti EU and thus Labour has had no proper focus this whole time.

Christy42

downcow wrote: »

Jim2007 wrote: »

To be clear there is no WTO requirement for a hard border but there is a requirement to treat all members the same. Meaning if the UK wishes to do anything other than trade with the dozen or so non members, they will either have completely open borders or put a hard border in NI.

Perhaps you should consider posting your crap on the Daily Mail as it is not up to the standards here.

Again only part of the truth. There is clear allowance for special circumstances in wto re sensitive borders. Irish border meets that criteria and therefore can stay open

Does it? Has this been brought to the WTO and has this already been agreed? Countries have to agree on this stuff and it takes time to meet. Are we sure there can be no challenges to it? This should already be done if that is the plan. There is only a few months left. Otherwise every country will be demanding the UK let them trade into the UK tariff free while the border is open.

From what I have read it might also stop free trade between Ireland and Great Britain (the island). So this would mean checks on the Irish sea.

If there is a hard border I guarantee the UK will be enforcing it as well.

Captain Obvious

downcow wrote: »

It is simple. Of course what you refer to as ‘bad immigrants’ can enter NI/UK but the concerns from brexiteers (not a concern of mine) was that they get benifits, free healthcare, free house, etc, etc. No of this will be available to an illegal immigrant from eg France but they will get this all in Dublin so why on earth would the want to come to Belfast?

Are you referring to people from outside the EU or from within the EU? Leaving the EU won't change how they can treat immigrants from outside the EU.

Zubeneschamali

downcow wrote: »

Although if it gives you reassurance UK has also stated that free movement across these two islands before Eu and will continue after Eu membership.

The Common Travel Arrangement is for free movement of people. There were customs controls at the border until 1993, when, you guessed it, we all joined the Single Market.

Zubeneschamali

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Had Labour been stronger post 23/6/2016 then May would not have tried the snap election in 2017.

But you seem to be implying that Labour weakness is somehow because they are not a Remain party under Corbyn, yet immediately admit that campaigning for Remain would have lost them votes. It is contradictory.

kunst nugget

seamus wrote: »

It's bizarre. I flicked onto BBC news on Sunday (might have been BBC 2, 3 or 4) and happened to have a report on Brexit - May in trouble, Ireland saying this, etc.

The last piece was about the high street. Sales are down on the UK high street, again. As it has been for 3 or 4 years in a row. With one notable exception - online sales in the UK are also down.

Economic growth up, Xmas sales down. Odd combination.

What's the cause of this? According to their analyst, British people are paying down their debt from the last financial crisis rather than spending it in shops.

Not even a hint of the B-word, or the state of Sterling. Other media are more than happy to talk about Brexit uncertainty hurting the economy, but not the BBC.

Asos, the online store, had a profit warning yesterday from sales being down not only in Britain but in France and Germany - some people were pointing this out as a lack of consumer confidence in all these countries. Is consumer confidence down right across the EU and if it is, is it all down to Brexit?

Jim2007

downcow wrote: »

Exactly. The Eu is trying to dictate what happens in a country outside the Eu ie NI They should focus on solving their problem within their jurisdiction

The UK is at last having to face up to the lost of empire and learn it’s place in the world:

It’s a medium sized economy big enough to be of interest to all the major trading blocks, but small enough to always be the junior partner. And junior partners do not get to dictate terms, they get told what the terms are and if they are lucky they get a few window dressing items to make it more palatable at home. There only choice is accept or rejected, but they usually can’t afford to walk away, just as we have seen from the UK in the past two years.

That is what will happen with the EU negotiations, it is what is happening in the negotiations of it’s Open Skies replacement agreement with the US and that is what will happen in all other ‘negotiations’ with other trade blocks as well. Hell even little Switzerland has seen fit to approve the text of the trade agreement they will negotiate after BREXIT. When you got zero trade agreements and are being kicked about by the major trading blocks, even the little guys expect to do well out of you.

Perhaps you should go to your safe place, the Daily Mail, so you cannot enjoy the delusion a little longer, but it is running out of road....

josip

Hurrache wrote: »

I can never understand the level of ignorance that would push someone in the direction of madness when the plain facts of the consequences are shown to them.

I'm not sure how to put this, but perhaps the use of terms such as 'ignorance' and 'madness' when referring to another's point of view would do it, even if that wasn't your intention?

