Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)
Options
Comments
-
Indeed - because most people who disagree with Blair know that all they have to do to discredit him is to mention Iraq.Joe_ Public wrote: »Ends up being divisive simply by default.
No reply needed to the issue at hand - just blanket finger-pointing and a complete lack of engagement - not that Brexiter debating policy is anything different to start with.0 -
And the moral is, if you have an idea to advance, for the love of God don't recruit Tony Blair to advance it.Indeed - because most people who disagree with Blair know that all they have to do to discredit him is to mention Iraq.
No reply needed to the issue at hand - just blanket finger-pointing and a complete lack of engagement - not that Brexiter debating policy is anything different to start with.
Blair's appalling wrongess about Iraq does not mean that all his views on every subject are appallingly wrong. But it does mean that he is an appalling advocate for any subject.0 -
Well, yes. One (specious) Brexiter arguments is that the UK needs an "independent trade policy" so that it can "sign trade deals" with other countries.If the UK leave the EU and we stay in ther has to be a border based on international rules as is my understanding.
On the surface, that's quite reasonable - why would the EU block national governments making trade deals with other countries?
For a very simple reason - because there's a customs' union (CU) which means that anything that enters into one CU country can automatically be forwarded onto another country without paperwork, since the regulatory and tariff rules are all the same.
This means that trade arrangements much be negotiated at EU level, not at country level, else you'd get Italy signing a trade deal with, say, Abyssinia to import bananas at zero percent duty while Spain's trade deal with Abyssinia might duty them at 50% - immediately creating an opportunity to smuggle stuff from Italy to Spain and cream off the 50% difference - unless there's a border in place which is capable of assessing duty on bananas.
Multiply that by every border times every product in a modern economy and you've got a mountain of paperwork and a huge custom's infrastructure which essentially is there to assess tax and stop smuggling.
I don't know how many of TM's cabinet are aware of how international trade works - there seems to be some fairly startling gaps in their knowledge - though whether that's through incompetence or dishonesty is open to question.0 -
I don't disagree with that either - and that's why nobody seems to be asking him to do too much these days.Peregrinus wrote: »And the moral is, if you have an idea to advance, for the love of God don't recruit Tony Blair to advance it.
Still, though, it would be nice for a change to leave him say something without the usually dull thud of "But, but Iraq!" from those excellent people who might find his points otherwise unanswerable.0 -
This is absurd. The EU's objectives and priorities do not miraculously dissolve on Brexit day. The reasons why the EU considers citizens rights, financial obligations and the Irish border to be important do not suddenly evaporate, and if they currently want those things addressed in any Withdrawal Agreement, then in ten days time they still want them addressed in any Future Relationship Agreement.Am aware of that, but lets say (hypothetically) Brexit went ahead on the day as scheduled.
Merkel might then tell Varadkar to get back in his box, as the whole idea of the WA and the backstop veto would immediately become redundant.
All attention would turn to the future relationship between the UK and the EU. No preconditions.
It would be in everybody's interest to announce an immediate Free Trade transition period. UK would then drop its proposed tariffs on beef and dairy, and it would commit to retain full harmonisation with the single market during the transition. This period could be used then to negotiate the Future Relationship and the actual trade deal, which negotiations would start in earnest immediately.
The promise of an EU volte-face is a standard Brexiter line, but it makes about as much sense as "They need us more than we need them!" and "the German auto industry will gallop to the rescue!". I have yet to see any Brexiter offer a coherent explanation of why the EU should suddenly stop caring about the things that it cares about.
It's just a variant of "They always blink at the last minute!" This time it's "They'll blink just after the last minute!" The claim is that the EU will pay a huge price for not abandoning its priorities (in the form of not getting Withdrawal Agreement) but, having paid that price, will then abandon them. This is pure wishful thinking. And that's being polite about it.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think there is a subset of people who voted for Brexit that believe it will allow the UK fix all of its problems in the same way that some Trump voters thought about the border wall.
