Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Silent Running

Folkstonian wrote: »

I don’t agree with the assertion that blame needs to be divided up at all. To apportion blame suggests that somebody is at fault. Britain hasn’t actually done anything other than decide to leave the EU - a right that is available, and will remain so, for any and all member states.

It’s not gone off reservation, it hasn’t ripped up the rule book, it’s put into effect a process that every single EU country agreed was open to it when they signed the Lisbon treaty.

No, the UK hasn't gone off reservation or ripped up the rule book... but they haven't left either. Why not?

If their intention is to get away from the foreigners, why didn't they just leave immediately after notifying the EU of their intentions? The door is open, who's standing in their way? Why is a deal even necessary?

My guess would be that there was never an intention to actually leave, and the result of the vote has caught the UK establishment completely off guard. The last 2 years has seen them caught in the headlight of a fast approaching train. I think a lot of the UK establishment have realised that it simply isn't the power it once was. Now the fear of going out into the big bad world alone has paralysed the 'mother of parliaments'. In fact, they have created the mother of all cock-ups.

It's a perfect storm. Weak Tory leadership, weak opposition and no plan from either one. When the EU didn't bend the knee to the UK demands (red lines) there was no other fallback position. They need us.... etc. :rolleyes:

Calina

Silent Running wrote: »

No, the UK hasn't gone off reservation or ripped up the rule book... but they haven't left either. Why not?

If their intention is to get away from the foreigners, why didn't they just leave immediately after notifying the EU of their intentions? The door is open, who's standing in their way? Why is a deal even necessary?

My guess would be that there was never an intention to actually leave, and the result of the vote has caught the UK establishment completely off guard. The last 2 years has seen them caught in the headlight of a fast approaching train. I think a lot of the UK establishment have realised that the it simply isn't the power it once was. Now the fear of going out into the big bad world alone has paralysed the 'mother of parliaments'. In fact, they have created the mother of all cock-ups.

It's a perfect storm. Weak Tory leadership, weak opposition and no plan from either one. When the EU didn't bend the knee to the UK demands (red lines) there was no other fallback position. They need us.... etc. :rolleyes:

They can't afford to leave. They had to negotiate to mitigate the economic cost of leaving.

ToBeFrank123

VinLieger wrote: »

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?






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?

There's no technology at the moment. In 5 years they may or not be, who knows, although as I said earlier it would be very difficult to stop Brazilian beef being smuggled south.

Lets say we/EU give the Brits a guarantee the backstop only lasts 5 years.

The hope is in 5 years time, the HoC looks much differently to the point the DUP no longer have influence and a strong enough government can over rule them and renew the backstop for longer with a new agreement. This would be the main argument for giving guarantees, to satisfy the DUP and Brexit hardliners.

Without that guarantee, they aren't going to vote through the agreement in the HoC and its a hard border.

I think worse than a Hard Border would be tariffs by the way from an economic point of view.

Infini

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?

It would be less of a split and more a purge of the idiots who are really kippers not conservatives. Better to jettision their poisonous influence now that let the rot continue but sadly shes not brave enough to tackle them.

VinLieger

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

There's no technology at the moment. In 5 years they may or not be, who knows, although as I said earlier it would be very difficult to stop Brazilian beef being smuggled south.

Lets say we/EU give the Brits a guarantee the backstop only lasts 5 years.

The hope is in 5 years time, the HoC looks much differently to the point the DUP no longer have influence and a strong enough government can over rule them and renew the backstop for longer with a new agreement. This would be the main argument for giving guarantees, to satisfy the DUP and Brexit hardliners.

Without that guarantee, they aren't going to vote through the agreement in the HoC and its a hard border.

I have nowhere near the level of confidence in the british public to be able to vote in a government that would be capable of doing as you suggest.


I really do think they will come begging for a FTA very quickly and we will make the border non-negotiable as FTA have to be signed off on by every EU country.



But even in the case that they don't or the deal and border relief takes several years to come to fruition i think attitudes in NI will move very quickly towards a border poll. Personally I would be against reunification in such a distressed time for both countries but I also think it is a far more likely possibility than a pragmatic UK government being elected.

Imreoir2

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.

The UK have failed to offer anything that would prevent a hard border. The EU has worked out an agreement with the UK government that would prevent a hard border but that deal was rejected buy the house of commons precisely because it kept the border open.

Unless you can show how the border stays open without the backstop then you are criticising Ireland for risking a hard border because they refuse to accept a deal that would result in a hard border.

No deal = hard border
Deal without the backstop = hard border in two years.

Why should we not insist that the UK abides by its obligations under the GFA? Why should we accept an agreement that will result in a hard border?

Imreoir2

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

And the backstop isn't going to happen based on current trends.

Then we get a hard border, you still have yet to come up with a single suggestion as to how a hard border can be avoided without the backstop in place.

downcow

VinLieger wrote: »

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?

