Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Water John

The most bizarre thing of all the things that have happened was, Stephen Barclay, Brexit Minister summing the debate on behalf of the Govn't. He then goes into the lobbies and votes against the Govn't!!!

Strazdas

Strazdas wrote: »

The very long extension will not be granted automatically. The UK will have to give a detailed explanation on what it intends doing when they submit their extension request.

If they say "Give us a couple of years and we'll see what happens", the extension will be flatly rejected. This would be a nightmare for the EU - the UK still in A50 mode as a half in / half out 'member' of the EU and nobody having a clue what is happening or what the plan is.

This is an impossible request, too many variables, they have no idea who will be PM or in government in a few weeks time, let alone a couple of years. It's only a matter of time before a motion of no confidence is raised and quite likely to pass as Unionists could vote against the government for failing to protect the Union.

SimonTemplar

It truly is a rare combination of stupefying incompetence at a national level that a Brexit process with the goal of "taking back control" has now literally handed all control to the EU as to how the UK can proceed.

I'd even say, no matter how disillusioned you are at the political system, nobody could have predicted two years ago that the Brexit negotiations would be handled so ineptly to the point we have arrived at today.

Irishmale0399

Deleted User wrote: »

This is an impossible request, too many variables, they have no idea who will be PM or in government in a few weeks time, let alone a couple of years. It's only a matter of time before a motion of no confidence is raised and quite likely to pass as Unionists could vote against the government for failing to protect the Union.

And that is exactly why the EU has to show balls and say goodbye UK at the end of the month. If they wish to return we will be happy to have them from 2025 if they can agree on a return and this time without any special contribution deals etc. All in or nothing.

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

The most bizarre thing of all the things that have happened was, Stephen Barclay, Brexit Minister summing the debate on behalf of the Govn't. He then goes into the lobbies and votes against the Govn't!!!

As did the International Trade Secretary. Mr Fox.

Professor Moriarty

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

And that is exactly why the EU has to show balls and say goodbye UK at the end of the month. If they wish to return we will be happy to have them from 2025 if they can agree on a return and this time without any special contribution deals etc. All in or nothing.

Except that our economy would take a severe hammering.

10000maniacs

SimonTemplar wrote: »

This is why I don't understand why the DUP and ERG are considered so important for the WA vote. Even if they both vote for the WA, it'll still fail by a lot.

There only needs to be 75 to vote the other way and its passed.
I can see a lot of Labour getting scared of a cliff edge Brexit. And Tories too. It is very possible.

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

This is an impossible request, too many variables, they have no idea who will be PM or in government in a few weeks time, let alone a couple of years. It's only a matter of time before a motion of no confidence is raised and quite likely to pass as Unionists could vote against the government for failing to protect the Union.

They cannot request a two year extension without even expressing what the planned course of action for the extension period is. Barnier, Macron, Verhofstadt have stated this repeatedly (Britain has the option of revoking A50, calling a second referendum, a general election etc......telling the EU nothing of its plans and requesting an extension is simply not on)

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

This is an impossible request, too many variables, they have no idea who will be PM or in government in a few weeks time, let alone a couple of years. It's only a matter of time before a motion of no confidence is raised and quite likely to pass as Unionists could vote against the government for failing to protect the Union.

I may be off the mark, but I would not see any great downside for the EU in a long extension if it comes to TM`s deal failing again.

Other than perhaps have to listen to another bunch of UKIP muppets making fools of themselves in the interim.
The EU are not going to change their position on the backstop no matter how long the extension is.

tuxy

Strazdas wrote: »

They cannot request a two year extension without even expressing what the planned course of action for the extension period is. Barnier, Macron, Verhofstadt have stated this repeatedly (Britain has the option of revoking A50, calling a second referendum, a general election etc......telling the EU nothing of its plans and requesting an extension is simply not on)

You can be sure they will ask for a long extension if it comes down to it but it will be impossible for the current government to honestly express a clear course of action. So no WA,No GE and No Ref #2 means the EU27 will be voting on a very feeble excuse for a long extension. I think the majority would still agree to it but of course all it takes is a veto to stop it.

Water John

i can't remember her name but one of the EU law experts mentioned some innovative solutions to the longer extension and UK MEPs. She quoted precedent of Croatia. Also, the mandate of present UK MEPs could be extended or to avoid elections go back to when MPs were also nominated as MEPs.
If the EU want creative solutions to allowing a longer extension, they will do it.

A few of the ERG, like Francois and Chope will never vote for TMs Deal. But some more LB MPs might do so.

Irishmale0399

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Except that our economy would take a severe hammering.