The wall and Brexit are both attempting to address very complex issues with overly simple solutions, and after the voting have been counted and the cold hard facts of politics and the real world come to bare, it starts becoming increasingly obvious that they voted for an unobtainable fantasy.0 -
EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier has apparently mentioned that the price of a long Brexit delay (in the event of a possible 3rd Meaningful Vote defeat for the Government) would require a "new event" such as a General Election or a second referendum taking place. Supposing those two options were to be voted upon in the HoC by Westminster MPs, which do you think would gain the most votes?
Northern Ireland's Brexit underdogs - the DUP - would most certainly opt for a General Election, as would most of the Labour MPs......while the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the new Independent Group & the sole Green Party MP would all likely vote for a second referendum.
But what about the Conservatives? I suppose many of them would opt for a General Election as they feel that this option would enable them to continue to recognise and 'respect' the outcome of the 2016 Brexit referendum. However, might the thought of Jeremy Corbyn gaining the keys to No. 10 and also negotiating his own preferred vision of Brexit (involving Britain staying in the customs union) with the EU, persuade some Tories to gamble by opting for a second referendum - including some from the ERG - in the hope that Leave could win for a second time?0 -
1. PM May is a weak leader, and one who originally campaigned for Remain in the referendum. They sensed that in Brussels. The UK needed a strong decisive leader to pull it off, and one who actually believed in what they were doing.
What they need is not just a strong leader but a pragmatic one and one that can set a realistic agenda. 40 years of membership cannot be undone without catastrophic damage that is an immutable fact something that is utterly lost on the brexiteers because they cannot accept reality so they lash out at everyone including their own countrymen because they're too dense, pig ignorant and arrogant to comprehend this.2. The game has been rigged. The EU set the rules such that a country cannot leave the EU without first agreeing to concessions. That prevents any member state from leaving in an orderly way. The UK just happens to be the first country to find this out, and they found out the hard way.
There's no rigged game here. Everyone plays by the rules, the EU has ALWAYS done things by this, you know what your signing up to. Leaving means losing previous benefits, crashing out with reckless abandon entails diplomatic and economic consequences. The game isnt rigged its damage being caused by those who feel the rules dont apply to them and blindly ignore all warnings till it comes back and bites them in the áss. No matter what they say the damage of a crashout Brexit is not malicious punishment for Britain that is consequences as a result of their ignorant and reckless actions and their refusal to heed every warning that was given to them.Blair has apologized for this, so would it be worth leaving him speak on a single topic when he's saying something worth listening to without dragging in the same issue all the time?
Blair made a mistake, it's something regrets of course but lets face the facts, it was the US not the UK that was the prime motivator for that mess but not only that faulty intelligence was in play here as well. Hindsight is an incredibly funny thing because you cant predict the future and honestly if they knew the intelligence was faulty then not to mention the craptacular aftermath of this giving rise to those ISIS butchers they probably would've left Saddamn there though he was a monster in his own right far worse than anything Blair ever did. Some people are too blinded by this mistake though and are making that escuse to ignore him even though the logic of what he's saying is correct though.WhiteMan32 wrote: »EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier has apparently mentioned that the price of a long Brexit delay (in the event of a possible 3rd Meaningful Vote defeat for the Government) would require a "new event" such as a General Election or a second referendum taking place. Supposing those two options were to be voted upon in the HoC by Westminster MPs, which do you think would gain the most votes?
In all honesty considering the time left at this stage, May's government are more or less dead to rights politically, they're lame ducks and impotent and incompetent. I honestly don't think there's going to be an extention because that will require May to either call an election which has backfired before or call a 2nd referendum which she's been blindly stubborn about not calling even though this would potentially get them out of this. The EU isn't going to accept any more excuses or delay's unless she gives them a damn good reason and they're right not to as May has refused to take a decisive decision up to now.
With that being said there's only one OUT remaining for Britain at this stage and that's the whole lot of them in Government and the HoC swallowing their damn pride and just admitting defeat and rescinding A50. They can always have a 2nd vote down the line as that would realistically be covered under "good faith" for rescinding A50 and come up with a REALISTIC withdrawal plan this time as they're in this mess of their own making to begin with because they didnt plan they thought they'd get everything their own way but reality has a way of crushing stupity of this calibre.