No the want both parties to be invested in a solution. Not a situation where roi can sit back with their arms folded and say to UK to give them a call when they have it solved.
That would be a ridiculous position for UK to get themselves in

Leroy42

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

There's no technology at the moment. In 5 years they may or not be, who knows, although as I said earlier it would be very difficult to stop Brazilian beef being smuggled south.

Yet the ERG etc have been telling us for the last two years that not only does it exist but that the whole border issue is made up.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Lets say we/EU give the Brits a guarantee the backstop only lasts 5 years.

The hope is in 5 years time, the HoC looks much differently to the point the DUP no longer have influence and a strong enough government can over rule them and renew the backstop for longer with a new agreement. This would be the main argument for giving guarantees, to satisfy the DUP and Brexit hardliners.

Lets hope? And what if it doesn't? What then? Do we extend it? What if the UK refuse to extend it? What if, instead of a strong enough government the UK continues to split itself?

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Without that guarantee, they aren't going to vote through the agreement in the HoC and its a hard border.

I think worse than a Hard Border would be tariffs by the way from an economic point of view.

You are right, the EU are facing the possibility of a hard border if the UK reject the deal on offer. So they face a choice. Agree to the, unknown, demands of the UK or face a hard border. But even if they agree to the demands, the UK have made it clear that no matter what they will get out and so all that is happening is kicking the can down the road.

But right now the EU has all the cards. Giving more time to the Uk would weaken the EU relative strength. Where in any negotiation handbook does it advise giving away your position of strength.

And remember, and the end of all this, the UK wants to be a direct competitor to the EU. It wants to take people, jobs, money etc from the EU into the UK. They are stated this on a number of occasions. TM has gone out of her way to show that the UK will deal with the US, on terms that are very likely to be in direct competition to the EU.

Imreoir2

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

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

Which is exactly why we need the bloody backstop!

ancapailldorcha

Off topic post deleted.

lawred2

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?

Have you? Where have you presented an alternative?

ToBeFrank123

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Which is exactly why we need the bloody backstop!

OK I see the circular nature of this discussion. Do you?

UK won't agree to backstop as is, hence hard border. Simple!

To be honest, the whole thing is out of our hands at this stage and with the HoC. Like others I don't have much faith in them but we need to throw them and May at least to get a deal over the line. No deal, hard border.

trellheim

OK I see the circular nature of this discussion. Do you?

UK won't agree to backstop as is, hence hard border. Simple!

To be honest, the whole thing is out of our hands at this stage and with the HoC. Like others I don't have much faith in them but we need to throw them and May at least to get a deal over the line. No deal, hard border.

No no no you are not getting away with this simplistic discussion.

Smacks of that fellow on Question Time we leave "Well its simple innit -we voted to leave so let's leave"

If it wasnt the backstop itd be something else.

VinLieger

downcow wrote: »

No the want both parties to be invested in a solution. Not a situation where roi can sit back with their arms folded and say to UK to give them a call when they have it solved.
That would be a ridiculous position for UK to get themselves in

The UK created the problem why is it up to Ireland and the EU to solve it?


The EU already compromised on the backstop that the UK created and then decided they didn't want anymore. So far the UK has compromised on nothing. And all they have said about alternatives to the backstop is "we want something else" the EU put so much work into the backstop to have the rug pulled out from under them i think its perfectly reasonable to sit back and wait for the UK to figure out the problem they re-created and come up with new suggestions.



Also they didn't have to invoke article 50 before figuring any of this out either, it is entirely their fault that we are in this time limited position.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Off topic post deleted.

Fine, no pre or post ramble:

Brexit forum request: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057953333

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Fine, no pre or post ramble:

Brexit forum request: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057953333

Mod: Ok, that's fine. Can you refrain from posting this again please. The admins are looking into it.

Blowfish

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I admit that I hadn't have perceived it this way...

https://twitter.com/BBCNolan/status/1098899936081571840

Well technically with his stupid logic he's correct.

There was a 1.3 million difference between Remain and Leave votes in the referendum. There are roughly 3 million voters in Ireland and EU support in the 85%+ range. That'd give roughly a 2.5m Remain to 0.5m Leave vote. So Jim is correct, were Ireland still a part of the UK there wouldn't have been an issue with the border because Remain would have won...

ToBeFrank123

lawred2 wrote: »

Have you? Where have you presented an alternative?

Yes. Its not like its difficult to read back someone's posts on here.

What's your alternative by the way? And please don't say "we pressure the Brits hard enough they back down". Because that's just inviting more entrenchment from both sides which is the last thing we need.

My alternative can be summed up as throwing May a few scraps to get the deal through the HoC.

There are plenty of people on here willing to knock down other people's ideas, but have precious little suggestions to offer themselves.

ToBeFrank123

trellheim wrote: »

No no no you are not getting away with this simplistic discussion.