Do you not believe the last 2 years have cost the EU as a whole money??? The Irish economy may suffer however what you should not forget is that a lot of companies would relocate or have already relocated to Ireland. I personally feel there would be a balance at the end of the day...the EU would not leave Ireland high and dry. What you should not forget is....the UK will need Irelands products and services as much after they leave if not more than they do now and they will not put levies on anything which would damage their own economy or people.



As for the normal Joe Soap...yes he may be hit slightly, however no one ever said the whole thing would mean no one suffers. Can you name one thing the UK offers Ireland/EU that the EU or Ireland cannot provide from within its own economies???

Duane Dibbley

charlie14 wrote: »

I may be off the mark, but I would not see any great downside for the EU in a long extension if it comes to TM`s deal failing again.

Other than perhaps have to listen to another bunch of UKIP muppets making fools of themselves in the interim.
The EU are not going to change their position on the backstop no matter how long the extension is.

So there is no downside for many counties in the EU triggering A50s of there own. They can have open ended time limits with no consequences.

All they have to do is use the UK as an example.

Injuryprone

If a prolonged extension means the UK has to run the European elections, then imo these elections would become a defacto second referendum. You'd either have pro or anti Brexit candidate, there literally would be no other issue, and whichever camp gets the more votes would indicate the result of a second referendum.

black forest

Water John wrote: »

i can't remember her name but one of the EU law experts mentioned some innovative solutions to the longer extension and UK MEPs. She quoted precedent of Croatia. Also, the mandate of present UK MEPs could be extended or to avoid elections go back to when MPs were also nominated as MEPs.
If the EU want creative solutions to allowing a longer extension, they will do it.

A few of the ERG, like Francois and Chope will never vote for TMs Deal. But some more LB MPs might do so.

Yes, there are two possibilities. See points 25 & 26 in the second thread from Eleanor Sharpston for the croatian one.


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109676599&postcount=52

Irishmale0399

Injuryprone wrote: »

If a prolonged extension means the UK has to run the European elections, then imo these elections would become a defacto second referendum. You'd either have pro or anti Brexit candidate, there literally would be no other issue, and whichever camp gets the more votes would indicate the result of a second referendum.

If they send MEPs to Brussels for another term that will surely leave the EU open to having protest votes from within. That would mean EU politics would be slowed down or blocked to suit the UK agenda.


Just send them packing....

BLIZZARD7

daheff wrote: »

explain why so?

plenty of places have borders betwen them without paramilitary activity. why would adding a customs checking border cause paramilitary activity?

i've yet to hear a convincing argument saying why it would happen.

the biggest problem is there is so much talk about it happening that its a self fulfilling prophecy.

Well not every other border/region in the world has the history of the one in question. Any border could be interpreted as a break of the good Friday agreement by certain parties, I.e an international peace agreement. It would be ignorant to assume there would be no return to violence if a border was put in place.

Why go against the will of the people on both sides of this would be border anyway? It would be unnecessarily looking for trouble because of actions from a third party I.e the British parliament.

The border issue would have been done and dusted and placed firmly in the Irish sea if the DUP weren't propping up the government anyway...

charlie14

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

Do you not believe the last 2 years have cost the EU as a whole money??? The Irish economy may suffer however what you should not forget is that a lot of companies would relocate or have already relocated to Ireland. I personally feel there would be a balance at the end of the day...the EU would not leave Ireland high and dry. What you should not forget is....the UK will need Irelands products and services as much after they leave if not more than they do now and they will not put levies on anything which would damage their own economy or people.



As for the normal Joe Soap...yes he may be hit slightly, however no one ever said the whole thing would mean no one suffers. Can you name one thing the UK offers Ireland/EU that the EU or Ireland cannot provide from within its own economies???

Other than time and effort by EU negotiators I don`t see it has cost the EU anything.
It has cost the UK though with companies moving or planning to move to other EU countries if the UK leaves.


As to the UK needing Irish produce, from their proposed tariffs especially on meat in the event of a no deal, even if the proposal for produce to NI makes a farce of that, then they seem determined to not to source here.



Whatever their thinking on that, to me anyway, that just seems like spite because they did not get their own way on the backstop

CalamariFritti

To me it seems May have outsmarted them after all. Because the clock is ticking still for March 29th and a hard brexit. Now panic is setting in with the ERG and the DUP. A long extension may happen jeopardising brexit altogether and they're signalling they may vote for her deal.

An Ciarraioch

Cox desperately clutching at straws:

http://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1106308179057623040

funkey_monkey

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I heard one of the ERG guys saying earlier on he was fully intent on voting down the deal but if May promised to resign in the near future that might be a game changer. I'm not sure why this should be so but if this was a widely held position it might offer a direction out of the morass.

I don't understand how that would make the deal more palatable. Nothing would have changed in that scenario.
How does being stuck in the backstop get resolved by removing the prime minister?

