Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I suspect downcow will disappear for a little while without addressing any points made in either of our posts and then come back making the same points in a short time as if this never happened....

wrong again!

Cool, I await a reply to my post, thanks.

Panrich

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

May had no mandate to agree anything. Her mandate comes from the House of Commons.
Her agreeing to the backstop holds about as much value as you or I agreeing to it.
The issue was always getting it through the Commons, which she was never going to be able to. She had her a*s handed to her when she tried.

Mays Lancaster house speech set the wheels in motion for where we find ourselves today. The unnecessary red lines were set out and these have resulted in all sorts of logical gymnastics since. There was no need to rule out CU/SM ECJ oversight before negotiations even began. She painted herself into a corner from which she now can't escape.

She never tried to get the consensus HOC view that would have allowed a deal to emerge with the probability of closer alignment that would have negated the need for the backstop.

A Dub in Glasgo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Jacob Rees Mogg, Boris Johnson, Farage and all the others driving this and I despise them by the way, couldn't care less about a hard border in Ireland. If fact Mogg has said as much, that he doesn't care if the UK crashes out without an agreement and with a hard border in Ireland. They don't care. So its not them who will suffer. Its the people of northern and southern Ireland, and particularly those in border counties. They will suffer. Mogg doesn't give a sh*t nor did he give a sh*t about the 3500 Swindon Honda workers. All they care about is the so called "Home Counties". Its like he and others are on a mission to impoverish everyone in the UK except a small elite.

Pick one of the options in this post. Let us know if there are other options

seamus

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

May had no mandate to agree anything.

I don't even know how to respond to this tbh. The Prime Minister, the leader of Parliament had no mandate to agree anything. So why was she negotiating in the first place if she had no mandate to agree to anything?

Tell me how

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Jacob Rees Mogg, Boris Johnson, Farage and all the others driving this and I despise them by the way, couldn't care less about a hard border in Ireland. If fact Mogg has said as much, that he doesn't care if the UK crashes out without an agreement and with a hard border in Ireland. They don't care. So its not them who will suffer. Its the people of northern and southern Ireland, and particularly those in border counties. They will suffer. Mogg doesn't give a sh*t nor did he give a sh*t about the 3500 Swindon Honda workers. All they care about is the so called "Home Counties". Its like he and others are on a mission to impoverish everyone in the UK except a small elite.

But what is so surprising is that so many who stand to be affected say the same things as JRM without realising just what exactly is meant by consequences.

I wonder what is their motivation.

They do see the UK as the British Empire?
They only pay attention to headlines such as in Daily Mail/Express?
Their lives are not so great anyway and they believe that the EU is the fault of this?

52% voted to leave.
Personally, I suspect maybe 2-5% did so purely on the basis of things like £350M/week for the NHS and target ads and so on (still enough to swing the vote)
Maybe 10% feel secure enough in their livelihoods that they do not feel they need the cohesiveness of the Eu and the single market etc.
I suspect 10-20% do believe the tabloid headlines and certain figures such as Farage somewhat linked to their memory or that of their relatives/ancestors of the war.
But that still leaves a significant number who felt deeply disenfranchised with their society as it was in 2016 for a number of reasons.
The last 2.5 years have shown that the government truly have no idea of the source of angst amongst people and how to fix it.
To watch Tory/Labour Ministers feed out waffle such as we want to improve the lives of the common people is just Comical Ali stuff at this stage for the most part.
There are maybe 20 MP's who seem to have their own morals aligned with those of their constituents and are genuinely trying to look at the bigger picture.

mrbrianj

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

And the Tories blame the Irish.

And that has advanced the situation 0%. Neither side are willing to move. Both sides have to move or else hard border is an inevitability.

I still can't believe there are some people who would welcome a hard border on this island.

Your right, the blame game is a pointless exercise - blame will only hamper the future trading agreements from both side (although, regardless of Tusk's place in hell comments, I do think the EU have been fairly measured in their approach but not so the UK).

The problem is not "the border" that's just the consequence UK not liking the "back stop" anymore. The WA - and future trade relationship is to allow the UK trade with the EU and prevent disruption to our existing close relationships - the backstop allows this to happen by protecting the EU's SM & CU. To think its just the border is a very local view.