Smacks of that fellow on Question Time we leave "Well its simple innit -we voted to leave so let's leave"

If it wasnt the backstop itd be something else.

And whats your alternative?

Feel free to read back over my posts to understand mine.

Now what's yours? Do you have one?

mcbert

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

throwing May a few scraps

=

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

precious little suggestions

Imreoir2

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

OK I see the circular nature of this discussion. Do you?

UK won't agree to backstop as is, hence hard border. Simple!

To be honest, the whole thing is out of our hands at this stage and with the HoC. Like others I don't have much faith in them but we need to throw them and May at least to get a deal over the line. No deal, hard border.

No question, no backstop = hard border. If the HoC cannot accept the backstop then they must realise that they are choosing to create a hard border in Ireland. What good is a deal without the backstop. That would not prevent a hard border.

My alternative can be summed up as throwing May a few scraps to get the deal through the HoC.

The nature of the few scraps is quite important, especially if those scraps would result in a hard border. There is no point in changing the deal so that we can avoid a hard border if by changing the deal we create a hard border.

lawred2

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Yes. Its not like its difficult to read back someone's posts on here.

What's your alternative by the way? And please don't say "we pressure the Brits hard enough they back down". Because that's just inviting more entrenchment from both sides which is the last thing we need.

My alternative can be summed up as throwing May a few scraps to get the deal through the HoC.

There are plenty of people on here willing to knock down other people's ideas, but have precious little suggestions to offer themselves.

I've read them all.

I see no alternative put forward.

Unless you mean drop the requirement for the backstop?

But I'm sure you're aware given how informed you are that that's a hard border whenever suits the UK. This is what I thought you were determined to avoid. Or are you just false flagging? And ultimately a hard border is exactly what you want but you want to frame it as something of Ireland's doing?

ToBeFrank123

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Then we get a hard border, you still have yet to come up with a single suggestion as to how a hard border can be avoided without the backstop in place.

By the way you misunderstood what I said. I stated the fact, not my opinion, that currently the UK will not sign up to the backstop unless there are guarantees on length of time and also they can walk away unilaterally.

Again, this is the position of the HoC, its a fact not an opinion.

It would be lovely if suddenly a large number of MPs changed their minds and voted the other way. But there is no evidence this is going to happen, not now and not in 6 months time. May's deal is dead as a do-do. She needs a new one to get it through the HoC.

You saying "yeh but its the HoC's fault" isn't going to make any difference but keep saying it.

ToBeFrank123

lawred2 wrote: »

I've read them all.

I see no alternative put forward.

Unless you mean drop the requirement for the backstop?

But I'm sure you're aware given how informed you are that that's a hard border whenever suits the UK. This is what I thought you were determined to avoid. Or are you just false flagging? And ultimately a hard border is exactly what you want but you want to frame as something of Ireland's doing?

I didn't say that. I said legal guarantees on the backstop.

As we all know, no deal = hard border.

lawred2

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

By the way you misunderstood what I said. I stated the fact, not my opinion, that currently the UK will not sign up to the backstop unless there are guarantees on length of time and also they can walk away unilaterally.

Again, this is the position of the HoC, its a fact not an opinion.

It would be lovely if suddenly a large number of MPs changed their minds and voted the other way. But there is no evidence this is going to happen, not now and not in 6 months time. May's deal is dead as a do-do. She needs a new one to get it through the HoC.

You saying "yeh but its the HoC's fault" isn't going to make any difference but keep saying it.

That's not a fact at all.

There were multiple reasons for voting against May's WA. It was not all simply down to a backstop.

For someone so informed about the HoC I'm surprised at that claim.

Laois_Man

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I didn't say that. I said legal guarantees on the backstop.

As we all know, no deal = hard border.

And as we all know, deal without a backstop = hard border!

VinLieger

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I didn't say that. I said legal guarantees on the backstop.

As we all know, no deal = hard border.

And no backstop = hard border, so what do you propose beyond wishful thinking that a pragmatic government gets elected in the UK

Calina

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I didn't say that. I said legal guarantees on the backstop.

As we all know, no deal = hard border.

We want legal guarantees that there will be no border.

Is the UK prepared to offer those?

megaten

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

By the way you misunderstood what I said. I stated the fact, not my opinion, that currently the UK will not sign up to the backstop unless there are guarantees on length of time and also they can walk away unilaterally.

Again, this is the position of the HoC, its a fact not an opinion.

It would be lovely if suddenly a large number of MPs changed their minds and voted the other way. But there is no evidence this is going to happen, not now and not in 6 months time. May's deal is dead as a do-do. She needs a new one to get it through the HoC.

You saying "yeh but its the HoC's fault" isn't going to make any difference but keep saying it.

No one in the HoC has the ability to guarantee a deal that can pass.
If you remove the backstop you still can't gaurantee a majority for the withdrawal agreement so there is no incentive to remove it.