Brexit Discussion Thread VI

fash

eggman100 wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the name of this thread be,
The Anti - Brexit Discussion Thread?
Created for EU fans who want brexit cancelled?

Personally I'm easy going on it: either an utter social, economic and political collapse and disintegration of the UK (and after 3 years of this who can't think that is a deserved thing) or a humiliating, and politically and diplomatically debilitating climb down. The season finale of the UK is going to be epic...

First Up

briany wrote:

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone in the UK government has any idea what the alternative would be in real workable terms.

The thing is that every alternative was examined in depth during the Brexit negotiations. Regulatory alignment, Norway model, how the EU's other borders work, customs union, technology, Irish Sea checks, UK "red lines", Single Market integrity, "virtual" checks at EU ports, UK bilateral trade deals and on and on. More than two years of it, with everything tested, modelled and cross-checked with WTO, GATT and more - and by people who knew what they were doing. The backstop was the ONLY solution that both the UK and EU could work with, and on the unanimous understanding that it was a last resort until a better outcome was reached.

So for the UK to now say that the solution that THEY proposed as the way forward is no longer acceptable is beyond ridiculous and the EU will have none of it. This is no more than an unseemly squabble within UK politics and it will not be allowed to dictate to the rest of us.

The UK government signed up to it and they will deliver on it or suffer the consequences. May is hearing that in interviews, phone conversations and if she goes to Brussels she will hear it again over tea and biscuits.

She won't hear anything else.

Tell me how

Shelga wrote: »

Turned on to Sky News in the middle of a woman in Sunderland saying she runs her own business and imports a niche, short-shelf-life product from Holland, and if there are delays at the ports for even 48 hours in the case of a no deal Brexit, she will be out of business.

Presenter then says- “But you voted leave?”- her response was “yes, and I have absolutely no regrets about that.”

These people are done for.

I find this utterly fascinating and think it relates very much to the existential crises that Fintan O'Toole talks about which exists within the British psyche.

If I win the euromillions* on Friday night I will spend time studying this.

* Reminder - buy euromillions ticket

unit 1

I was just wondering today about something.

If the uk unilaterally leave the eu (hard brexit) then people seem to be of the opinion that they would be breaking the gfa.
It has been said on here that the gfa is a binding international agreement.

If this is the case then who will arbitrate on this issue, ie breaking an international treaty, and what are the ramifications for the uk in this matter.

Is it pie in the sky that things could deteriorate so badly that economic sanctions could come into play, and if not, then why not. If the uk can tear up the gfa nilly willy then how can they be trusted about anything.

Capt'n Midnight

seamus wrote: »

For all of five minutes until the EU demand the £39bn be discharged before a trade deal can be done.

Or to save face they may allow the UK to pay it back in tariffs on goods and services.

Or it might be a loan, the UK have been borrowing a lot in recent years.

Harry Palmr

The guardian has a feature on some fellow retired engineer who says 'we're all going to be made poorer but it's a good thing, if stopping "THEM" coming into our country'.

downcow

I reckon the Eu will hold firm until after the 14th of feb and the next vote. If WM can hold its nerve in that vote then the Eu will start to shift on backstop.

Tell me how

unit 1 wrote: »

I was just wondering today about something.

If the uk unilaterally leave the eu (hard brexit) then people seem to be of the opinion that they would be breaking the gfa.
It has been said on here that the gfa is a binding international agreement.

If this is the case then who will arbitrate on this issue, ie breaking an international treaty, and what are the ramifications for the uk in this matter.

Is it pie in the sky that things could deteriorate so badly that economic sanctions could come into play, and if not, then why not. If the uk can tear up the gfa nilly willy then how can they be trusted about anything.

I think the point is that it would be seen as extremely detrimental to their credit rating in terms of judging other countries on following rules and agreements at an international level.

I'm not sure it would go to sanctions.

Tell me how

downcow wrote: »

I reckon the Eu will hold firm until after the 14th of feb and the next vote. If WM can hold its nerve in that vote then the Eu will start to shift on backstop.

On what basis have you formed this opinion? What sliver of behaviour or statement have you seen from anyone outside the EU to indicate that this will happen?

An Claidheamh

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They are on a diet of information disseminated by people like this, so pervasive is this stuff that you even get some Irish people swallowing it and spreading it.

https://twitter.com/DVATW/status/1089975727548780547

Richard Hitchens of the Daily Mail, not exactly a liberal, once described that weirdo as a "semi-literate racist".

He appears to have gotten on RT News pretending to know stuff about Brexit, but just moans about the success of Ireland.

He's the typical envious unionist.

He obsessed with Ireland.

Tell me how

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Richard Hitchens of the Daily Mail, not exactly a liberal, once described that weirdo as a "semi-literate racist".

He appears to have gotten on RT News pretending to know stuff about Brexit, but just moans about the success of Ireland.

He's the typical envious unionist.

He obsessed with Ireland.

