Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

VinLieger

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

We all know how the EU operates. They hammer out deals at 2am in the morning between leaders and expect everyone to fall into line.

We have experience in Ireland of the EU trying to shove stuff down our throat. Well done to the HOC for standing up the dictators in Europe.

Some serious tin foil hat level conspiracy stuff here, im gonna guess Eirigi?

Inquitus

5000 posts in 21 days, we are really getting through the threads at some rate as 29th March approachs, and laughably we still have as little idea of how this will end as we did at the very start!

ToBeFrank123

Inquitus wrote: »

That's nonsense, it's incumbent upon the PM when doing negotiations to ensure she has her Government aligned behind her, at least in sufficient numbers to approve of what she is negotiating.

It was a catch 22 situation it seems to me. They couldn't vote on anything until they saw the agreement. And they couldn't vote in advance until they knew what the EU was offering.

The clock is winding down now, we are where we are. A mess agreed, but its up to all sides to step up and agree something to avoid a hard border. The time for blaming and finger pointing and games are long over.

Igotadose

Interesting pro-Ireland read from Fortune: http://fortune.com/2019/02/21/brexit-ireland-crown/

Basically, it points out lots of good signs in the Irish economy, without being too down about potential Brexit impacts, in fact hailing the opportunities Ireland (and the rest of the EU) will have once the UK are settled and out.

VinLieger

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I agree with some of your points.

But allowing a Hard Border go ahead to spite the Brits is a clear case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Most of the UK leaders don't care about a Hard Border on the island of Ireland. Some like Mogg welcome it.

Its not to spite the brits its because we know in reality they will have to come back and negotiate a FTA with the whole of the EU and the hard border along with the divorce bill will be number 1 and 2 on the discussion points.


Also we absolutely do want a hard border and will need one if they run off and first thing sign whatever garbage deal the US put in front of them.

ToBeFrank123

VinLieger wrote: »

Some serious tin foil hat level conspiracy stuff here, im gonna guess Eirigi?

Congrats on a very immature post.

ancapailldorcha

Cut out the sniping please.

Leroy42

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I agree with some of your points.

But allowing a Hard Border go ahead to spite the Brits is a clear case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Most of the UK leaders don't care about a Hard Border on the island of Ireland. Some like Mogg welcome it.

But what is the alternative? Simply acede to the UK demands, when you know from everything about the last two years and beyond that the UK will want more?

It was originally a NI backstop, then TM demanded, and got, a UK wide. But that wasn't enough, or what they wanted, or something.

But again, it comes down to the alternative. EU have put forward their plan (well it was actually the UK who devised it) to deal with NI. The UK have said they don't like it. Fair enough. What then?

Time limit? Solves nothing, only kicks the can down the road and we have seen the UK don't do anything unless pushed.
UK can leave at any time? They can do that now, but the consequences would remain the same.
The deal that TM is actually pretty great. They get another few years to get their house in order, everything pretty much stays as it is, and then they leave on whatever basis they want.

Only pride is getting in the way of the HoC voting for it. They promised Brexit would be great and they can't face the reality that it actually involved compromise.

ToBeFrank123

VinLieger wrote: »

Its not to spite the brits its because we know in reality they will have to come back and negotiate a FTA with the whole of the EU and the hard border along with the divorce bill will be number 1 and 2 on the discussion points.


Also we absolutely do want a hard border and will need one if they run off and first thing sign whatever garbage deal the US put in front of them.

You want a hard border?

FFS I'm at the point of giving up on you. Outline to me the full implications of a hard border, in social and economic terms, particularly on those reliant on cross border trade and also bearing in mind most if not all of our milled flour comes from the North.
I'm guessing you are too young to remember border posts and also live nowhere near the border but you don't mind throwing your border compatriots to the wolves so to speak.

ToBeFrank123

Leroy42 wrote: »

But what is the alternative? Simply acede to the UK demands, when you know from everything about the last two years and beyond that the UK will want more?

It was originally a NI backstop, then TM demanded, and got, a UK wide. But that wasn't enough, or what they wanted, or something.

