Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Dyr

listermint wrote: »

Unless Obama has been the president since the 70's .... . You have a skewed view of the brexit type anti-EU sentiment.


Fact Check.
Its a British Sentiment thats probably older than you.

Given that I was around before they joined the EEC, I doubt it sonny

Euroscepticism might have been around for a long time but the refugee crisis of 2014-15 played a huge role in increasing anti-EU feeling in the UK and Europe, and to deny that is churlish, frankly. I don't think Brexit would have happened without it.

Professor Moriarty

CelticRambler wrote: »

Hmmm. Not entirely unintended. Working from memory, so won't be citing any sources :P, but wasn't there a strong Leave vote amongst the UK's Asian community because they wanted more visas for their family members?

Yes indeed, many Asian Leave voters were pulling the ladder up behind them.

J Mysterio

BobbyBobberson wrote: »

Watching BBC news here, figures on migration Sept 2017 - 2018

Net EU Migration - 57,000
Net Non- EU is 261,000, the highest since 2004.

Wow.

What about May's (ridiculous) 10,000 limit?

ToBeFrank123

fash wrote: »

... Which they did too late allowing thousands to be murdered.

In 1999 there was uproar they got involved at all. Can't win with some!

Which was a bad thing - led to the collapse of Libya and streams of migrants flowing into error and dying in the process.

Would likely have happened anyways if Gadaffi chose to massacre his people. Again no winning with some.

You are outraged when NATO get involved and also outraged if they delay or get involved late. No winning with you.

Brexity nonsense.
Have your ever explained your (I assume I since no-one else has thought of it yet) plan as to what concessions the EU could give to the UK to avoid the backstop? I asked you about a week ago.

The backstop will be unavoidable in the short term if there is a deal. You know this. Its the long term where the difference of opinion is, whether it should be permanent or time limited.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Folks, the thread's about Brexit. Let's stay on topic and not take it off the rails.

Thanks

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

That is what Brexit is all about, just as Scottish independence is all about emotion and dreams rather than economic realities, ditto Irish unification.

Why can't Scotland as a nation of 5.4m people be an economic success but say, a State like us of 4.8m with next to no resources bar grass and water can be?

What about NZ with a population almost identical to ours over a larger area and who are pretty remote and not on the doorstep of the world's richest and largest single market?

Denmark? Sweden? Norway? Croatia? Slovenia? Iceland? What is it they have that Scotland would be incapable of replicating?

Distilling Scotland's right to self determination into a pure economic argument is of course nonsense. The want for independence will always begin as an emotive argument, but usually underpinning it is a sense and want to create a better society and country for your people to be part of. If only there was an example closer to home? Any ideas?

But you continue to do it.

Likewise your - almost beyond parody at this stage - infantile assertion that partition should continue because of cost.

There's more to life and society than a balance sheet and even if we break down the economic argument for reunification it's clear it's only going to be a boon for us and for Europe. You'll of course argue the 10bn subvention fallacy or loyalist violence. But thankfully, there's a thread devoted to the concept already where you can repeat yourself.

Brexit on the other hand was not a yearning on behalf of a downtrodden people to be free of the yoke of Eurocratic tyranny. To frame it as being similar to Scottish self determination is frankly disingenuous and you know well that it is.

ToBeFrank123

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Why can't Scotland as a nation of 5.4m people be an economic success but say, a State like us of 4.8m with next to no resources bar grass and water can be?

What about NZ with a population almost identical to ours over a larger area and who are pretty remote and not on the doorstep of the world's richest and largest single market?

Denmark? Sweden? Norway? Croatia? Slovenia? Iceland? What is it they have that Scotland would be incapable of replicating.

Distilling Scotland's right to self determination into a pure economic argument is of course nonsense. The want for independence will always begin as an emotive argument, but usually underpinning it is a sense and want to create a better society and country or your people to be part of. If only there was an example closer to home? Any ideas?

But you continue to do it.

Likewise your - almost beyond parody at this stage - infantile assertion that partition should continue because of cost.

There's more to life and society than a balance sheet and even if we break down the economic argument for reunification it's clear it's only going to be a boon for us and for Europe. You'll of course argue the 10bn subvention fallacy or loyalist violence. But thankfully, there's a thread devoted to the concept already where you can repeat yourself.

