Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

woohoo!!!

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Why would we agree to that?

Why would we agree to the other solutions? Same logic.

That's why I'd go for WTO terms with the UK not enforcing an Irish border. What the EU decides to do is up to the EU, that's not our decision.

What does Ireland gain and lose following this logic? You might want to think it through.

prawnsambo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Prime Minister, Chief Brexit Negotiator (and the rest of the team) Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary, House of Lords, Chairman and majority of Brexit Committee, nearly all of the Cabinet Posts, the Electorl Commission, opposition parties, Trade Unions, Business organisations, Universities - should I go on?
They can do this because the leading members of the Establishment have all been Remainers and they are the ones who control appointments. That's why the Referendum result was such a shock to them.

There's a message there if you take the blinkers off. Brexit is not a good idea. Anything with an IQ greater than a bucket of hair can see this. There is no upside. And the fact that all those who promoted the thing can't get a coherent plan that works down on paper is testament to that. There wasn't a plan before the referendum, those who promoted it, ran away from having to implement it in droves after the referendum.We have the ludicrously named "Alternative Arrangements Committee" who so far can't seem to come up with anything other than "ya da ya da".

There is nothing that anyone could come up with that would deliver on all the promises made during the campaign. The leave campaigners purposely kept it vague (on their own admission) because they felt that it would lose them votes if they actually put forward something concrete. Hence 'sunny uplands' and unicorns.

ThePanjandrum

So we would accept all of the goods that the UK accepts without checks?

You check a small percentage to see if they comply with EU regulations and cancel the licences of companies persistently breaching the regulations. This can be done away from the border. I expect that phytosanitary checks would be made in the same way as at present. I would imagine that these matters would be handled by the Revenue organisations of both countries anyway, they have the expertise.

By the way, regarding all this panic about chlorinated chicken

1. There is no danger from it, according to EU studies, it's a non-tariff method of restricting imports
2. The EU produces chlorine washed salad anyway, same process
3. How many of you who go on holiday or live in the USA refuse to eat the chicken and other food anyway?
4, Chlorine washing is a good method of health protection anyway.

murphaph

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

There's still the option of the sea border between Ireland and the rest of the EU.

You must be joking. British mess to clean up.

downcow

downcow wrote: »

I ask you with respect to try for a moment to look at this from a UK point of view. And yes you can hark back to who caused the problem “were not the ones leaving” etc etc. But I ask you to park that for a moment as we are where we are. Would you consider such a major agreement around trade etc, that you know the majority of your country is very unhappy with, and the was never a way out of it unless everyone of 27 countries had to give you permission to get out?? Would you accept it? This is the position as I see it and why an indefinite backstop can’t possibly happen

I can only assume that the reluctance to help me understand this by addressing the question rather than going over history convinced me that you guys completely understand that there is absolutely no way a indefinite backstop will happen.
Given this reality it may be good to discuss options rather than hammering away at something we all know isn’t happening.

ThePanjandrum

prawnsambo wrote: »

There's a message there if you take the blinkers off. Brexit is not a good idea. Anything with an IQ greater than a bucket of hair can see this. There is no upside. And the fact that all those who promoted the thing can't get a coherent plan that works down on paper is testament to that. There wasn't a plan before the referendum, those who promoted it, ran away from having to implement it in droves after the referendum.We have the ludicrously named "Alternative Arrangements Committee" who so far can't seem to come up with anything other than "ya da ya da".

There is nothing that anyone could come up with that would deliver on all the promises made during the campaign. The leave campaigners purposely kept it vague (on their own admission) because they felt that it would lose them votes if they actually put forward something concrete. Hence 'sunny uplands' and unicorns.

There have been many plans, but the only ones which are seriously considered are the ones that the Government decides on. The Government is run by Remainers, hence the plans not put forward by their people are spiked.

First Up

downcow wrote:

Fair question Firstly I take anything politicians promise with a pinch of salt. I believe she is committed to a permanent open border. But open, soft, hard, these are all subjective terms. Will the trade arrangements evolve? I would think so over the years and decades ahead Do you think one day tm will wake up an decide to send the troops to close the border? Is that your fear? But now you answer my earlier question

You didn't ask me a question.

There is nothing subjective about an open border. Either May is committed to it or not. She repeatedly says she is and so far, the backstop is the best she has come up with to achieve that outcome.