But again, it comes down to the alternative. EU have put forward their plan (well it was actually the UK who devised it) to deal with NI. The UK have said they don't like it. Fair enough. What then?

Time limit? Solves nothing, only kicks the can down the road and we have seen the UK don't do anything unless pushed.
UK can leave at any time? They can do that now, but the consequences would remain the same.
The deal that TM is actually pretty great. They get another few years to get their house in order, everything pretty much stays as it is, and then they leave on whatever basis they want.

Only pride is getting in the way of the HoC voting for it. They promised Brexit would be great and they can't face the reality that it actually involved compromise.

I've said the alternative numerous times. You tell me the alternative to reaching an agreement. What's the number 1 implication for this country if no deal is reached? And what's number 2? And Number 3?

VinLieger

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

You want a hard border?

FFS I'm at the point of giving up on you. Outline to me the full implications of a hard border, in social and economic terms, particularly on those reliant on cross border trade and also bearing in mind most if not all of our milled flour comes from the North.
I'm guessing y
ou are too young to remember border posts and also live nowhere near the border but you don't mind throwing your border compatriots to the wolves so to speak.

Nice job putting words in my mouth, i don't want a border but IF the UK sign deals with the US that drastically and irrevocably reduce the standard of food and other merchandise that they can make and import into the UK we have to have one to firstly protect the health of our farming industry and health of our own population.


A US/UK trade deal where they destroy their food standards coupled with an open border would decimate our farming industry.

Leroy42

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

It was a catch 22 situation it seems to me. They couldn't vote on anything until they saw the agreement. And they couldn't vote in advance until they knew what the EU was offering.

The clock is winding down now, we are where we are. A mess agreed, but its up to all sides to step up and agree something to avoid a hard border. The time for blaming and finger pointing and games are long over.

So how come the EU knew what they would accept?

Of course the agreement can't be discussed until final, but you work under certain parameters.

27 countries managed to come to a agreement, TM can't even get agreement from her own party! There was nothing to stop TM keeping the HoC informed. Instead you had Davis lying to the HoC about reports he never had.

This is not the EU trying to pull a fast one, the EU position has been clear since almost day 1. This is down to TM and the Tories trying to pull a fast one.

She didn't discuss the Deccember 2017 deal with the DUP. She pulled a fast one on Grieve to get him to pull a vote. She pulled the meaningful vote in December for no reason except to avoid defeat.

She voted against her own deal on the basis of reopening the WA and then told everyone she accepted the WA couldn't be reopened.

That is just off the top of my head.

banie01

Britain lays out its negotiating positions as "red lines".
Britain requests the backstop covering the 6 counties. Britain then reneges on announcing the original deal and requests renegotiation of the back stop under pressure from the DUP to ensure no border in the sea or differential treatment between NI and the UK.
Britain then reneges completely on the terms they initiated and accepted. Britain has specific responsibilities under the GFA and the reintroduction of a border on the island is at odds with that.
Britain completely ignored existing treaties and responsibilities in the jingoistic rush back to empire and whatever flavour of sovereignty they believed they were getting.
Britain has shown that it cannot negotiate in good faith.
Britain, and in particular the British media seem intent on laying the Blame for their own fúck ups at the feet of bullying by Ireland.
Perhaps if they had a better understanding of what the EU was, and how Bloc negotiating worked... They wouldn't have been in such a rush back to Empire!

As an example of the idiocy exhibited by Leave voters, a huge number of retired Ex-Pats in Spain, who rely on EU reciprocity for their health care and social care needs voted to leave and are surprised by the fact that without a deal, their healthcare and services will become very expensive, very quickly!
What di these people think would happen? Did they really believe that the EU would just allow a status quo?
As for residencia, N.I.F and the other requisites of living in Spain, they are in for a rude awakening when they have to join the rest of the Non-EU folks queueing to get sorted.

blanch152

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

You want a hard border?