Brexit on the other hand was not a yearning on behalf of a downtrodden people to be free of the yoke of Eurocratic tyranny. To frame it as being similar to Scottish self determination is frankly disingenuous and you know well that it is.

It took us 70 years to be an "overnight" success. Up to about the mid 90s we were a basketcase economically, politically and socially.

Re the Brexit referendum, the Remain side had poor leaders.
David Cameron - called it in the first place to avoid a split in the Tories and undermine UKIP. Huge over-reaction by him. Establishment figure so was never going to be popular.
Corbyn - always ambivalent about EU membership including during the referendum. Apart from some token gestures in support, was non committal.
Nick Clegg - outsider turned establishment figure. Very unpopular among younger voters due to reneging on tuition fee promises.
Tony Blair - unpopular among much of society. Every time he talks, people take the opposite view.
Gordan Brown - Oddly enough probably one of the better Remainers but was used too little and too late.


Immigration was always going to play a big part in the referendum, more so than the promise of 350 million extra supposedly going to the NHS each week.
Remainers failed to prove the case for membership. They might have a better chance if there is a new referendum and if they keep the likes of Blair off the platform.

reslfj

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The backstop will be unavoidable in the short term ... Its the long term where the difference of opinion is, whether it should be permanent or time limited.

The EU27 will like the backstop to remain an unused part of the WA - like it very much in fact.

But as long as the UK can allow different standards and regulations for goods and open border NI-RoI will require, that control of standards are done - at the border or somewhere else. It's unlikely no checks will ever catch criminal elements if significant money can be gained by smuggling.

As long as the UK is in a customs union, smuggling for profit over the NI-RoI border will not be worse than it is today.
A customs border in the Irish sea, is very easy to implement - few ferries/ships in a few harbours to check

Much fewer will likely smuggle just to break standards and regulations across the border - the profit will not be much there.
But it will happen and it must be checked somewhere - into the island or at/close to the border as required with the WA too.

If it is possible without the backstop, someone would have found it. The EU negotiators has actually checked all the borders which even remotely looked like ti NI-RoI border and all types of in use technology - there is no solution out there.

"Kier Starmer - I went to look at the Sweden Norway border" which is likely the best implemented border anywhere (outside the EU's SM/CU)

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1100783362959204359

Lars

BonnieSituation

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

It took us 70 years to be an "overnight" success. Up to about the mid 90s we were a basketcase economically, politically and socially.

Perhaps but that belies the stagnation of Dev's insularity which a modern, rich, socially progressive nation like Scotland wouldn't really have to contend with.

Amazing what happened from 1973 onwards...

Sam Russell

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Perhaps but that belies the stagnation of Dev's insularity which a modern, rich, socially progressive nation like Scotland wouldn't really have to contend with.

Amazing what happened from 1973 onwards...

T K Whitaker was the prime reason Ireland developed from the 1960s on. Sean Lemass was prepared to listen to him and opened up Ireland economically.

T K Whitaker was the most important man of 1916 (he was born in 1916), and today his legacy is all around us.

ToBeFrank123

reslfj wrote: »

The EU27 will like the backstop to remain an unused part of the WA - like it very much in fact.

But as long as the UK can allow different standards and regulations for goods and open border NI-RoI will require, that control of standards are done - at the border or somewhere else. It's unlikely no checks will ever catch criminal elements if significant money can be gained by smuggling.

As long as the UK is in a customs union, smuggling for profit over the NI-RoI border will not be worse than it is today.
A customs border in the Irish sea, is very easy to implement - few ferries/ships in a few harbours to check

Much fewer will likely smuggle just to break standards and regulations across the border - the profit will not be much there.
But it will happen and it must be checked somewhere - into the island or at/close to the border as required with the WA too.

If it is possible without the backstop, someone would have found it. The EU negotiators has actually checked all the borders which even remotely looked like ti NI-RoI border and all types of in use technology - there is no solution out there.