His latest tweet is of an image of himself and Katie Hopkins.
If ever there were a pair more reflective of each other...

prawnsambo

downcow wrote: »

I reckon the Eu will hold firm until after the 14th of feb and the next vote. If WM can hold its nerve in that vote then the Eu will start to shift on backstop.

Don't worry. If it wasn't the terrible backstop it would be soomething else even more terrible and horrifying. I've come to the conclusion that nobody in the UK wants to make a decision and are just marking time until a decision happens by default.

branie2

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Richard Hitchens of the Daily Mail, not exactly a liberal, once described that weirdo as a "semi-literate racist".

He appears to have gotten on RT News pretending to know stuff about Brexit, but just moans about the success of Ireland.

He's the typical envious unionist.

He obsessed with Ireland.

I think you mean Peter Hitchens

downcow

unit 1 wrote: »

I was just wondering today about something.

If the uk unilaterally leave the eu (hard brexit) then people seem to be of the opinion that they would be breaking the gfa.
It has been said on here that the gfa is a binding international agreement.

If this is the case then who will arbitrate on this issue, ie breaking an international treaty, and what are the ramifications for the uk in this matter.

The gfa stuff is simply an Eu bargaining chip.
If it breaks the gfa to have additional checks on the Irish border then it definitely breaks it if there are additional checks on the Irish Sea. The only place that checks won’t affect the feelings/indenty of northerners is to have them between France and ireland. So if peoople really a fiddlers about gfa then there would be serious discussions about the possibility of having them in France.

FrancieBrady

Tell me how wrote: »

On what basis have you formed this opinion? What sliver of behaviour or statement have you seen from anyone outside the EU to indicate that this will happen?

It gives him the 'if only' out. The EU have to be the ones, nervous and frightened about losing the UK. Unionists have been parroting this line all week.

road_high

Shelga wrote: »

Turned on to Sky News in the middle of a woman in Sunderland saying she runs her own business and imports a niche, short-shelf-life product from Holland, and if there are delays at the ports for even 48 hours in the case of a no deal Brexit, she will be out of business.

Presenter then says- “But you voted leave?”- her response was “yes, and I have absolutely no regrets about that.”

These people are done for.

Yep. The more logic is pointed out the more they dig in. It’s revealing how insular the English are when it comes to the crunch

prawnsambo

downcow wrote: »

The gfa stuff is simply an Eu bargaining chip.
If it breaks the gfa to have additional checks on the Irish border then it definitely breaks it if there are additional checks on the Irish Sea. The only place that checks won’t affect the feelings/indenty of northerners is to have them between France and ireland. So if peoople really a fiddlers about gfa then there would be serious discussions about the possibility of having them in France.

So you haven't even read the GFA then. Because if you had, you wouldn't have posited that frankly weird claim.

Midlife

My basic stance on Brexit is this:

It could have been done well, it might even have made economic sense long term. Noway, Switzerland etc all do fine.

However, the approach by the UK has been a disaster. You have four quarters who won't agree on the same thing so they can't tell anyone what they want.

At this stage, the EU is correct. They negotiated a deal with a UK team. That deal was rejected by the UK. What kind of clowning is that? What are they expected to do but negotiate with the negotiators?

Britian have ****ed this up massivly by not being United. Shame on their politicians. They will have literally killed British people through their ineptitude.


But the thing that makes me furious at the back of it all is the hipocrasy of the rationale by some for Brexit. The same Tories who shut down local businesses, closed local industries and broke up local communities with Tatchernomics and then brought speculators and property developers to buy up the centre of British towns and cities are now blaming Europe and foreigners for Britian not being the way it was and the squeezing of the middle class.

Meanwhile Rees Mogg and his ilk are transferring their assets abroad and shorting British companies. A significant ammount of money will be gained by some if Britian crashes out this year. But anyone below the poverty line is in big trouble.

World class scumbags.

Now you can debate different aspects of Brixit, of backstops and GFA and WA but what's above is all reality.

Britian is ****ed because their elected representatives let them down.

PokeHerKing

downcow wrote:

I reckon the Eu will hold firm until after the 14th of feb and the next vote. If WM can hold its nerve in that vote then the Eu will start to shift on backstop.

That's some strong Kool-Aid you're drinking amigo!

fash

Midlife wrote: »

My basic stance on Brexit is this:

It could have been done well, it might even have made economic sense long term. Noway, Switzerland etc all do fine.

All Brexits made no economic or diplomatic/political sense - EEA membership is not terribly suitable for a UK style service economy (that was the conclusion of most economists) - it does less harm than stepping further away, but doesn't improve things (but then nothing would).

Tell me how

Midlife wrote: »

But the thing that makes me furious at the back of it all is the hipocrasy of the rationale by some for Brexit. The same Tories who shut down local businesses, closed local industries and broke up local communities with Tatchernomics and then brought speculators and property developers to buy up the centre of British towns and cities are now blaming Europe and foreigners for Britian not being the way it was and the squeezing of the middle class.


Britian is ****ed because their elected representatives let them down.