FFS I'm at the point of giving up on you. Outline to me the full implications of a hard border, in social and economic terms, particularly on those reliant on cross border trade and also bearing in mind most if not all of our milled flour comes from the North.
I'm guessing you are too young to remember border posts and also live nowhere near the border but you don't mind throwing your border compatriots to the wolves so to speak.

It is not a matter of anyone wanting a hard border. Most people would have a preference along these lines (I have probably left out some intermediate options)

1. UK remain in the EU
2. UK remain in the EEA
3. UK remain in the SM and CU
4. Withdrawal Agreement with the UK with the backstop
5. Hard Border with the UK
6. Capitulate to UK demands and end up with a hard border in a few years anyway.

Essentially though, we are down to choosing between Option 5 and Option 6. When you are getting down that low on options, you are not wanting them, you are choosing the least distasteful.

An Ciarraioch

It appears driving permits have been sorted out, but somewhat more straightforward for Irish drivers than for British ones, who may need either Irish licences or green cards:

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2019/0222/1032152-brexit-drivers-licences/

J Mysterio

jm08 wrote: »

Ian Paisley Jnr's interview on RT is worth listening to (particularly from about 7 mins in) where he compares Brexit to the Millenium bug. He goes on to say how the UK has been a very good neighbour of Irelands. He then goes onto claim that the UK allows Ireland to fish in its waters, but Ireland won't let UK/NI fish in Ireland's waters. He then claims that ROI sells milk into NI, but ROI won't buy milk from NI. He then goes onto say that Ireland doesn't have a big enough army to man the bother and that they are an unarmed army as well! Wonders who is going to police the border - saying it won't be NATO as UK is a member of NATO.

If this is what is being said in DUP circles, no wonder some think that the EU is going to backdown on the backstop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtH289IyWdw

Hilarious how he talks about having to take Irish milk and Ireland refusing NI milk.

Also... That Ireland has benefited enormously from UK being our neighbour and we are a bad neighbour... and that we get subvention from the UK!!

Leroy42

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I've said the alternative numerous times. You tell me the alternative to reaching an agreement. What's the number 1 implication for this country if no deal is reached? And what's number 2? And Number 3?

Doesn't matter, as we have no control over whether a deal is reached. That is up to the UK. THey don't want a hard border, yet have taken a course of action that by default results in one.

So the EU agreed to make a special case. The UK then rejected it. Without any alternative, except time limits a cancellations. But they don't work has has been pointed out by EU and numerous posters on this thread.

So whilst I do not wish for a hard border, I also do not wish for the UK to leave at all. Am I allowed to choose which one to go with? No, because it is the UK decision.

downcow

Inquitus wrote: »

The backstop is the only thing that prevents a hard border. Why would we compromise on it to avoid a hard border, when that just kicks the can down the road, and allows for a hard border at any time of the UK's choosing?

From where I am looking it’s the only thing that is going to ensure a hard border.

VinLieger

downcow wrote: »

From where I am looking it’s the only thing that is going to ensure a hard border.

Giving them a time limit or unconditional option to stop the backstop whenever they want would achieve exactly the same thing and result in a hard border.

Also you seem to keep forgetting that the backstop allows the issue to be solved by this technology they keep claiming exists, if it did why would they care about the backstop as that would be implemented and the backstop removed?

ToBeFrank123

Inquitus wrote: »

The backstop is the only thing that prevents a hard border. Why would we compromise on it to avoid a hard border, when that just kicks the can down the road, and allows for a hard border at any time of the UK's choosing?

And the backstop isn't going to happen based on current trends. So back to the start and the cycle continues. Unless someone can come up with something new and so far none of our so called "leaders" have been able to.

Further concessions will be required on all sides. Saying "we've conceded enough, let them concede instead" ain't going to cut it.

A Dub in Glasgo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I've said the alternative numerous times. You tell me the alternative to reaching an agreement. What's the number 1 implication for this country if no deal is reached? And what's number 2? And Number 3?

and what you want the EU to do will result in a hard border

downcow

VinLieger wrote: »

Giving them a time limit or unconditional option to stop the backstop whenever they want would achieve exactly the same thing and result in a hard border.