If the UK get the WA without the backstop - for the sake of discussion - I think this will have a really negative effect our commerce in Ireland. We run the risk of our markets being flooded with cheap & poor quality food and raw materials and we will face a border between us and the rest of the EU. That leave only the backstop OR a hard border, any other option is unthinkable for us here.

Not reflection on Britain or "brit bashing" - thats their right to do whatever they want, as its our right to protect our interests

Hurrache

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

And the Tories blame the Irish.

And that has advanced the situation 0%. Neither side are willing to move. Both sides have to move or else hard border is an inevitability.

I still can't believe there are some people who would welcome a hard border on this island.

You were just told there have been compromises from the EU.

lawred2

downcow wrote: »

Then he went on a rant on the negotiations being pointed towards suiting domestic Irish politics....and wasn't asked to elaborate on that - which would have been a good laugh. Then expressed the never fading opinion hat the French and Germans will tell Ireland to shut up and move aside (that was supposed to have happened long before now) - then repeated that also.

I agree with him. EU would approach this very differently but for the Irish problem.
I believe the EU will soon lean on ROI - and you can look back to where i have said it would not happen until after the vote on the 14th which has been poistponed so the leaning will also be postponed - but it is coming - i think

My downcow, you're actually right on this one. If Ireland didn't exist or indeed if Ireland was whole and not partitioned, then the EU approach would have been entirely different.

A very good point.

Akrasia

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

May had no mandate to agree anything. Her mandate comes from the House of Commons.
Her agreeing to the backstop holds about as much value as you or I agreeing to it.
The issue was always getting it through the Commons, which she was never going to be able to. She had her a*s handed to her when she tried.

This post is insane.

You're saying the Prime minister of the UK has no mandate to negotiate a deal with the EU on behalf of her government?

What does that even mean?

If the Prime minister can not command a majority of her own parliament, then she should resign. The UK parliament needs to either form a cross party coalition with a clear negotiating position that has a chance of succeeding in Europe, or there should be a General election, or they should revoke Article 50 and walk away from Brexit.

As they have said so may times, in any negotiation, you have to retain the option to walk away. In the Brexit scenario, everyone in the UK media and political circles thinks this means crashing out with no deal, when in a sensible analysis, it should be cancelling the whole brexit fiasco.

A Dub in Glasgo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

May had no mandate to agree anything. Her mandate comes from the House of Commons.
Her agreeing to the backstop holds about as much value as you or I agreeing to it.
The issue was always getting it through the Commons, which she was never going to be able to. She had her a*s handed to her when she tried.

The defeat to May was not soley about the backstop, there are plenty who voted against who wanted another referendum / revocation of article 50 / extension of time

The amendment you ignore really shows where the backstop sits in the grand scheme of things

15th January 2019

'The only amendment to Theresa May’s Brexit deal to be voted on in the Commons has been heavily defeated, after three other amendments selected for votes were unexpectedly pulled at the last minute by the MPs and parties who tabled them.

The amendment from the veteran Conservative backbencher John Baron, which sought to address MPs’ concerns on the Irish border backstop, was brushed aside by 600 votes to 24.

Baron’s amendment stated that if May’s deal was passed, the UK would have the unilateral right to terminate the backstop without the say-so of the EU. This would have gone against the withdrawal agreement with the EU, and so was not supported by the government.'

downcow

lawred2 wrote: »

My downcow, you're actually right on this one. If Ireland didn't exist or indeed if Ireland was whole and not partitioned, then the EU approach would have been entirely different.

A very good point.

Thank you - we have arrived

Laois_Man

downcow wrote: »

I understand WA insists on a open border on Ireland and insists any checks take place on Irish sea. And insist a tie-in with alignments between NI and EU. So you are fooling yourself if you don';t think WA threatens to place NI in different position from UK

No it doesn't! The Backstop is UK wide (at the UK's own suggestion). Please review the information before you address it.

downcow wrote: »

I agree with him. EU would approach this very differently but for the Irish problem.
I believe the EU will soon lean on ROI - and you can look back to where i have said it would not happen until after the vote on the 14th which has been poistponed so the leaning will also be postponed - but it is coming - i think