Maybe she'll find a better way; maybe not but the question is really how committed is she to the outcome.

View

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Prime Minister, Chief Brexit Negotiator (and the rest of the team) Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary, House of Lords, Chairman and majority of Brexit Committee, nearly all of the Cabinet Posts, the Electorl Commission, opposition parties, Trade Unions, Business organisations, Universities - should I go on?
They can do this because the leading members of the Establishment have all been Remainers and they are the ones who control appointments. That's why the Referendum result was such a shock to them.

Virtually all without exception of the key decision makers are Leavers.

The PM is THE Leaver since it was her decision, and hers alone, to write to the European Council to trigger art 50. She was under no obligation - legal or otherwise- to do so.

Most MPs also backed Leave, as they backed a motion giving explicitly permission for her to do this, if she so chose. Obviously, if they backed Remain, they would not have given her such permission. And, as Parliament is (or at least was) sovereign under U.K. law, MPs decision on this would have been final.

Also, the electoral commission clearly was biased toward Leave from the start. They accepted a request from Brexiters to change the referendum question from a yes/no format to a Leave/Remain one based on extremely dubious claims about the format. They make no effort to highlight the inherent bias introduced into a referendum where many non-EU citizens were given a vote and virtually all EU ones were excluded - and that bias was exploited by Leave with targeted promises of easier immigration. Lastly, they made no effort to highlight or investigate the dubious funding of the Leave campaign until after the referendum result. And they did act partially by telling the Leave campaign, but not the Remain one, that a particular funding practice was allowable - a decision that meant Leave accelerated its spending in the final days, whereas the Remain one believed they couldn’t do so.

J Mysterio

That Twitter spat between Kate Hoey and Guy Verhofstadt just underlines the plain ignorance we have from some of the Brexiteers.

* Hoey criticises Verhofstadt as an unelected bureaucrat. * Verhofstadt explains he was elected by 500k in a popular vote. * Hoey say's he wasnt elected by UK voters!

prawnsambo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

You check a small percentage to see if they comply with EU regulations and cancel the licences of companies persistently breaching the regulations. This can be done away from the border. I expect that phytosanitary checks would be made in the same way as at present. I would imagine that these matters would be handled by the Revenue organisations of both countries anyway, they have the expertise.

By the way, regarding all this panic about chlorinated chicken

1. There is no danger from it, according to EU studies, it's a non-tariff method of restricting imports
2. The EU produces chlorine washed salad anyway, same process
3. How many of you who go on holiday or live in the USA refuse to eat the chicken and other food anyway?
4, Chlorine washing is a good method of health protection anyway.

Me. It is absolutely disgusting. And very suspiciously larger than its EU counterpart. Ugh.

But your proposal is ludicrous. You seem to have no idea about the agri-food industry here. For example, NI chicken producers, export their meat to the UK via Dublin for processing and this processed meat in many forms (like ready to eat meals etc.) are re-imported into the likes of Tesco and M&S. So the chain of origin is lost, the minute the product hits the UK mainland. And that's just for product that goes into supermarkets. Some is re-imported for further processing or packaging and exported elsewhere.

The EU single market is an intricate and highly integrated one. You might as well try and get the eggs out of a baked cake as try and separate out the origins of ingredients from processed foods coming from a country with lower standards.

Midlife

downcow wrote: »

Would you consider such a major agreement around trade etc, that you know the majority of your country is very unhappy with, and the was never a way out of it unless everyone of 27 countries had to give you permission to get out?? Would you accept it?.

No you would consider the alternatives.

Can you please let us know what they are?

One of May's red lines is no border. Another is independent trade which rules out remaining a member of the customs union.

I can see two solutions to this.

1: Hard Border
2: Completly ignore the northern border and allow smuggling of goods/movement of people between the EU and UK.

You keep asking people for solutions or explinations.

I don't blame the Uk for Brexit, I blame their political class for ****ing this up so much.

It is a circle you cannot square. The UK have given up and are basically now giving out about the EU not squaring it for them.

CelticRambler

downcow wrote: »

I honestly don’t think she is going to get a deal through with the indefinite backstop in it.

The backstop is not "indefinite" - it would exist "unless and until" alternative arrangements are put in place. There's your limit. Come back to us with an effective, practical alternative arrangement and the backstop is gone.

downcow wrote: »

Do you guys not think some compromise with come st the 11fh hour? Which many be so fudged that it will be the 13th hour before we all unravel what it means.