Also you seem to keep forgetting that the backstop allows the issue to be solved by this technology they keep claiming exists, if it did why would they care about the backstop as that would be implemented and the backstop removed?

But you keep forgetting that in that scenario Eu holds all the cards ( in fact as many off you are saying Eu will support roi so roi holds all the cards). Not happening I think

An Ciarraioch

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

And the backstop isn't going to happen based on current trends. So back to the start and the cycle continues. Unless someone can come up with something new and so far none of our so called "leaders" have been able to.

Further concessions will be required on all sides. Saying "we've conceded enough, let them concede instead" ain't going to cut it.

Or May reaches across the aisle to Corbyn, and agrees to drop the customs union red line.

ToBeFrank123

VinLieger wrote: »

Giving them a time limit or unconditional option to stop the backstop whenever they want would achieve exactly the same thing and result in a hard border.

Also you seem to keep forgetting that the backstop allows the issue to be solved by this technology they keep claiming exists, if it did why would they care about the backstop as that would be implemented and the backstop removed?

Good god. The hard border is coming if something isn't agreed on the backstop.

The Brits are saying they have no problem with the backstop in the short term. Its the fear they will be tied in for the long term that bothers them. What the long term is who knows. This is where further negotiations are needed.

But without an agreement, we have a hard border in the short, medium and long term.

VinLieger

downcow wrote: »

But you keep forgetting that in that scenario Eu holds all the cards ( in fact as many off you are saying Eu will support roi so roi holds all the cards). Not happening I think

So you admit brexiteers complaining about the backstop while saying technology exists to solve it are talking out both sides of their mouths and they really only care about beating the EU and having their cake and eating it?

Professor Moriarty

J Mysterio wrote: »

Hilarious how he talks about having to take Irish milk and Ireland refusing NI milk.

Also... That Ireland has benefited enormously from UK being our neighbour and we are a bad neighbour... and that we get subvention from the UK!!

With the shifting sands in the HoC over the past week, the DUP are in serious danger of losing their stranglehold on the Tories and so they are trying to provoke a reaction. Keep an eye out - the more desperate they become, the more shrill they'll become.

ToBeFrank123

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Or May reaches across the aisle to Corbyn, and agrees to drop the customs union red line.

She's put her party first I agree. If she reached across, its possible the Conservatives would be split down the middle and possibly into two parties with hardline brexiteers forming one party. Its a gamble she doesn't appear willing to take. Who wants to be known as the leader who split in two the longest political party in history?

VinLieger

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Good god. The hard border is coming if something isn't agreed on the backstop.

The Brits are saying they have no problem with the backstop in the short term. Its the fear they will be tied in for the long term that bothers them. What the long term is who knows. This is where further negotiations are needed.

But we keep being told they have technology to solve it so why are they so worried about being tied into it for so long?

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

But without an agreement, we have a hard border in the short, medium and long term.

We will definitely in that scenario have a border in the short term, but claiming to posses some magical forsight to predict one in the medium and longterm is quite ridiculous



We will most likely have a border in the short term until the UK come asking for a FTA unless you think the UK will not need a FTA with the EU, its 450 million consumers and 17.3 trillion euro single market?

A Dub in Glasgo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Good god. The hard border is coming if something isn't agreed on the backstop.

The Brits are saying they have no problem with the backstop in the short term. Its the fear they will be tied in for the long term that bothers them. What the long term is who knows. This is where further negotiations are needed.

But without an agreement, we have a hard border in the short, medium and long term.

https://twitter.com/houseofcommons/status/1085256278098755584?lang=bg

An Ciarraioch

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

She's put her party first I agree. If she reached across, its possible the Conservatives would be split down the middle and possibly into two parties with hardline brexiteers forming one party. Its a gamble she doesn't appear willing to take. Who wants to be known as the leader who split in two the longest political party in history?

Yes, but if she does nothing, a sizeable faction could well join the Tiggers next week regardless.