I'm pretty sure you also believed it would happen last year! As already stated by someone, it displays a total ignorance from IP Jnr (and now you) as to how the EU works.

downcow wrote: »

The £ib has nothing to do with this - but yes we are benefiting from it but UK would be mad to hand it all over now with no guarantee on ongoing dup support - that would be as ridiculous as an indefinite backstop
as you point out at the time of interview only 7 labour had jumped ship so i don't know what your point is

I didn't bring up the £1 Billion. The RT interviewer did. How much of it has been paid.....almost 2 years into the agreement? And I will re-state my other point, at the time of this interview, rumors were already abound that 3 Tory's were going to jump ship at 11am the next morning, which they did....making IP Jnr look a fool!

downcow wrote: »

I don't know how the car thing is being reported near you, but it is widely reported by leavers and remainefrs that it was the decision of EU to allow no tarrifs on car imports from Japan has made it a no brainer for them to move their production out of EU - I think you can accept that if it was related to brexit and it refers to an action far in the future that they would wait until after 29 mar to make the decision

You are focusing on the Swindon job cuts only. There's plenty more on the way and none of it has to do with the Turkey point attempted by IP Jnr. You conveniently ignore your own argument....IP Jrs point was that the Japanese see the EU as a bad place to do business - that, as you yourself have pointed out, is not the reason for the Honda pull out!

downcow wrote: »

Yes - do you remember that other project fear

As a Software Engineer, I know the reason the Millennium Bug wasn't a huge problem was because organizations spent fortunes converting old, mainly Cobol and RPG code to newer languages. A number of problems did occur but they were (mostly) minor...and that was because it was prepared for over the previous 5-6 years. Unlike what the UK are doing in preparation from a hard Brexit! So if anything, IP Jnr has shot his own point in the foot

downcow wrote: »

Iam not relistening to it but are you sure he said 'always'. i believe we have been good neighbours and improving all the time over last few years up until 2 years ago

I'm unsure and I am not re-listening to it either. This good neighbor thing always has a huge hole in it when anything tests it. It just happens that between 1998 and 2017, nothing did test it!

downcow wrote: »

He treated that threat with the contempt required

Yes the old relied upon Brexiteer tactic. Deal with a problem by ignoring it!

L1011

downcow wrote: »

Yes - do you remember that other project fear

The one that was entirely real and averted only by spending years and years to prepare for it at a cost of hundreds of millions? Yes.

That very little went wrong wasn't because of a "project fear", it was because skilled people worked incredibly hard to ensure nothing went wrong.

Which isn't happening from the UK side here.

ToBeFrank123

Leroy42 wrote: »

Absolute rubbish.

Have you read anything about the backstop, about the EU position, about how the backstop came to be?

So what should Leo have done? Allowed for the UK to leave it whenever they wanted, so hard border.

Allowed a time limit, sort of like a two years A50 negotiation period? We end up with a hard border.

The UK have the choice, only the UK. If a hard border goes up then it is because the UK have decided that there commitment to no border is not as strong as something else. And that would be true no matter what the EU or Leo did.

I appear to have read more than you about it. You seem to have missed the key fact the House of Commons are opposed to the backstop as it stands. Not my opinion, a fact. You can rant all you like but it doesn't change that fact. Finger pointing also won't change it.

We have two sides dug in and slinging insults at each other. That is not how you negotiate, never was and never will be.

A Dub in Glasgo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I appear to have read more than you about it. You seem to have missed the key fact the House of Commons are opposed to the backstop as it stands. Not my opinion, a fact. You can rant all you like but it doesn't change that fact. Finger pointing also won't change it.

We have two sides dug in and slinging insults at each other. That is not how you negotiate, never was and never will be.

EU/UK negoatiations have been concluded

The House of Commons is where the two sides are dug in and slinging insults at each other

Suggest you look more closely at the defeated amendments

murphaph

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

And the Tories blame the Irish.

And that has advanced the situation 0%. Neither side are willing to move. Both sides have to move or else hard border is an inevitability.

I still can't believe there are some people who would welcome a hard border on this island.

The EU has already moved!!! They could have said the NI can have no special status as many (including me) fully expected at the beginning. Granting special status to a region of almost 2 million people is unprecedented in the EU.