Well there you have it - when exactly is the "11th hour"? For many businesses (see report about shipping to Japan) that's right now; for others, it was the end of last year; and if the we're waiting for Westminster to find something they can agree on, it could be some time in the late 2020s.

So no: as things stand at the moment, the only compromise is the one that's on the table. Unless (and until ) Theresa May drops one or more of her red lines, nothing will be offered.

downcow wrote: »

Would you consider such a major agreement around trade etc, that you know the majority of your country is very unhappy with, and the was never a way out of it unless everyone of 27 countries had to give you permission to get out?? Would you accept it?

Nope. But that's why "we" appointed experienced negotiators to get the best possible deal for us, and gave them coherent terms of reference upon which that deal could be formulated. They've done a fine job, and we are where we are.

On the other side of the table, from the very moment Theresa May set out her red lines, everyone knew that there was no way she would ever be able to reconcile those inherently contradictory demands. When you (the British) use the phrase "we are where we are" it comes across as asking us (the EU) to start from here and try sorting out a mess of your creation. As they'd say in London: "Sorry, mate, not my problem!"

downcow wrote: »

An interesting request for may to put to Eu. ie Eu cannot place a border without UK permission

What??? :eek: Are you suggesting that the UK - who voted for Brexit on the basis of sovereignty and taking back control of its borders - would think it acceptable to prevent a separate Union from exercising its own sovereignty and protecting its borders? :pac:

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

I never said anything about you following UK rules. You would follow EU rules but with an open border. The rest of the EU would quarantine you so that you did not infect the rest of the single market.

Why? What idiots would vote to isolate themselves from one of the biggest trading blocs on the planet, when there are no advantages to doing so?

Enzokk

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

You check a small percentage to see if they comply with EU regulations and cancel the licences of companies persistently breaching the regulations. This can be done away from the border. I expect that phytosanitary checks would be made in the same way as at present. I would imagine that these matters would be handled by the Revenue organisations of both countries anyway, they have the expertise.

By the way, regarding all this panic about chlorinated chicken

1. There is no danger from it, according to EU studies, it's a non-tariff method of restricting imports
2. The EU produces chlorine washed salad anyway, same process
3. How many of you who go on holiday or live in the USA refuse to eat the chicken and other food anyway?
4, Chlorine washing is a good method of health protection anyway.

Okay, lets say that importing beef from the UK becomes really cheap because they all of a sudden have cheaper products from countries that are able to produce them cheaper but have lower standards. While we are checking these products, in small percentages, our beef industry is destroyed because they cannot compete with these cheap imports from the UK. We find all of the products from the UK is not to our standards, now we have to import beef from the continent at an expense because we have put up barriers between us and the EU and we have lost our beef industry. All because the UK voted leave and we decided we would be better off to put up barriers between us and the EU. Great plan.

As for the chlorinated chicken, it is not just about whether it is safe to eat. It is that producers can lower the standards they keep the chickens in to save money and those chickens has more diseases and bacteria because they don't have to worry about any of that while they are alive because they bath the chicken meat in chlorine to kill all those bacteria.

As for the other areas the US is looking to lower the standards for the UK to get a deal, any comments on those?

prawnsambo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

There have been many plans, but the only ones which are seriously considered are the ones that the Government decides on. The Government is run by Remainers, hence the plans not put forward by their people are spiked.

I have yet to see one. That worked.

Lots of Norway plus and Canada plus plus (add or subtract as many pluses as you think necessary) and all of them fail to meet one or more of the promises made during the referendum.

Like Norway plus. And the people proposing that one fell silent or went 'hell no' when it was explained that Norway paid into the EU budget, had free movement and had no say in rules that they had to implement.

Saw a tweet from Nadine Dorries advocating that one. And then literally saying no way when told that it would mean taking rules with no say. But then she's the genius that complained about May's deal because it meant no MEPs.

Plese show me one plan that was put forward by a brexiter that wasn't a one page* wish list.

*One page may be an exaggeration, but a proper plan would need to be ordes of magnitude greater than anything I've seen.

woohoo!!!

No plan, no clue, just exit the EU. So why is it that taking back control means asking the EU to sort out the mess they created, or do they want to hand control back to the EU because buyer's remorse?

