Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

ancapailldorcha

Below standard and off topic posts deleted.

Capt'n Midnight

Laois_Man wrote: »

how we fish in their waters but don't allow them to fish in ours,

Let's not kid ourselves tthat this is about the little guys. Over half (55%) of Northern Ireland’s quota is hoarded onto a single trawler: The Voyager.

And the UK has just done a deal to allow the Faroese to fish in UK waters but not visa-versa

Akrasia

downcow wrote: »

I’m no expert but I can see why you would mistake me for one.
I could accept a time limited backstop but I couldn’t tell you what hoc will accept.
Can you tell me what movements to current deal would be acceptable to Eu?

What happens when the time limited backstop expires and there still isn't a solution to the border?

lawred2

Akrasia wrote: »

What happens when the time limited backstop expires and there still isn't a solution to the border?

Prefixing 'backstop' with 'time limited' simply tells me that the person using it doesn't know what a backstop is.

It's two things that simply don't go together.

If there's a time limit on anything then it's an interim protocol/agreement for a set duration. Nothing more. Nothing else. At the end of the time period, the agreement ends.

Time limits means not a backstop.

Valhallapt

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Below standard and off topic posts deleted.

one or two people have ruined this thread I’m sick of the us’ems vs them’ums chat that would be better suited to a thread on NI.

Folkstonian

lawred2 wrote: »

Prefixing 'backstop' with 'time limited' simply tells me that the person using it doesn't know what a backstop is.

It's two things that simply don't go together.

If there's a time limit on anything then it's an interim protocol/agreement for a set duration. Nothing more. Nothing else. At the end of the time period, the agreement ends.

Time limits means not a backstop.

I think it’s a problem without a solution.

The EU seemingly tolerate Britain having an exit clause to the border agreement, and Britain’s Parliament can’t accept entering into a bilateral agreement from which there is no exit clause.

With Europe having to show total loyalty to Ireland’s requirement and Britain not likely to be the first country in modern history to give such a big concession in a peacetime negotiation, can you actually make a case for anything but no deal being the only available outcome now?

downcow

lawred2 wrote: »

Prefixing 'backstop' with 'time limited' simply tells me that the person using it doesn't know what a backstop is.

It's two things that simply don't go together.

If there's a time limit on anything then it's an interim protocol/agreement for a set duration. Nothing more. Nothing else. At the end of the time period, the agreement ends.

Time limits means not a backstop.

Yeah I agree, but I think if we do get a legally binding way out agreed then it will still be called a backstop so as to make it a bit easier swallowed for southerners

lawred2

Folkstonian wrote: »

I think it’s a problem without a solution.

The EU seemingly tolerate Britain having an exit clause to the border agreement, and Britain’s Parliament can’t accept entering into a bilateral agreement from which there is no exit clause.

With Europe having to show total loyalty to Ireland’s requirement and Britain not likely to be the first country in modern history to give such a big concession in a peacetime negotiation, can you actually make a case for anything but no deal being the only available outcome now?

There is an exit clause. It's until and when a trade deal is agreed.

Or does HMG not want that either?

Hard to know what they want. Being some sort of an outpost for the US?

lawred2

downcow wrote: »

Yeah I agree, but I think if we do get a legally binding way out agreed then it will still be called a backstop so as to make it a bit easier swallowed for southerners

There is already a legally agreed means by which the backstop need never be invoked.

Just get on with the easiest trade deal in history..

badtoro

Valhallapt wrote: »

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Below standard and off topic posts deleted.

one or two people have ruined this thread I’m sick of the us’ems vs them’ums chat that would be better suited to a thread on NI.

Absolutely.

This used to be a gem of a thread until two or three "contributors" started posting utter junk.

What's worse is people replying to them keeps them coming back.

ancapailldorcha

Valhallapt wrote: »

one or two people have ruined this thread I’m sick of the us’ems vs them’ums chat that would be better suited to a thread on NI.

Report the posts please. I've deleted several posts.

Akrasia

Folkstonian wrote: »

I think it’s a problem without a solution.

The EU seemingly tolerate Britain having an exit clause to the border agreement, and Britain’s Parliament can’t accept entering into a bilateral agreement from which there is no exit clause.

With Europe having to show total loyalty to Ireland’s requirement and Britain not likely to be the first country in modern history to give such a big concession in a peacetime negotiation, can you actually make a case for anything but no deal being the only available outcome now?

The solution is simple. 2nd referendum. Put the deal to the people and allow them the option to accept Mays deal or cancel brexit.

ancapailldorcha

badtoro wrote: »

Absolutely.

This used to be a gem of a thread until two or three "contributors" started posting utter junk.

What's worse is people replying to them keeps them coming back.