The alternative is not an alternative it's a complete failure of the British state to its own people by allowing a crash out either by incompetent indecisiveness or willfull ignorance and it will be the beginning of the end as a crash out will hurt them severely economically and the corrosive fallout from it will likely cause Scotland to become independent (Labour might make a deal to allow a 2nd indyref for the SNP's support if they can get enough seats) and reunification of Ireland is also a strong possibility (DUP screwing over their own people for ideological BS will backfire specacularly on these idiots).
9 Days to go till they make an utter bollocks of it.....0 -
MPs hate elections. They hate them with a passion. For a sitting MP, an election is all downside - time, money, stress and the possibility of losing your seat. There's no upside, since the best possible outcome is what you have right now; a seat in Parliament.WhiteMan32 wrote: »EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier has apparently mentioned that the price of a long Brexit delay (in the event of a possible 3rd Meaningful Vote defeat for the Government) would require a "new event" such as a General Election or a second referendum taking place. Supposing those two options were to be voted upon in the HoC by Westminster MPs, which do you think would gain the most votes?
Northern Ireland's Brexit underdogs - the DUP - would most certainly opt for a General Election, as would most of the Labour MPs......while the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the new Independent Group & the sole Green Party MP would all likely vote for a second referendum.
But what about the Conservatives? I suppose many of them would opt for a General Election as they feel that this option would enable them to continue to recognise and 'respect' the outcome of the 2016 Brexit referendum. However, might the thought of Jeremy Corbyn gaining the keys to No. 10 and also negotiating his own preferred vision of Brexit (involving Britain staying in the customs union) with the EU, persuade some Tories to gamble by opting for a second referendum - including some from the ERG - in the hope that Leave could win for a second time?
So, given a free vote between a general election and a second referendum, most MPs' instinct would be to go for the second referendum. And this instinct would be reinforced by the consideration that a second referendum takes the responsiblity for making a Brexit decision away from them, whereas a general election (assuming they retain their seats) does not.
It's only party leaderships who ever want elections. The leadership of the opposition party will tend to want them for obvious reasons, and the leadership of the party in government may want one if they think they can strengthen their position in some way (e.g. a minority government hoping to get a majority, or a government with a small majority hoping to get a big one) or if they think that an immediate election, while it may harm their position, may harm it less than an election deferred to a later date is likely to.0 -
Still, though, it would be nice for a change to leave him say something without the usually dull thud of "But, but Iraq!" from those excellent people who might find his points otherwise unanswerable.
Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis would disagree if they could.
I hope they carve "but, but Iraq!" on Blair's tombstone.0 -
Advertisement
-
Am aware of that, but lets say (hypothetically) Brexit went ahead on the day as scheduled.
Merkel might then tell Varadkar to get back in his box, as the whole idea of the WA and the backstop veto would immediately become redundant.
All attention would turn to the future relationship between the UK and the EU. No preconditions.
It would be in everybody's interest to announce an immediate Free Trade transition period. UK would then drop its proposed tariffs on beef and dairy, and it would commit to retain full harmonisation with the single market during the transition. This period could be used then to negotiate the Future Relationship and the actual trade deal, which negotiations would start in earnest immediately.
The UK government has bullied, whined, threatened and lied all through this process. Loudly and publicly.
You can't negotiate with that. And you certainly can't give into it.0 -
AlmightyCushion wrote: »Didn't you hear Merkel is going to tell us to get back in our box. Just like we've been told she would do at some stage over the past few years. Just you wait and see.
It's the German car makers you see. They need the Brits more than the Brits need them.0 -
Considering that you'd Brexiteers quite literally threatening to destroy the EU and starve the Irish, forgetting that Ireland is a real country, a long time member of the EU and one of the founders of the Eurozone.
Then they act like they're shocked that the EU acted to stand in solidarity with one of its members rather than with an outgoing rogue member who seems to be seeking to do maximum damage to the organisation and one that is speaking about an EU member state like the almost the way Russia speaks about Ukraine.