Infini

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

There have been many plans, but the only ones which are seriously considered are the ones that the Government decides on. The Government is run by Remainers, hence the plans not put forward by their people are spiked.

Its all well and good peddling conspiracy theories about oh the remainers are sabotaging brexit etc but wheres your EVIDENCE exactly? Theres none because the truth is the reason the leavers plans all fail is because they're based on lies and those pushing them refuse to accept this when reality hits in how unworkable they are.

Midlife

woohoo!!! wrote: »

No plan, no clue, just exit the EU. So why is it that taking back control means asking the EU to sort out the mess they created, or do they want to hand control back to the EU because buyer's remorse?

Haha,

never thought of it that way.

'The EU are not taking back control for us'

mickoneill31

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

By the way, regarding all this panic about chlorinated chicken

1. There is no danger from it, according to EU studies, it's a non-tariff method of restricting imports
2. The EU produces chlorine washed salad anyway, same process
3. How many of you who go on holiday or live in the USA refuse to eat the chicken and other food anyway?
4, Chlorine washing is a good method of health protection anyway.

1: I thought part of the reason for not taking chlorinated chicken was that the chickens have to have a healthier life. Its not all about our health.
2: See point 1.
3: Since I've been reading up on it I would think twice. I haven't been to the US in about 10 years though and I didn't have a clue then.

CelticRambler

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

4, Chlorine washing is a good method of health protection anyway.

(a) no it's not: it is thought to be contributing to the increase in allergies and other immune-mediated diseases, by wiping out "good" bacteria along with those that cause food poisoning; and

(b) it is used in the US to mask extremely poor animal welfare/breeding and butchery standards.

Infini

J Mysterio wrote: »

That Twitter spat between Kate Hoey and Guy Verhofstadt just underlines the plain ignorance we have from some of the Brexiteers.

* Hoey criticises Verhofstadt as an unelected bureaucrat. * Verhofstadt explains he was elected by 500k in a popular vote. * Hoey say's he wasnt elected by UK voters!

Hoey is just one example of how deluded the Brexiteers are. Shes too prideful, arrogant and thick to admit she's wrong no matter what solid facts are presented to then. Waste of time arguing with them as they're utterly deluded and incapable of being responsible and accepting the truth that theyre wrong. Sadly her cohorts seem all too willing to bring down their country with them.

Professor Moriarty

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

There have been many plans, but the only ones which are seriously considered are the ones that the Government decides on. The Government is run by Remainers, hence the plans not put forward by their people are spiked.

This statement is untrue as I have proven to you. The repetition of such untruths seriously undermines your argument.

Infini

CelticRambler wrote: »

(a) no it's not:l it is thought to be contributing to the increase in allergies and other immune-mediated diseases, by wiping out "good" bacteria along with those that cause food poisoning; and

(b) it is used in the US to mask extremely poor animal welfare/breeding and butchery standards.

I can also say that having been to canada and the US that while the food isnt all bad (theres places that serve really good food) the quality of food in the US supermarkets compared to here is definately lower and not as good. Food there in a few places even Mcdonalds isnt as good as here either. Generally the food standards here are much better and shouldnt be compromised.

prawnsambo

CelticRambler wrote: »

(a) no it's not:l it is thought to be contributing to the increase in allergies and other immune-mediated diseases, by wiping out "good" bacteria along with those that cause food poisoning; and

(b) it is used in the US to mask extremely poor animal welfare/breeding and butchery standards.

Yep. A line breaks down and chicken starts hitting the floor. A floor that's covered in blood and other detritus from the production system. So the chicken has to be picked up, chlorine washed to get rid of anything it might have collected and put back on the line. Except sometimes they 'forget' to do this. And it's been proven, in a UK lab no less, that chlorine washing does not rid the meat of bacteria like listeria or salmonella.

So the chlorine is the least of your worries. Never mind the fact that this stuff is traversing the Atlantic for days, sitting on a dock somewhere for more days before eventually hitting the supermarket shelves. That's control for you.