I disagree with downcow's analysis of Brexit and I don't share his trust in the UK government to honour their promises.
I think Brexit is a very bad decision for the UK and they should remain.

downcow does engage much more reasonably in the discussion than some of the trolls on here however and I think some of the posts and replies to him would benefit from a reread before posting.

Jim2007

Hurrache wrote: »

I can never understand the level of ignorance that would push someone in the direction of madness when the plain facts of the consequences are shown to them.

Not the case at all, re A24. Now putting you on ignore as I don’t read DM nonsense and expect a better level quality of discussion this late in the game.

lawred2

Christy42 wrote: »

They are trying to protect an agreement a member state (Ireland) entered into.

The UK has not declared they want out of that agreement (nor will they given the unrest it would cause) and until it does the EU will try and protect it.

Two member states entered into

Ireland and the United Kingdom

Bob the Builder

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Eh yeah? He's head of the Irish government. Not his job to look after the interests of British voters.

I stumbled upon the Irish History Podcast for the first time recently and I'm still reeling from it. The crop failure was itself a crisis but the chaos was exasperated by an utter disdain for Irish people and their concrete insistence on implementation of free market protocols - a case of what's good for the goose is good for the gander... Exactly the kind of attitude we're seeing play out here.

intellectual dosser

downcow wrote: »

Oh dear oh dear.
I have already said I was neutral during vote, if anything I leaned towards remain. But I think you are highlighting why people like me are be pushed to an exit position.
UK has stated clearly they will absolutely not be creating any border in ireland and wto can’t insist. The only people who will insist on Irish border is Eu so it will wither be the Irish army or an Eu army that will secure it if they create it. Simple. Unless maybe this is not being reported in ireland?

How do you 'take back our borders' and regain self control of Freedom Of Movement if you dont have a deal, and you dont have a border?

Leroy42

josip wrote: »

I'm not sure how to put this, but perhaps the use of terms such as 'ignorance' and 'madness' when referring to another's point of view would do it, even if that wasn't your intention?

I disagree with downcow's analysis of Brexit and I don't share his trust in the UK government to honour their promises.
I think Brexit is a very bad decision for the UK and they should remain.

downcow does engage much more reasonably in the discussion than some of the trolls on here however and I think some of the posts and replies to him would benefit from a reread before posting.

I think, and of course I am speaking only for myself here, that the exasperation comes form the fact that nearly all of these issues have been debated ad nasuem, and at every turn the Brexiteers ask for evidence and proof and backup yet fail to provide anything even close to a solid basis for their POV.

Brexit is clearly an emotional issue, led by a feeling that things are wrong and need to change. But without having any real idea what is wrong, what is needed to change, or indeed how that change should be affected.

Things like the GFA are now open to debate, how far can we push this without it collapsing. Yet before Brexit nobody in the UK had any issues with the GFA.

In terms of Brexit itself, the leaders all said just how easy it was going to be. Britain taking back control. And yet 2+ years after the vote we now have many in the UK openly calling their PM a traitor. That the EU is bullying them and that Leo is stopping the UK for being free!

Everything about Brexit is, and TM is following this path, based on nothing but blind faith. Trust us, believe me, wait to you see. But there is never anything in terms of anything concrete on which to debate.

What will be the economic impact of Brexit? Ask a Brexiteer and see what answer you will get. I have yet to see anyone, credidibly, but any sort of number on it.

So maybe asking for economic predictions is a bit much, and Brexit is more than the economy. So what benefits are there? FoM, perhaps although there was plenty the UK could have done prior to Brexit but choose not to. Why do people think it will suddenly be different now? But what else?

Regulations? Which ones? Laws? Which ones? Financial, sure there is the saving on the EU membership, but that needs to be netted off against the additional costs. UK has already committed £6.2bn to Brexit (I would wager many more) and then there is the continued additional customs costs, tariffs etc etc.

So when some posters get a bit exasperated one needs to acknowledge that in many cases these discussions have already been had, and like the HoC, the Brexiteers have been unable to actually provide anything in the way of meaningful debate.

So rather than simply repost slogans and talking points, such as the "UK have no intention of a hard border", surely at this stage in the game the answer of how they intend to avoid this is required rather than simply restating it.

Akrasia

TM has rejected Corbyns no confidence motion. They're not going to make time for the vote.

So Labour will almost certainly call for a no confidence vote in the government under the fixed time parliament act some time today which would mean a vote this week and a Potential GE campaign over the Christmas