Unfortunately the problem is they're not able to see anything from any perspective except that of an upper class Tory or a ranting Brexiteer. Everyone else is supposed to find them charming and anyone who doesn't is a horrendous bully apparently.
It looks like they're just going to blame "Brussels" or anyone else they can think of for their own crash head first into reality. They've always been 100% free to leave the EU. All members are. The EU can't magic away the practical consequences of doing that.0 -
So, those following Brexit on Twitter will have noticed a lot of ridicule being directed at the halfwitted Eurosceptic MEP Daniel Hannan. He wrote a newspaper article in which he claimed that (a) Fianna Fail won every Irish general election from 1932 to 2007, and (b) they lost the 2010 election because they were perceived to have been weak in allowing a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
This led to much Twitter merriment under the hashtag “#HannanIrishHistory”. Did you know that:
- The Orange Order is a law passed in 1795 requiring all those living north of the Boyne to drink fruit juice for breakfast?
- The ambulance siren was invented in Nenagh?
- The Spice Girls count Cumann na mBan among their musical influences?
- The Irish Potato Famine was introduced by the EU in 1996 as a punishment for Ireland rejecting Nice I. Only the UK stood by the Republic of Éire, loaning them potatoes in their hour of need?
- The statue of Oliver Cromwell outside Parliament in Westminster commemorates the Nobel Peace Prize which Cromwell won for ending the Irish Civil war?
And you can learn much more besides if you check out that hashtag on Twitter.
Since Brexiters never apologise and never admit an error, Hannan had no choice but to stand over his original claim about Fianna Fail, tweeting that:. . . I managed a Double First in Modern History from Oxford. One of the things I was taught is that historians necessarily have different takes on the same events. Please try to accept that yours is not the only interpretation.
Yeah, like Hannan’s take on Fianna Fail’s electoral history is even a remotely feasible interpretation. There’s interpretations, Dan, and there’s ignorance. Was that not also one of the things you were taught?
The ever-vigilant Twittersphere decided that, if Dan could be wrong about one thing, he could be wrong about others. Like his claim to have “a Double First in Modern History from Oxford”. Other Oxford History graduates chimes in to say that this didn’t sound right to them, and before long an Oxford History don appeared to confirm that, yup, Oxford graduates don’t have double firsts in history or any other discipline; the double first is a strictly Cambridge notion. It’s only in Dan’s “interpretation” that he has a double first.
Amusing, but also telling, because I think symptomatic of a wider problem. The Brexiter worldview simply sees the world as it wishes it to be, and then asserts that what it sees is true. And if one of its “facts” is questioned or looks dodgy, it simply sees the new “facts” required to ignore or dismiss that problem.
And that’s what has the UK in the state it’s in today.0 -
There's generally been a lot of shock amongst a large clique of Tories and similar when they encounter the reality that Ireland's a real country with a serious economy and interests beyond the UK. They've an assumption that we are somehow a wayward British region.
I know that the way Ireland has been discussed by senior Tories shocked quite a few people I've spoken to elsewhere in Europe. There was a bit or a "we had heard that the relationship was bad but this is the first time we've really seen the reality of it."
Twice people I was talking to in Brussels compared it to Russian attitudes towards parts of Finland and Ukraine etc.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »- The ambulance siren was invented in Nenagh?
I like this one.
I think one of the lasting effects of Brexit, however the future relationship turns out, will be the new life it has given to the old image of the UK ruling elite. Many people assumed that the Upper Class Twit had died out or been sidelined with the arrival of Tony Blair's New Labour, and "Dave"'s response in refreshing the Torys image to be Down with their Fellow Kids.
But Davis, Raab, Hannan, Boris, and Rees-Mogg are doing sterling work to make Lord Snooty and His Pals the breakout hit movie of next summer.0 -
The one thing I'm noticing has been Germans who tended to have this notion that the UK is pragmatic, organised, calm and sensible are just shocked at what they're seeing.
It's a view of the UK that was held by a lot of people who didn't tend to look much at the domestic politics or media.0 -
So TM will only ask for a short extension. I can see the EU denying that and only offering a longer one forcing TM to choose between a no deal Brexit (which would be against the will of parliament) or a longer extension of a year or more. If the latter happens, literally anything could happen in that time including a GE or a 2nd ref or her deal passing.0
-
The one thing I'm noticing has been Germans who tended to have this notion that the UK is pragmatic, organised, calm and sensible are just shocked at what they're seeing.