First bolded point - It is incredible. See earlier post of Lord Digby Jones giving out about the elites. Lord. Digby. Jones who is chair of 6 companies giving out about elitists.

Second bolded point - Absolutely agree with this in the sense of their poor performance (both sides of the house). But, as we see on twitter and news bulletins, many Joe Publics have equally baffling positions. "Yes I know I might lose my job but I'm glad we're leaving".

First Up

downcow wrote:

The gfa stuff is simply an Eu bargaining chip. If it breaks the gfa to have additional checks on the Irish border then it definitely breaks it if there are additional checks on the Irish Sea. The only place that checks won’t affect the feelings/indenty of northerners is to have them between France and ireland. So if peoople really a fiddlers about gfa then there would be serious discussions about the possibility of having them in France.

Its an inter-governmental, internationally recognised agreement that includes all Northern Ireland's political parties (bar one) across the sectarian and political divide and is now part of the UK's constitutional law. Calling it a bargaining chip is akin to the defendant in a murder trial, calling the law against homicide a bargaining chip for the court.

It would be a pity if the feelings of some northeners were offended by checks across the Irish Sea but there is a lot more than feelings at stake if the alternative is introducing barriers between Ireland and the rest of Single Market.

downcow

prawnsambo wrote: »

So you haven't even read the GFA then. Because if you had, you wouldn't have posited that frankly weird claim.

Why argue against the obvious just because it doesn’t suit your agenda.
I’ll explain it slowly.
No changes to be made to sovereignty of NI without support of people in a referendum
A permanent backstop ensures NI rules are made by Eu which we will have zero power over and will diverge from UK.
You can look up what sovereignty means in the dictionary and you will find that is a change in sovereignty

I am not too wound up about it as I see anything other than an agreed exit will be contrary to the gfa. But agreement will come I believe. So we don’t need to worry about gfa

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Why argue against the obvious just because it doesn’t suit your agenda.
I’ll explain it slowly.
No changes to be made to sovereignty of NI without support of people in a referendum
A permanent backstop ensures NI rules are made by Eu which we will have zero power over and will diverge from UK.
You can look up what sovereignty means in the dictionary and you will find that is a change in sovereignty

I am not too wound up about it as I see anything other than an agreed exit will be contrary to the gfa. But agreement will come I believe. So we don’t need to worry about gfa

The backstop does not affect the constitutional position of northern Ireland. That is not me saying that, that is YOUR OWN attorney general.

downcow

First Up wrote: »

Its an inter-governmental, internationally recognised agreement that includes all Northern Ireland's political parties (bar one) across the sectarian and political divide and is now part of the UK's constitutional law. Calling it a bargaining chip is akin to the defendant in a murder trial, calling the law against homicide a bargaining chip for the court.

It would be a pity if the feelings of some northeners were offended by checks across the Irish Sea but there is a lot more than feelings at stake if the alternative is introducing barriers between Ireland and the rest of Single Market.

I want to understand your position. So just tell me in what way you believe checks are any more offensive or difficult at Newry than larne. It’s a serious question I would love to have answer for.

Anthracite

downcow wrote: »

The gfa stuff is simply an Eu bargaining chip.
If it breaks the gfa to have additional checks on the Irish border then it definitely breaks it if there are additional checks on the Irish Sea.

That only makes sense if there are *already* no checks crossing the Irish sea. Does nobody check your boat or plane ticket when you cross? It makes more sense to check stuff on boats if you have to stop anyway. Nobody is making unbroken trips across the Irish sea in their own cars.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The backstop does not affect the constitutional position of northern Ireland. That is not me saying that, that is YOUR OWN attorney general.

So how does a few checks at Newry affect the constitutional position on NI.

Donald Trump

downcow wrote: »

Why argue against the obvious just because it doesn’t suit your agenda.
I’ll explain it slowly.
No changes to be made to sovereignty of NI without support of people in a referendum
A permanent backstop ensures NI rules are made by Eu which we will have zero power over and will diverge from UK.
You can look up what sovereignty means in the dictionary and you will find that is a change in sovereignty

I am not too wound up about it as I see anything other than an agreed exit will be contrary to the gfa. But agreement will come I believe. So we don’t need to worry about gfa

Speaking of sovereignty of NI, how's that oul' NI Assembly going? You know, that part of sovereignty where you make your own laws in your own parliament, not accept ones made in a parliament in another country (even though you might have representation there).

Tell me how

downcow wrote: »

I want to understand your position. So just tell me in what way you believe checks are any more offensive or difficult at Newry than larne. It’s a serious question I would love to have answer for.

Because at Newry the checking facilities would symbolise to some an unacceptable division of the island of Ireland represented and enforced with a physical structure.

downcow

Anthracite wrote: »

That only makes sense if there are *already* no checks crossing the Irish sea. Does nobody check your boat or plane ticket when you cross? It makes more sense to check stuff on boats if you have to stop anyway. Nobody is making unbroken trips across the Irish sea in their own cars.

That is just nonsense to suit your agenda. Are you saying you would be happy with checks on the carlingford ferry?