Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Folkstonian

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Erm the EU and UK did sit down together and came up with a viable solution that was acceptable to May, Rabb and many others.

I don’t think that is quite right.

Raab quit as Brexit sec because he felt he was being sidelined by Theresa May and Olly Robbins And was completely unhappy with the withdrawal agreement, no?

Davis resigned probably because he just couldn’t be bothered

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

This may be a very nieve question but what are these red lines of Mays?

As suspected. You don't know what you are talking about. Similar to the DUP when this began, you have taken up a position solely because it is counter to the Irish position. And you did absolutely no thinking beyond that.
You can see, I hope, were that has gotten you, into a massively blocked cul de sac.

Donald Trump

downcow wrote: »

So what is it about? Is it about travel being hampered? Because that is certainly not the line that is being spun. The line is about peace/gfa/etc.
If it is honestly about the flow of goods then why don’t Eu UK and roi sit down and talk about that?

You have to be taking the piss at this stage to be honest. Nobody could be that unable to put simple facts together.



How many people do you think commute to work across the NI border every day? Across those hundreds of crossing points. How many go across to shop or how many tankers of milk drive across?


You will need to put up hundreds of physical checking points where they aren't wanted. Where they will inconvenience hundreds and thousands of people. It will create physical targets for people. It will create opportunities for smugglers and criminals.





The NI Unionist devotion to the UK is like a battered wife trying to convince herself that her husband does it to her because he really loves her. It's sad to observe from the outside.

Tell me how

downcow wrote: »

This may be a very nieve question but what are these red lines of Mays?

Are you for real?

From what I can see, 208 of your 224 posts have been on the Brexit thread and you have done so without knowing what Theresa May's Red Lines are?

You are the online personification of the pontificating Brexiteer who does not understand what it is they are talking about.

First Up

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.

Well if you want to close all the other roads across the border then checks at Newry might work, although people in Derry, Fermanagh and Donegal might be grumpy about that. I think it would be easier to have two processing points at Larne and Belfast than on a few hundred roads and laneways.

There is also the rather obvious matter of the attraction of border infrastructure as a target for the neanderthals who unfortunately have not all gone away.

But if you think the feelings of some sensitive souls of a unionist persuasion are more important than the risk of the re-emergence of violence, a revitalised smuggling industry or Ireland's restricted participation in the Single Market, then we will have to agree on differing priorities.

prawnsambo

Folkstonian wrote: »

I don’t think that is quite right.

Raab quit as Brexit sec because he felt he was being sidelined by Theresa May and Olly Robbins And was completely unhappy with the withdrawal agreement, no?

Davis resigned probably because he just couldn’t be bothered

Well Raab's problem was Davis essentially. If Davis had actually done his job and not left it to the civil servants, then Raab's inability wouldn't have shown up so much in contrast.

eagle eye

Nody wrote:

How many times do we need to point out that it is ILLEGAL under WTO terms to not have any border controls for a third party country (that would be UK or Ireland respectively) to not have controls that apply to other countries? Let me repeat this for the 1000th time; WTO Most Favorable Nation REQUIRES all WTO countries to be treated the same when it comes to controls at the border for import & export.

No controls at NI/Ireland border? No controls allowed for ANY other border either. Can you now understand this basic fundamental fact of trade in the world or do we need to repeat this circus again as you ignore the facts being pointed out to you that you don't want to deal with?

So what your saying is that if we don't want the troubles back that we have to leave the EU then?

fly_agaric

eagle eye wrote: »

The Backstop was a major advantage for the EU in negotiating because it meant they had the UK under the thumb.

I don't see anybody saying that but it's the truth.