Just be patient with us please. Report the posts and give us some time to get to it. It's a very busy thread and we are all volunteers who do not pre-approve posts.

badtoro

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

badtoro wrote: »

Absolutely.

This used to be a gem of a thread until two or three "contributors" started posting utter junk.

What's worse is people replying to them keeps them coming back.

Just be patient with us please. Report the posts and give us some time to get to it. It's a very busy thread and we are all volunteers who do not pre-approve posts.

I do understand, I spoke out of frustration rather than looking for someone to beat up about it ðŸ‘

Folkstonian

lawred2 wrote: »

There is an exit clause. It's until and when a trade deal is agreed.

Or does HMG not want that either?

Hard to know what they want. Being some sort of an outpost for the US?

It’s just not really a logical position for Britain to voluntarily put itself in prior to negotiations with Europe on the future deal.

It would be akin to having one foot on a bed of hot coals during a negotiation, only to be told you can lift your foot as soon as you’ve shaken hands on a separate dispute. You are never going to hold out for the best deal in those circumstances, you are going to agree to almost anything that allows you to move your foot.

FrancieBrady

There is an exit clause - come up with workable alternative arrangements.

Imreoir2

downcow wrote: »

Yeah I agree, but I think if we do get a legally binding way out agreed then it will still be called a backstop so as to make it a bit easier swallowed for southerners

I fail to see why our government would accept such a thing, can you explain the reason that this would be acceptable?

lawred2

Folkstonian wrote: »

It’s just not really a logical position for Britain to voluntarily put itself in prior to negotiations with Europe on the future deal.

It would be akin to having one foot on a bed of hot coals during a negotiation, only to be told you can lift your foot as soon as you’ve shaken hands on a separate dispute. You are never going to hold out for the best deal in those circumstances, you are going to agree to almost anything that allows you to move your foot.

Being Machiavellian about it, no deal, a hard border, a border poll and a United Ireland would sort all of these ills. Might be a long time waiting for that to play out though.

It's unfortunate for HMG that their colonial legacy is proving such a logistical stumbling block for them. Definitely unchartered territories for Westminster.

Folkstonian

Akrasia wrote: »

The solution is simple. 2nd referendum. Put the deal to the people and allow them the option to accept Mays deal or cancel brexit.

Why would people bother to vote in a second referendum after being advised time and time again that the result of the first one would be implemented?

Could you even begin trust the outcome of the second referendum? I’m not sure I could, especially if it returned another very tight result.

The May/Robbins agreement is a non-runner as things stand so I especially cannot see much utility in putting that to the public when MPs, as close as anything gets to unanimously in parliament, have essentially said... it sucks

RobMc59

Folkstonian wrote: »

It’s just not really a logical position for Britain to voluntarily put itself in prior to negotiations with Europe on the future deal.

It would be akin to having one foot on a bed of hot coals during a negotiation, only to be told you can lift your foot as soon as you’ve shaken hands on a separate dispute. You are never going to hold out for the best deal in those circumstances, you are going to agree to almost anything that allows you to move your foot.

I don`t know if you saw Dominic Grieve(who seems a fairly intelligent bloke) on the news a couple of days ago.He said:
"There is no version of brexit that is better than what we have already".
That simple statement sums all this up for me-or am I wrong?

Akrasia

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is an exit clause - come up with workable alternative arrangements.

Which they claim they already have plans to implement

FrancieBrady

Folkstonian wrote: »

Why would people bother to vote in a second referendum after being advised time and time again that the result of the first one would be implemented?

Could you even begin trust the outcome of the second referendum? I’m not sure I could, especially if it returned another very tight result.

The May/Robbins agreement is a non-runner as things stand so I especially cannot see much utility in putting that to the public when MPs, as close as anything gets to unanimously in parliament, have essentially said... it sucks

If the players are honest with the people about the reasons for a 2nd referendum (clarity) then why not?

There is no clarity in the UK because the original referendum was full of mis-information and most notably-a lack of information about the implications.
UK politicians need to make amends for that and revisit the vote. Maybe have a look at how referendums are run here - exhaustively dissected and discussed.

lawred2

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I fail to see why our government would accept such a thing, can you explain the reason that this would be acceptable?

I don't think downcow has grasped the fact that the Irish government is seeking to maintain the rights of Irish citizens born and living in Northern Ireland. He still doesn't see how NI is different from GB. He sees NI through a very narrow prism of British Unionism. The GFA is not something that he has any understanding of.

He doesn't get that there are people born in northern Ireland who possess citizenship of Ireland. This isn't a token trinket or symbolic gesture attached to Britishness than can be ignored by the Irish government.

There are people born and living in Northern Ireland who do not possess British citizenship. The Irish government is responsible for their well-being and the preservation of their rights as Irish citizens.

Akrasia

Folkstonian wrote: »

Why would people bother to vote in a second referendum after being advised time and time again that the result of the first one would be implemented?