"Kier Starmer - I went to look at the Sweden Norway border" which is likely the best implemented border anywhere (outside the EU's SM/CU)

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1100783362959204359

Lars

Lars, my understanding of the backstop is it would limit the UKs ability to negotiate its own deals with other countries who have different rules and regulations to the EU. I'm open to be corrected on that though.
I fully agree it would be better to use the Irish Sea as a hard border but the DUP and ERG ruled that out, and May depends on both unfortunately.

Sam Russell

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Lars, my understanding of the backstop is it would limit the UKs ability to negotiate its own deals with other countries who have different rules and regulations to the EU. I'm open to be corrected on that though.
I fully agree it would be better to use the Irish Sea as a hard border but the DUP and ERG ruled that out, and May depends on both unfortunately.

The backstop only applies the NI, and if the UK wants to make trade agreements in conflict with the requirements of the friction-less border, then the backstop kicks in with checks at the ports and airports for any matter that affects the NI border.

The UK wanted the backstop extended to the whole of the UK, but that is an internal matter to the UK.

devnull

Fishing and farming minster has resigned now, doesn't want Brexit to be delayed.

Honestly a few of my UK friends say that some of the situations in their families between the old and the young are almost at breaking point because of this whole situation that is coming to a head, society has been utterly and truly divided and the politicians have really watched this happen over the last couple of years.

fash

Dytalus wrote: »

[*]EU laws and tyranny = the British people get a say in EU laws the same way they do with their own government - by voting in representatives and contacting them. It is no more tyrannical then their own system.
[/LIST]

And so on, and so on.

... And of 2466 voted decisions in the Council of Ministers, the UK lost 76 votes only including several covering areas subject to UK opt outs anyway:

https://mobile.twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/884474494512975872

So the UK has had far more control of the EU than the EU has had of the UK.

fash

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The backstop will be unavoidable in the short term if there is a deal. You know this. Its the long term where the difference of opinion is, whether it should be permanent or time limited.

It is time limited- "unless and until".

The issue is whether it should be a back stop or a whether the UK government can renege on its earlier commitments and have those downgraded to a meaningless short term transition or not - and renege on its obligations towards the GFA.

An Ciarraioch

fash wrote: »

... And of 2466 voted decisions in the Council of Ministers, the UK lost 76 votes only including several covering areas subject to UK opt outs anyway:

https://mobile.twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/884474494512975872

So the UK has had far more control of the EU than the EU has had of the UK.

Pity that the MEP David Campbell Bannerman seems susceptible to conspiracy theories:

http://twitter.com/DCBMEP/status/1101062113232072704

Calina

Sam Russell wrote: »

T K Whitaker was the prime reason Ireland developed from the 1960s on. Sean Lemass was prepared to listen to him and opened up Ireland economically.

T K Whitaker was the most important man of 1916 (he was born in 1916), and today his legacy is all around us.

Free secondary education was pivotal. That was not Whitaker.

devnull

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Pity that the MEP David Campbell Bannerman seems susceptible to conspiracy theories:

http://twitter.com/DCBMEP/status/1101062113232072704

The unfortunate thing is, that the text about the Lisbon Treaty refereed to in that document is everywhere on social media and it's spreading like wildfire, I have family and friends who are spreading it and see many versions of it with hundreds and thousands of likes and comments, people really buy into this stuff.

Then they have the dare to turn around to the people who don't believe it and say that we are the ones that are whipping up project fear and believe everything that they read on the internet. Unfortunately as someone who was partly educated in the UK, the fact that people just believe stuff they read without checking it, says a lot of bad things about the standards of education in the UK. Thankfully my Irish education taught me to not be so naive.

fash

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Lars, my understanding of the backstop is it would limit the UKs ability to negotiate its own deals with other countries who have different rules and regulations to the EU. I'm open to be corrected on that though.
I fully agree it would be better to use the Irish Sea as a hard border but the DUP and ERG ruled that out, and May depends on both unfortunately.

The backstop doesn't limit GB at all- since they can simply limit it to NI - and in fact it massively helps the UK to avoid terrible deals - both with the EU and with third parties - as well as significantly helps its industry. Check out any analysis of the economic impacts of the different types of Brexit.
Since the DUP and ERG only want a no deal, why should anyone care what sort of deal they would prefer? They don't want a deal- they want a no deal.