In your opinion...
To me whole situation with Ireland & NI is a big obstacle to a more "orderly" Brexit which would be far better for other members of the EU who are not sharing a land border with the UK (are in some cases on the far side of the continent & much more worried about borders with Ukraine or Russia!). The UK is going to lose a lot by leaving anyway (once EU has held firm and not allowed them to keep club privileges for nothing post Brexit) and it will be out in the cold after any transition period is over.
There is no need to use our specific issues to create more problems for the UK.
I struggle to see ulterior motives + surface one explains the actions of the EU (i.e. negotiating to avoid a new border with customs controls etc. on the island because govt. of 1 member state [us] considers it a "red line" in the withdrawal negotiations).

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't care about all this stuff anyways. My only concern is the Republic of Ireland first and foremost and the Island of Ireland. Neither side seem to give a hoot about us. As I said earlier the EU have a responsibility to protect us as citizens and need to get a deal done whatever it takes.
.... The EU need to get something sorted for us. I want to hear promises from them about our safety. I want to hear promises that we are not heading for another period of austerity measures.

Unfortunately the EU is not "mammy" that can ride in and save us from this situation. Also (as above) I'm not seeing evidence the rest of the EU don't give a "hoot" about us. We are a fellow member with rights + responsibilities - they generally have to care about our issues to some extent, just as we cannot solely consider "the Republic of Ireland first and foremost" + tell the rest to hang...

I don't know what promises you might be expecting?
Such promises would be lies (although I suppose comforting nonsense is what alot of people in Ireland expect from politicians - look at troubles Leo has gotten in over his political career by being too blunt + calling it as he sees it). They can help somewhat, but if UK insist on this kamikaze run we are going to be hurt, possibly quite badly. There is nothing that can be done about that.

An Ciarraioch

JP Campbell pertinently points out what's missing from Buzzfeed's CU story:

http://twitter.com/JP_Biz/status/1090678235329896448

seamus

briany wrote: »

And it would be karma for the UK to lose Scotland and NI. Neither of those regions voted for it. What a show of arrogance to disregard those countries' views. It's hilarious how Brexiteers call the EU 'undemocratic' when the EU at least gives member countries a veto on big decisions, regardless of the country's size, whereas the UK just tells member countries (besides England) to f off.

It's never really been a British Empire. It was an English empire. By England, for England. There was never any attempt to do things for the good of the empire, only for the good of the English crown. The Americans knew it a long time ago.

And it was also never really a "United" Kingdom. It was always England's Kingdom. Ireland knew this from the start, repeatedly pillaged for the good of England. Scotland has come to realise this and NI will too, in time.

Realistically one could say that the empire started to crumble in the 1700s and fully collapsed in the 1900s. Right now we're just down to the last vestiges of a once major empire, and we're watching them fall away too.

downcow wrote: »

This could all be sorted with no borders with a bit of good will.

This is not a feud between two local GAA clubs.

Countries can't just informally have "good will" between and say, "sure, be grand, you don't check my good, I won't check yours, no worries". There has to be formal, legal trade agreements if you want borders to go away.

The UK is refusing to sign up to the trade agreement that they agreed to originally, and drafted as an equal partner. They negotiated everything in bad faith and without any good will.

MrMusician18

Lemming wrote: »

I don't think anyone has linked this yet; from yesterday (only spotted it today) on the BBC website: US firms seek changes to UK standards on beef and drugs. Whislt the whole article smacks of "and so it begins", these bits in particular (bold emphasis is mine) stood out for me as a case of 'with friends like these ... '

On farming:


Glyphosate .... also commonly known as 'Roundup' weed killer; do a google on it as I don't want to drag this discussion off-topic. Keywords: Monsanto, knowingly, cancer, US court ruling.


On tech:


The question of data storage is very important when it comes to cloud-storage, along with your rights to control your data, which jurisdiction it is governed by and your data privacy rights.
And less cash for UK customs at the benefit of US businesses; I sincerely doubt the US will reciprocate on that. On the face of it that looks like a benefit for the small people ordering stuff from the US, but not really as there'll be an inevitable squeeze on government funding somewhere, which usually translates to higher taxes and reduced services.


On health:


Effectively wanting to export the worst excesses of the US healthcare industry.