Christy42

downcow wrote: »

downcow wrote: »

I ask you with respect to try for a moment to look at this from a UK point of view. And yes you can hark back to who caused the problem “were not the ones leaving” etc etc. But I ask you to park that for a moment as we are where we are. Would you consider such a major agreement around trade etc, that you know the majority of your country is very unhappy with, and the was never a way out of it unless everyone of 27 countries had to give you permission to get out?? Would you accept it? This is the position as I see it and why an indefinite backstop can’t possibly happen

I can only assume that the reluctance to help me understand this by addressing the question rather than going over history convinced me that you guys completely understand that there is absolutely no way a indefinite backstop will happen.
Given this reality it may be good to discuss options rather than hammering away at something we all know isn’t happening.

Yes I would like is to take pretty much whatever serious offer the EU gave us if Ireland voted to leave the EU.

It would be madness to think we would get a great offer as a small country dealing with a massive trade block. No offer that would likely be acceptable to anti EU Irish would be possible and I would very much like to have a job in Ireland in this scenario afterwards (though that would still be up in the air with an agreement).

Second trade agreements can be broken, see Trump in the US demanding NAFTA renegotiation. In this case the UK would always have the option of no deal if it felt the EU was not sincerely negotiating or was stalling. Since no deal seems to be their other option right now the WA seems to be the better option.


Oh a better analogy would be if the EU only demanded Donegal or some section of Ireland to follow all rules until a better solution was found. It was the UK that wanted the backstop to apply to the full UK, not the EU.

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

Would you consider such a major agreement around trade etc, that you know the majority of your country is very unhappy with, and the was never a way out of it unless everyone of 27 countries had to give you permission to get out??

What majority? What country?

Would you accept it?

You do know that Britain can walk away from trade agreement talks, and not deal with the EU at all, if it wants? If Britain wants a trade deal with us (the EU) it cannot use Ireland and the threat of rolling back the hard-won gains of the GFA as leverage. That's what this backstop is about.

murphaph

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

You check a small percentage to see if they comply with EU regulations and cancel the licences of companies persistently breaching the regulations. This can be done away from the border. I expect that phytosanitary checks would be made in the same way as at present. I would imagine that these matters would be handled by the Revenue organisations of both countries anyway, they have the expertise.

By the way, regarding all this panic about chlorinated chicken

1. There is no danger from it, according to EU studies, it's a non-tariff method of restricting imports
2. The EU produces chlorine washed salad anyway, same process
3. How many of you who go on holiday or live in the USA refuse to eat the chicken and other food anyway?
4, Chlorine washing is a good method of health protection anyway.

The border is already a smugglers' paradise but laundered diesel and dodgy cigarettes can't destroy our agri-food sector's reputation. A couple of chlorinated chickens found in a German Subway (Dawn foods supplies all EU Subways with meat products!) and it's game over. If the British cause a hard border we will have to police it. At that stage it's really time for the British presence in Ireland to end.

downcow

CelticRambler wrote: »

Nope. But that's why "we" appointed experienced negotiators to get the best possible deal for us, and gave them coherent terms of reference upon which that deal could be formulated. They've done a fine job, and we are where we are.

Well that’s incredible! ‘Negotiating’. The clue is in the name. The idea is to come out of it with a compromise that works for all parties.
If you went into a negotiation with your child about pocket money for him and his brothers knowing he had to go back to them for agreement . and you come out with a solution that they should get 10p per year each. His brothers then tell him that is very unfair, they are not agreeing to it and so they cease to cooperate with you and won’t go to school. Would you say you had done an excellent bit of negotiating? And you were not opening negotiations again? And tell him and his brother that their negotiator had done a bad job on their behalf and it’s just tough even though it was clear from the outset that it had to be ratified by all.
Oh yes, if he comes back with a solution to going to school you love to hear it but it must include and indefinite arrangement that includes 10p per pocket money unless you decide otherwise

Simple analogy I know.
Ps thanks to the few people who did answer my question which confirmed what I thought. That you guys would never accept what you are asking UK to accept

downcow

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What majority? What country?



You do know that Britain can walk away from trade agreement talks, and not deal with the EU at all, if it wants? If Britain wants a trade deal with us (the EU) it cannot use Ireland and the threat of rolling back the hard-won gains of the GFA as leverage. That's what this backstop is about.

I am not going to rise to the trolling.

Kermit.de.frog

One wonders what is going to hapeen 6 county farmers in 2021.

Anyone who thinks the UK is going to be able to simply roll over current subsidies from the EU is wrong.

Those subsidies will end.

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

I am not going to rise to the trolling.

What?

As far as I can ascertain there is a majority in the north for the backstop and no majority for anything in Westminster.