ToBeFrank123

L1011 wrote: »

The one that was entirely real and averted only by spending years and years to prepare for it at a cost of hundreds of millions? Yes.

That very little went wrong wasn't because of a "project fear", it was because skilled people worked incredibly hard to ensure nothing went wrong.

Which isn't happening from the UK side here.

Again unfortunately the negotiators had no mandate. I will concede the UK messed up the timelines of negotiations. They should have had exploritory votes in the Commons first to see what would get through, then do the negotiations. They got it the wrong way around. But at this stage its unlikely a majority will vote for the current backstop. And without legally binding concessions about time limitations its going to be a hard border for the foreseeable future.
We need maturity on ALL sides not immature finger pointing and stuff like "yeh but you promised".

ToBeFrank123

murphaph wrote: »

The EU has already moved!!! They could have said the NI can have no special status as many (including me) fully expected at the beginning. Granting special status to a region of almost 2 million people is unprecedented in the EU.

And the DUP opposed it.
Next...

MrMusician18

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The withdrawal agreement is 99% there.

The sticking point appears to be legal guarantees the backstop is not permanent.

Guess what folks, hard border, punitive tariffs, queues at the border, rise in bread prices, loss of thousands of jobs, all that are on the way if no agreement can be completed.

So either we reach a deal or both sides shoot themselves in the foot. Some fools would prefer the latter because they don't want to give in to the "evil" brits.

Btw, anyone who thinks I'm taking the British side on here is basically an idiot unworthy of my time. As I said I'd hate to see us shooting ourselves in the foot but that's exactly where we are heading, cheerleaded all the way by some buffoons.

The withdrawal agreement is 100% there. Finished. Complete. Signed off by both negotiating teams.

I don't think the Irish government fear no deal too much as they see the problems this will cause for the UK will force them back to the table quite quickly.

A Dub in Glasgo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Again unfortunately the negotiators had no mandate. I will concede the UK messed up the timelines of negotiations. They should have had exploritory votes in the Commons first to see what would get through, then do the negotiations. They got it the wrong way around. But at this stage its unlikely a majority will vote for the current backstop. And without legally binding concessions about time limitations its going to be a hard border for the foreseeable future.
We need maturity on ALL sides not immature finger pointing and stuff like "yeh but you promised".

If the UK negotiaters had no mandate, what hope was there to conclude this in the 2 year window?

Oh, you have so far refused to answer my post about the options and refused to look at he Baron amendment. This tells me a lot

lawred2

As a Software Engineer, I know the reason the Millennium Bug wasn't a huge problem was because organizations spent fortunes converting old, mainly Cobol and RPG code to newer languages. A number of problems did occur but they were (mostly) minor...and that was because it was prepared for over the previous 5-6 years. Unlike what the UK are doing in preparation from a hard Brexit! So if anything, IP Jnr has shot his own point in the foot

Gas isn't it... Something turned out not to be a big issue because governments and corporations took the threat seriously and invested billions for many years to prevent it becoming an issue.

But yeah.. twas all a big hullabaloo

Honestly, this post truth freedom to speak mistruths and lies without challenge is getting tiresome in the extreme.

ToBeFrank123

Akrasia wrote: »

This post is insane.

You're saying the Prime minister of the UK has no mandate to negotiate a deal with the EU on behalf of her government?

What does that even mean?

If the Prime minister can not command a majority of her own parliament, then she should resign. The UK parliament needs to either form a cross party coalition with a clear negotiating position that has a chance of succeeding in Europe, or there should be a General election, or they should revoke Article 50 and walk away from Brexit.

As they have said so may times, in any negotiation, you have to retain the option to walk away. In the Brexit scenario, everyone in the UK media and political circles thinks this means crashing out with no deal, when in a sensible analysis, it should be cancelling the whole brexit fiasco.

There's nothing insane about it if you'd followed the various commons votes recently. There was no majority in the commons for the current backstop. A fact not an opinion. Without a Commons majority its irrelevant what was negotiated. Anyone with an understanding of Brexit would know this.
May wants the agreement in its current form but she can't wan a majority. And the clock is ticking.

ToBeFrank123

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

If the UK negotiaters had no mandate, what hope was there to conclude this in the 2 year window?