Could you even begin trust the outcome of the second referendum? I’m not sure I could, especially if it returned another very tight result.

The May/Robbins agreement is a non-runner as things stand so I especially cannot see much utility in putting that to the public when MPs, as close as anything gets to unanimously in parliament, have essentially said... it sucks

All the remainers would vote to remain. If the leavers decide not to vote then it wont be a close result

Mays agreement is the end result of 2 years of negotiation. Its the only show in town. Mays deal or no brexit

lawred2

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don`t know if you saw Dominic Grieve(who seems a fairly intelligent bloke) on the news a couple of days ago.He said:
"There is no version of brexit that is better than what we have already".
That simple statement sums all this up for me-or am I wrong?

It depends how you measure better or worse.

Economically worse for sure but maybe a rejection of Europe and cooperative governance makes you feel better.

You can be economically worse off while still feeling better about yourself.

Akrasia

downcow wrote: »

Yeah I agree, but I think if we do get a legally binding way out agreed then it will still be called a backstop so as to make it a bit easier swallowed for southerners

Do you think us southerners are too stupid to notice?

Actually, this seems to have been the prevailing attitude all along. We didn't fall for the 'technological solution' we won't fall for a non backstop called a backstop

Folkstonian

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don`t know if you saw Dominic Grieve(who seems a fairly intelligent bloke) on the news a couple of days ago.He said:
"There is no version of brexit that is better than what we have already".
That simple statement sums all this up for me-or am I wrong?

I don’t believe there is an easy answer, because it depends on your perspective, your experiences and your ambitions for the country’s future.

I’ve tried to be open and honest about my mixed feelings about being part of Europe over the months and in my mind there are no absolutes either way.

There are obvious benefits that have surely been discussed at such length that everyone could list them by heart, but equally there certain controls and commitments that come with being part of Europe that many people dislike heavily.

And at the same time, many people feel they have not done well out of being part of the EU and voted to radically shake up the way politics works. There were 33m votes cast last time, and 33m thought processes.

I’m sure Dominic Grieve moves in circles that have done excellently out of EU membership, up I’m also mindful that many millions feel quite the opposite

Folkstonian

Akrasia wrote: »

All the remainers would vote to remain. If the leavers decide not to vote then it wont be a close result

Mays agreement is the end result of 2 years of negotiation. Its the only show in town. Mays deal or no brexit

Britain leaves the EU with or without a deal at the end of next month. So there’s at least one more show in town than you suggest!

Flex

Folkstonian wrote: »

It’s just not really a logical position for Britain to voluntarily put itself in prior to negotiations with Europe on the future deal.

It would be akin to having one foot on a bed of hot coals during a negotiation, only to be told you can lift your foot as soon as you’ve shaken hands on a separate dispute. You are never going to hold out for the best deal in those circumstances, you are going to agree to almost anything that allows you to move your foot.

Just have the backstop apply to only Northern Ireland, as it was originally intended

-This will be a huge benefit and advantage to Northern Ireland’s private sector
-Allow GB to pursue Brexit as it sees fit and in whatever way is in its best interest
-Represents a huge concession by the EU to the UK, allowing a region of nearly 2m people to be given a special status and benefits of the EU while not having to be a member
-Is clearly the best course for Northern Ireland from an economic point of view and from a social point of view allows the continuation of ‘normalisation’ of people’s lives
-somewhat ironically, given the DUPs absolute opposition to it, I believe the backstop applying to only Northern Ireland would make the union stronger as I believe those who may want a United Ireland would become reluctant to rock the boat in a stable and prosperous Northern Ireland, more so if the present situation of the border effectively being non-existent is maintained

Were it not for the Conservatives reliance on the DUP this wouldn’t even be an issue or topic of discussion.

The backstop as it presently exists right now was also done as a (major) concession by the EU to the UK; the UK government demanded it apply to the whole of the UK.

I echo what others are saying here regards how Ireland needs to see this through now and stick to our position even if it means no deal and a hard border as a consequence; if we time limit the backstop or allow a unilateral withdrawal mechanism we will inevitably end up getting a hard border as the border issue will be used as a bargaining chip by the UK going forward every and any time they want to. By holding firm on this we can make it so the backstop is forever a prerequisite and a fundamental condition of any trade deal the UK seeks with the EU, by compromising on this we end up consenting to a hard border.

Akrasia

Folkstonian wrote: »

Britain leaves the EU with or without a deal at the end of next month. So there’s at least one more show in town than you suggest!

Britain aint leaving with a deal on March 29, they need an extension to pass legislation. If britain leaves next month, its because the parliament failed spectacularly to protect the interests of the subjects of the UK. And it will be written about and studied for decades as the textbook example of a failure of elected representatives to govern in the interests of the public