Akrasia

josip wrote: »

They'll never get an emphatic Remain victory.
The best way to curtail them is to get the UK outside of the EU.

There could very very easily be an emphatic remain victory
Here's one way how

In a referendum asking people to choose between May's deal vs remain,
the leave vote is split while the remain vote remains intact.

Mays current Deal has 30% support, rising to 36% if she gets her 'legally binding assurances'


All the people that always want to remain will vote remain.

All the people who wanted to leave under May's deal or who can hold their noses and vote for it anyway, will vote for leave

The people who wanted to leave to 'take back control' but still wanted a customs union and free movement of people will either vote remain or abstain

The people who wanted a Norway style brexit will abstain or vote remain

The people who wanted a total crash out to WTO terms will probably boycott the referendum

The ERG types have spent the last year telling everyone how terrible May's deal is. If it comes to a 2nd referendum, those statements will be used to beat them over the head with.

Meanwhile old people (mostly brexit voters) have been dying while young people (mostly remainers) have been turning 18 and eligible to vote.

ToBeFrank123

Sam Russell wrote: »

The backstop only applies the NI, and if the UK wants to make trade agreements in conflict with the requirements of the friction-less border, then the backstop kicks in with checks at the ports and airports for any matter that affects the NI border.

The UK wanted the backstop extended to the whole of the UK, but that is an internal matter to the UK.

Unless and until the DUP and ERG change their minds about putting a border down the Irish sea, its hard to see the backstop being accepted as is. Ni would permanently have different rules to the rest of the UK if new trade deals are done. Its something the DUP are dead set against and the ERG. They don't want to divide the UK. We may or may not agree with them, but that's how they feel about it. As far as they are concerned as soon as they make a new deal with a 3rd country, the backstop becomes permanent.

kunst nugget

devnull wrote: »

The unfortunate thing is, that the text about the Lisbon Treaty refereed to in that document is everywhere on social media and it's spreading like wildfire, I have family and friends who are spreading it and see many versions of it with hundreds and thousands of likes and comments, people really buy into this stuff.

Then they have the dare to turn around to the people who don't believe it and say that we are the ones that are whipping up project fear and believe everything that they read on the internet. Unfortunately as someone who was partly educated in the UK, the fact that people just believe stuff they read without checking it, says a lot of bad things about the standards of education in the UK. Thankfully my Irish education taught me to not be so naive.

I love the whole notion that some people have about nonsense like this that 'MSM aren't reporting it because they're protecting the status quo!' without stopping to think 'Hmmm, maybe mainstream media aren't reporting it because it's absolute horseshíte...'

Quin_Dub

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Unless and until the DUP and ERG change their minds about putting a border down the Irish sea, its hard to see the backstop being accepted as is. Ni would permanently have different rules to the rest of the UK if new trade deals are done. Its something the DUP are dead set against and the ERG. They don't want to divide the UK. We may or may not agree with them, but that's how they feel about it. As far as they are concerned as soon as they make a new deal with a 3rd country, the backstop becomes permanent.

Agreed that that is the view of the DUP , but the ERG couldn't give a monkeys about NI or anything else.

The backstop is just an easy excuse for them to oppose the deal , the only deal they want is for the UK to get everything on their wish-list and for the EU to get nothing..

For the ERG this is all about dominance - "Taking back control" as they say.

The Backstop is a canard for them.

And given that a majority of DUP voters in NI (along with everyone else there) are ok with the backstop , the British government are about to commit political and economic suicide for their country simply to appease 10 DUP MP's, all so that they can remain in Government for just a little tiny bit longer.

Pyrrhic victory doesn't even begin to describe it.

josip

devnull wrote: »

The unfortunate thing is, that the text about the Lisbon Treaty refereed to in that document is everywhere on social media and it's spreading like wildfire, I have family and friends who are spreading it and see many versions of it with hundreds and thousands of likes and comments, people really buy into this stuff.

Then they have the dare to turn around to the people who don't believe it and say that we are the ones that are whipping up project fear and believe everything that they read on the internet. Unfortunately as someone who was partly educated in the UK, the fact that people just believe stuff they read without checking it, says a lot of bad things about the standards of education in the UK. Thankfully my Irish education taught me to not be so naive.