Oh, you have so far refused to answer my post about the options and refused to look at he Baron amendment. This tells me a lot

It should tell you I am responding to numerous posters while also busy with other things. Patience.

Imreoir2

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

How would they be a ally ?

I'd argue they would be the opposite

We would both be competing for the same investment etc.

Anyway IndyRef2 talk increased after the 2015 GE and the Brexit referendum but died down again post the GE in 2018.

And a bit like NI just because a majority voted Remain it does not mean they want independence

Sorry mods going a bit off topic.

I think the fear of competition is overblown, the BeNeLux countries are all small, similar economies in the EU right next to each other, I think they would all agree that working together with friendly neighbours of a similler size and with similler interestes has been of benefit to them, not a threat to their USP.

They say that the best thing to happen to a pub is to have another open up accross the road. Sure there is competition, but there is also a more attractive combined offereing that increases the size of the overall cake they are taking a slice from.

trellheim

Plenipotentiaries typically are empowered by governments to go and make deals, and return with treaties and agreements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenipotentiary

Although they return - for example with treaties that may have to be ratified (e.g the U.S Senate ) one would not expect the ratification to be essentially slammed into the ground - i.e. the deal that the UK Government negotiated with the EU via Davis, Raab, et al be rejected by a gigantic refusal.

This smacks of negotiating in bad faith - there is little point in advancing agreement knowing it will be refused .

This therefore leads the EU to be completely unwilling to reopen any kind of deal as there is no guarantee anything will fly, and will lead to endless trying to get something more.


As to the point above ref the absence of Ireland as an EU Member, one could make similar points re

France (fishing, tunnel borders ) , Spain (Gib, Expats) , Cyprus ( Akrotiri), Denmark (fishing), Netherlands (Fishing, ports ) ad infinitum . But the answer is "so what" if my aunt had things she'd be my uncle.

murphaph

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

And the DUP opposed it.
Next...

Right, what is your proposed solution? Don't bother answering if it's going to be something wishy washy like "continue dialogue". What is your technical, legal solution that satisfies all the UK's red lines and does not destroy the integrity of the single market and abides by WTO rules?

Professor Moriarty

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I appear to have read more than you about it. You seem to have missed the key fact the House of Commons are opposed to the backstop as it stands. Not my opinion, a fact. You can rant all you like but it doesn't change that fact. Finger pointing also won't change it.

We have two sides dug in and slinging insults at each other. That is not how you negotiate, never was and never will be.

Indeed the HOC are against it but it is very simplistic to assume every MP voted against it for the same reasons.

And on the other side, is a party who agreed to a backstop suggested by Theresa May the Prime Minister of Britain. This party then agreed to an agreement negotiated by Theresa May the Prime Minister of Britain. This party then watched as Theresa May the Prime Minister of Britain caved in to a rump of the Tory party and decided to ditch the agreement. They then watched as, for internal party political reasons, Theresa May the Prime Minister of Britain returned to tell them that they would have to change their position. While this is happening they watch as politics in the HoC implode and parties splinter.

Tell me this, would you change your position right now if you were the EU?

A Dub in Glasgo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

It should tell you I am responding to numerous posters while also busy with other things. Patience.

In the meantime, what has changed your mind from last month?

lawred2

murphaph wrote: »

Right, what is your proposed solution? Don't bother answering if it's going to be something wishy washy like "continue dialogue". What is your technical, legal solution that satisfies all the UK's red lines and does not destroy the integrity of the single market and abides by WTO rules?

Something along the lines of Ireland needs to remember it's place

Imreoir2

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Looks like the Irish government may have over-played its hand re the backstop.

The House of Commons, particularly this House of Commons, (voted in on the back of the Leave result) was never going to accept a Backstop without legal guarantees or it being time limited.

If we end up with a hard border it will be a huge failure by both Irish and British politicians and history will not look kindly on them.

If we end up with a hard border because the House of Commons refused to accept the backstop, then we have a hard border because or the House of Commons. The backstop is merely the arangement by which the border can be kept open if all else fails. If you don't have such an arangement in place, then you get a hard border when all else fails. Unless you have a bright idea as to how a hard border can be avoided in the absence of the backstop?