Glyphosate is still used in the EU, it was relicensed for another 5 years last year.

I think it's banned in France though

charlie14

downcow wrote: »

Do you not understand that my community feel NI is completely part on UK and when we pass through Dundalk heading north we are heading back home. I guess it’s how you feel when you arrive back in Dublin from England.
So increasing divergence from Uk will make me feel exactly how you would feel with checks at the border.
Do you get this or is it over your head? I am really interested.

I could not read that without recalling James Craig`s reply to a HoC accusation in 1934 that all NI government appointments were carried out on a religious basis.

"That is my whole object in carrying on a Protestant government for a Protestant people".
Sounds as if you have a hankering for a return of those days even knowing what it caused in the intervening years.



Your "community" may feel the way you state, but with 56% of the NI electorate having voted to remain, I really do not know who this "community" is composed off.

Nody

eagle eye wrote: »

So what your saying is that if we don't want the troubles back that we have to leave the EU then?

Well beyond your basic logic in assuming hard border = troubles day 1 there's the minor thing called the back stop. You might have heard of it; it's sort of made the rounds in the news for a while now.

So here's how things are likely to play out.

1) 30th March UK crashes out
2) 1st April Ireland implements mobile controls on the major roads checking commercial vehicles causing a disruption to trade.
3) UK main ports get truck queues backed all the way to London with in a week as most of UK grinds to an halt for various reasons
4) UK runs back to EU to sign the WA agreement removing the need for the controls as NI remains in the CU until a suitable solution is found (along with rest of UK for an unspecified period which may be shorter than NI) removing the mobile checks

Now will the troubles return for that time duration? No; simply because it will not last long enough to build up the aggravation over it. However as this is speculation of the future it's not guaranteed to happen as planned or expected. Hence if you want a 100% iron clad guarantee of no troubles then the answer is no, there is none short of all of Ireland becoming a vassal of UK because even leaving the EU would not be enough. Do you think that's an acceptable solution to avoid the troubles? Disband the Irish state etc. and become an province of the UK state?

Nate--IRL--

downcow wrote: »

This may be a very nieve question but what are these red lines of Mays?

Wow! I can't believe this is a real question. No way you've been posting in this thread for so long, not understanding the UK position.

Nate

Professor Moriarty

Simon Coveney going up in my estimation all the time. Here he is today, commenting on May's current position.:

“An extraordinary situation when a prime minister and a government negotiates a deal and then goes back and during the ratification process votes against their own deal. That’s like saying in a negotiation, ‘Well either you give me what I want or I’m jumping out of the window’,”

Hurrache

Seems Ollie Robbins flagged the bat**** plan of May's as being bat****.
And people are losing their **** because he did so.
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1090716891184840709?s=19

MrMusician18

seamus wrote: »

It's never really been a British Empire. It was an English empire. By England, for England. There was never any attempt to do things for the good of the empire, only for the good of the English crown. The Americans knew it a long time ago.

And it was also never really a "United" Kingdom. It was always England's Kingdom. Ireland knew this from the start, repeatedly pillaged for the good of England. Scotland has come to realise this and NI will too, in time.

Realistically one could say that the empire started to crumble in the 1700s and fully collapsed in the 1900s. Right now we're just down to the last vestiges of a once major empire, and we're watching them fall away too.
This is not a feud between two local GAA clubs.

Countries can't just informally have "good will" between and say, "sure, be grand, you don't check my good, I won't check yours, no worries". There has to be formal, legal trade agreements if you want borders to go away.

The UK is refusing to sign up to the trade agreement that they agreed to originally, and drafted as an equal partner. They negotiated everything in bad faith and without any good will.

That's a rather unique take on British imperial history.

Scotland was an enthusiastic participant in the empire after it's own colonial project bankrupted the kingdom.