What's that quote about no point arguing with stupid people?
Really, at this stage we (Irish/EUropeans) are better off without them.
Economically it will undoubtedly hurt in the short term, but they'll be happier and we'll be happier.

Cryptopagan

Sam Russell wrote: »

The backstop only applies the NI, and if the UK wants to make trade agreements in conflict with the requirements of the friction-less border, then the backstop kicks in with checks at the ports and airports for any matter that affects the NI border.

The UK wanted the backstop extended to the whole of the UK, but that is an internal matter to the UK.

The backstop as currently planned does have an all UK aspect, keeping the whole country in a customs union, while NI is tied into Single Market.

black forest

fash wrote: »

... And of 2466 voted decisions in the Council of Ministers, the UK lost 76 votes only including several covering areas subject to UK opt outs anyway:

https://mobile.twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/884474494512975872

So the UK has had far more control of the EU than the EU has had of the UK.

Wow, a massive Thank you @fash for finding and posting this link.:D


This is probably the best analysis i have read for a long time. It definitely shows the 180 degree turn around in UK politics within a short time. All this to please a little minority of brexiteers? Incredible stuff and an absolute ˋMust read´ for everybody.


https://twitter.com/emporersnewc/status/884474494512975872?s=21


I just removed the ˋmobile.´ part of your link so that it is a little bit easier for interested readers.;)

jm08

Sam Russell wrote: »

T K Whitaker was the prime reason Ireland developed from the 1960s on. Sean Lemass was prepared to listen to him and opened up Ireland economically.

T K Whitaker was the most important man of 1916 (he was born in 1916), and today his legacy is all around us.

Ireland was still playing cat and mouse with Britain up to the 1950s to gain its full independence. Unlike other European countries, Ireland didn't get a huge amount of Marshall Aid to help develop itself, so basically it had to try and fund everything itself while Britain put the squeeze on as it didn't suit them for Ireland to become prosperous as it wanted to retain it as an easy and cheap source of food and labour.

In fairness to Dev, he did a lot (including keeping Ireland clear of fascism and out of WWII) and securing Ireland becoming a republic in 1949 which was required groundwork for Ireland before Whittaker came along.

Akrasia

Cryptopagan wrote: »

The backstop as currently planned does have an all UK aspect, keeping the whole country in a customs union, while NI is tied into Single Market.

Which is something the UK pushed for and the EU conceded on having originally only wanted it to apply to NI with a customs border in the Irish Sea

ToBeFrank123

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Agreed that that is the view of the DUP , but the ERG couldn't give a monkeys about NI or anything else.

The backstop is just an easy excuse for them to oppose the deal , the only deal they want is for the UK to get everything on their wish-list and for the EU to get nothing..

For the ERG this is all about dominance - "Taking back control" as they say.

The Backstop is a canard for them.

And given that a majority of DUP voters in NI (along with everyone else there) are ok with the backstop , the British government are about to commit political and economic suicide for their country simply to appease 10 DUP MP's, all so that they can remain in Government for just a little tiny bit longer.

Pyrrhic victory doesn't even begin to describe it.

Well the view of some is that as soon as a WA deal is signed with the NI backstop included as is, the DUP withdraw support for May. She needs them to vote in subsequent legislation and without DUP she is a minority government. Given that most of the opposition are now remain, she'd probably lose those votes and end up calling a GE. So yes the DUP do have her over a barrel. The ERG also have her that way. She needs every last conservative and DUP vote to win key HoC votes.

listermint

Bambi wrote: »

Given that I was around before they joined the EEC, I doubt it sonny

Euroscepticism might have been around for a long time but the refugee crisis of 2014-15 played a huge role in increasing anti-EU feeling in the UK and Europe, and to deny that is churlish, frankly. I don't think Brexit would have happened without it.

yada yada yada.

It wouldn't have happened without a Tory rift and a heavily dark money subsidised campaign of misinformation.

Kinda like a refugee 'crisis' and Turkey joining the EU to send all their citizens to the UK.

Lets not get disingenuous here. This problem wasn't created in 2015. To pretend it was is quite literally being obtuse.

'sonny'