FrancieBrady

charlie14 wrote: »

Other than time and effort by EU negotiators I don`t see it has cost the EU anything.
It has cost the UK though with companies moving or planning to move to other EU countries if the UK leaves.


As to the UK needing Irish produce, from their proposed tariffs especially on meat in the event of a no deal, even if the proposal for produce to NI makes a farce of that, then they seem determined to not to source here.



Whatever their thinking on that, to me anyway, that just seems like spite because they did not get their own way on the backstop

According to a meat industry guy on radio this morning the opposite is true. To him the British had created a backdoor for Irish beef into the UK because they desperately needed to do it, in the short to medium term after a hard Brexit anyhow. He also said that if Irish producers availed of it, it had the capacity to destroy NI agri exports to the UK. A 'caring' Westminster indeed!

He was on Pat Kenny show if I remember correctly.

charlie14

CalamariFritti wrote: »

To me it seems May have outsmarted them after all. Because the clock is ticking still for March 29th and a hard brexit. Now panic is setting in with the ERG and the DUP. A long extension may happen jeopardising brexit altogether and they're signalling they may vote for her deal.

That would be my read on it, but not that it has anything to do with May`s smarts.
It is a direct result of the vote passing that the UK would not leave without a deal.

Something that May continually refused to consider, and even tried to block.

daheff

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's easier and cheaper to ignore a certain level of smuggling than try to stop it. That's why the plan is for self verification unless there's a lot of it.




27,000 troops didn't stop 40% of the fuel in NI being either smuggled or laundered. It was being done on an industrial scale. Coal up north doesn't have a carbon tax. Back of the envelope and you can get to a billion euro year without counting booze and fags or clothing or beef.

As someone put it , customs wouldn't go into South Armagh without the police. And the police wouldn't go there without the Army, and they wouldn't go there without helicopters. What would be an impromptu inspection elsewhere becomes a logistical exercise.


The big problem with the UK's tariff plans for NI is that it puts legit businesses in direct competition with smugglers. And requires an Irish Sea border. It would leave NI further behind us than they are now, and the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.

thats smuggling and criminality..... not paramilitaries (granted the same persons are possibly involved in both).... so my question still remains unanswered.

A border does not equal paramilitary

BonnieSituation

charlie14 wrote: »

Other than time and effort by EU negotiators I don`t see it has cost the EU anything.
It has cost the UK though with companies moving or planning to move to other EU countries if the UK leaves.


As to the UK needing Irish produce, from their proposed tariffs especially on meat in the event of a no deal, even if the proposal for produce to NI makes a farce of that, then they seem determined to not to source here.



Whatever their thinking on that, to me anyway, that just seems like spite because they did not get their own way on the backstop

The backstop was their idea.

charlie14

FrancieBrady wrote: »

According to a meat industry guy on radio this morning the opposite is true. To him the British had created a backdoor for Irish beef into the UK because they desperately needed to do it, in the short to medium term after a hard Brexit anyhow. He also said that if Irish producers availed of it, it had the capacity to destroy NI agri exports to the UK. A 'caring' Westminster indeed!

He was on Pat Kenny show if I remember correctly.

Is it not the case that if we were prepared too, for all intents and purposes, smuggle meat by shipping from NI that would be the case, but if we were to ship from the republic than there would be a tariff of 50% ?

daheff

BluePlanet wrote: »

The reason it will happen is there are some bad people that will use it as an opportunity to cause mayhem.
Border infastructure will be a target that they know the general population despises so provides an opportunity for some 'spectaculars', thus increasing dissent's profile and gain support.

and most of them are 30+ years older. Armies, weapons & technology has come on quite a lot in that time.

majority of population (especially younger ones) have lived in relative peace and would not want a return of the bad days. I'd imagine they would happily put up with a border & sensible government over terrorism

charlie14

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The backstop was their idea.

The irony of that is certainly not lost to me.:)

2ygb4cmqetsjhx

I just want Brexit. Please just do it. I am so bored of spending my time reading this thread. Don't get me wrong. It is a great thread. But I am so bored of this topic. I wish it would just happen on March 29th to see what happens. The amount of hours and ink spent on Brexit is criminal. Just do it!

If Britain stay at this point which looks like I think it is actually bad for the EU. They need to leave hard and just get on with it. If it destroys Britain so be it. If it destroys the EU so be it. Seriously who cares anymore?

FrancieBrady

charlie14 wrote: »

Is it not the case that if we were prepared too, for all intents and purposes, smuggle meat by shipping from NI that would be the case, but if we were to ship from the republic than there would be a tariff of 50% ?

No, this guy was talking about a legal way to do it. Only problem would be capacity at NI ports. But ships had been contacted about moving up from southern ports to meet demand.