To say the British empire started to crumble in the 1700s wouldn't be a widely held opinion (I know you'll point to the American colonies), most would say the seams of empire only started to really fray in the late C19.

downcow

Anthracite wrote: »

You're debating Brexit with a pretty well-informed group of people, shouting the odds and accusing anyone who disagrees with you of having an agenda, and you don't know this first and most fundamental thing that created the whole situation?

Seriously?

This is why I am asking the question on here. But it is interesting that none of the well informed posters have answered my simple question. Instead people are going off on rants at me.

First Up

downcow wrote:

This is why I am asking the question on here. But it is interesting that none of the well informed posters have answered my simple question. Instead people are going off on rants at me.

I think its more a case of you not understanding the answers.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

This is why I am asking the question on here. But it is interesting that none of the well informed posters have answered my simple question. Instead people are going off on rants at me.

It has been answered. See diagram.

Hurrache

downcow wrote: »

This is why I am asking the question on here. But it is interesting that none of the well informed posters have answered my simple question. Instead people are going off on rants at me.

So simple you had to ask.

You were answered a few times, one even had a great big diagram.

All it does is highlight you're wasting our time as it shows that everything you post is based on personal assumptions and little fact.

downcow

First Up wrote: »

I think its more a case of you not understanding the answers.

Try me. Please keep it really simple for this thick northerner. Simple bullet points would be best and no big words.
Really interesting- more rants at me but no answer yet to this question that you all know the answer to. Who will be first to educate me?

j8wk2feszrnpao

downcow wrote: »

This is why I am asking the question on here. But it is interesting that none of the well informed posters have answered my simple question. Instead people are going off on rants at me.

Your own failure to know a basic element of the debate is your own issue.

j8wk2feszrnpao

downcow wrote: »

Who will be first to educate me?

Maybe try educating yourself.

Folkstonian

seamus wrote: »

It's never really been a British Empire. It was an English empire. By England, for England. There was never any attempt to do things for the good of the empire, only for the good of the English crown. The Americans knew it a long time ago.

And it was also never really a "United" Kingdom. It was always England's Kingdom. Ireland knew this from the start, repeatedly pillaged for the good of England. Scotland has come to realise this and NI will too, in time.

Realistically one could say that the empire started to crumble in the 1700s and fully collapsed in the 1900s. Right now we're just down to the last vestiges of a once major empire, and we're watching them fall away too.
This is not a feud between two local GAA clubs.

Countries can't just informally have "good will" between and say, "sure, be grand, you don't check my good, I won't check yours, no worries". There has to be formal, legal trade agreements if you want borders to go away.

The UK is refusing to sign up to the trade agreement that they agreed to originally, and drafted as an equal partner. They negotiated everything in bad faith and without any good will.

One could also argue that Scotland entered a union with England of its own accord, which has been overwhelmingly successful. One could also argue that Scotland played an incredibly influential role in the expansion and maintenance of empire. Further, one could argue that the heyday of empire was not the 1700s, but the decades between the world wars when it was at its largest territorially and economically. One can argue all these things if they study history and don’t fabricate a counternarrative.

I’m becoming sick of this whole process. Sick of the EU pretending it has offered Britain a fair deal at any stage. You can’t put three lumps of **** in front of someone and condemn them for not choosing any of them.

EEA - garbage, absolutely no say over the rules Britain would have to adhere to.
Back down and remain - garbage, really scares me because it will cause so many people to disengage from politics for many, many years. I don’t foresee violence, just people justifiably asking what the point of participation in democracy is.
Sick of the EU acting like it has to shoulder literally none of the responsibility for the vote to leave.
May’s deal - garbage. basically letting Europe annex part of the UK. Obviously, obviously, this was going to cause loads of sodding grief.

What a horrible time to live in. I feel so sorry for people on an individual level who are affected by this maelstrom of distrust and antsgonism. It was one of the key reasons why I was a remainer initially. But now, I have just had enough with it all.

I don’t want anyone here to think I have any bad feeling towards Ireland or it’s people. I love this place and have had such a blast living and working here. I don’t excuse or try to justify the idiocy and ineptitude of May and her negotiating team.

SNIP. No more insults please.

I really understand this will go down like a lead balloon here, but it’s not a post like many other ‘leavers’ (I guess that’s what I am now) intended to take the conversation down into the gutter.

UsedToWait

Tell me how wrote: »

Are you for real?

From what I can see, 208 of your 224 posts have been on the Brexit thread and you have done so without knowing what Theresa May's Red Lines are?

You are the online personification of the pontificating Brexiteer who does not understand what it is they are talking about.

I've said it on several occasions.
I don't think this poster is engaging in good faith.
They manage to (just) stay on the right side of blatant trollery, yet manage to detail the thread for pages and pages with variations on the same faux naif theme.

(I'll take the infraction, mod -. frustration boiling over with brexiteers at this stage).

Pa8301

downcow wrote: »

This is why I am asking the question on here. But it is interesting that none of the well informed posters have answered my simple question. Instead people are going off on rants at me.

Are you seriously saying that you have been posting about Brexit all this time here without having heard of the "red lines" that Teresa May drew? This absolutely undermines your credibility to the point that I actually can't believe that you are a genuine poster.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Try me. Please keep it really simple for this thick northerner. Simple bullet points would be best and no big words.
Really interesting- more rants at me but no answer yet to this question that you all know the answer to. Who will be first to educate me?

Stop being dis-ingenuous and trying to destroy a decent thread

You were answered ages ago.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109288434&postcount=9069

An Ciarraioch

downcow wrote: »

Try me. Please keep it really simple for this thick northerner. Simple bullet points would be best and no big words.
Really interesting- more rants at me but no answer yet to this question that you all know the answer to. Who will be first to educate me?

As other mentioned, you already were given a picture of the Barnier Slide:

Norway = Single Market, no Customs Union
Turkey = Customs Union, no Single Market
Switzerland = Bespoke bilateral midway between the above
Canada = Basic FTA.

Professor Moriarty

Folkstonian wrote: »

One could also argue that Scotland entered a union with England of its own accord, which has been overwhelmingly successful. One could also argue that Scotland played an incredibly influential role in the expansion and maintenance of empire. Further, one could argue that the heyday of empire was not the 1700s, but the decades between the world wars when it was at its largest territorially and economically. One can argue all these things if they study history and don’t fabricate a counternarrative.

I’m becoming sick of this whole process. Sick of the EU pretending it has offered Britain a fair deal at any stage. You can’t put three lumps of **** in front of someone and condemn them for not choosing any of them.

EEA - garbage, absolutely no say over the rules Britain would have to adhere to.
Back down and remain - garbage, really scares me because it will cause so many people to disengage from politics for many, many years. I don’t foresee violence, just people justifiably asking what the point of participation in democracy is.
Sick of the EU acting like it has to shoulder literally none of the responsibility for the vote to leave.
May’s deal - garbage. basically letting Europe annex part of the UK. Obviously, obviously, this was going to cause loads of sodding grief.

What a horrible time to live in. I feel so sorry for people on an individual level who are affected by this maelstrom of distrust and antsgonism. It was one of the key reasons why I was a remainer initially. But now, I have just had enough with it all.

I don’t want anyone here to think I have any bad feeling towards Ireland or it’s people. I love this place and have had such a blast living and working here. I don’t excuse or try to justify the idiocy and ineptitude of May and her negotiating team.

But my god, the likes of Juncker and Verhofstadt have shown themselves up to be insufferable twats. Europe can see fit to compromise when they want to. Look at the Swiss deal, look at Norway. Huge compromises. For Britain, because they have got the arse at the shock decision to leave, it’s just the take it or leave it off the shelf aforementioned lumps of ****.

I really understand this will go down like a lead balloon here, but it’s not a post like many other ‘leavers’ (I guess that’s what I am now) intended to take the conversation down into the gutter.

What exactly would you like the EU to offer Britain today?