It's a view of the UK that was held by a lot of people who didn't tend to look much at the domestic politics or media.
I dont agree this is the view from the Germans.
When I lived in Germany they were always polite to the British but viewed them as eccentric.0 -
Various EU figures have been signalling that a long extension would require a convincing case to be made by the UK that it was going to take steps that would have the effect of changing the current deadlock, and offer prospects of getting the WA ratified.SimonTemplar wrote: »So TM will only ask for a short extension. I can see the EU denying that and only offering a longer one forcing TM to choose between a no deal Brexit (which would be against the will of parliament) or a longer extension of a year or more. If the latter happens, literally anything could happen in that time including a GE or a 2nd ref or her deal passing.
My guess is that May decided to seek only a short extension for two reasons - first, strong opposition to a long extension from hard Brexiters in cabinet and in the parliamentary party and, secondly, the awareness that she had no convincing case to make for it, so it would be refused, leading to a Salzburg-type humiliation.
If I'm right, the EU is not going to deny a short extension but offer a long one. If the UK can't make a convincing case that a long extension will have a good outcome - and it certainly can't make that case if it is not even seeking a long extension - then I don't see any way in which the EU will offer them one.
I think a more likely outcome would be the offer of a short extension - very short, ending before preparations for the EP elections need to begin - coupled with a strong statement from the Council of Ministers stating explicitly that a longer extension (at the end of the shor extension) could only be granted if:
- the UK participates in the EP elections
- the UK acknowledges that there will be no renegotiation of the Withdrawal Agreement during the long extension
- the UK demonstrates a persuasive plan for breaking its domestic logjam and making the decisions it needs to make. This might be a second referendum or a general election or a cross-party statement that it is changing its red lines (towards a softer Brexit) and wants to revise the Political Declaration (but not the WA) to reflect its new aspirations.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well, yes. One (specious) Brexiter arguments is that the UK needs an "independent trade policy" so that it can "sign trade deals" with other countries.
On the surface, that's quite reasonable - why would the EU block national governments making trade deals with other countries?
For a very simple reason - because there's a customs' union (CU) which means that anything that enters into one CU country can automatically be forwarded onto another country without paperwork, since the regulatory and tariff rules are all the same.
This means that trade arrangements much be negotiated at EU level, not at country level, else you'd get Italy signing a trade deal with, say, Abyssinia to import bananas at zero percent duty while Spain's trade deal with Abyssinia might duty them at 50% - immediately creating an opportunity to smuggle stuff from Italy to Spain and cream off the 50% difference - unless there's a border in place which is capable of assessing duty on bananas.
Multiply that by every border times every product in a modern economy and you've got a mountain of paperwork and a huge custom's infrastructure which essentially is there to assess tax and stop smuggling.
I don't know how many of TM's cabinet are aware of how international trade works - there seems to be some fairly startling gaps in their knowledge - though whether that's through incompetence or dishonesty is open to question.
To be honest the ignorance in a lot of TM’s cabinet astonishes me. None more so than Karen Bradley where even a basic knowledge of politics/history would know more than her about Northern Ireland before she got the job.0 -
2. The game has been rigged. The EU set the rules such that a country cannot leave the EU without first agreeing to concessions. That prevents any member state from leaving in an orderly way. The UK just happens to be the first country to find this out, and they found out the hard way.
The "EU" rigged the system by creating a successful Union which means leaving it will always be bad.0 -
Duane Dibbley wrote: »I dont agree this is the view from the Germans.
When I lived in Germany they were always polite to the British but viewed them as eccentric.
It was certainly the view I was getting from quite a few Germans who hadn't really interacted with the UK much.
Being lumbered with notion that a country is politically unstable to the degree that it might undermine investors is very damaging though and that's what the Tories have managed to do.
Whatever about perceptions and stereotypes, the UK's political decisions have cost companies serious money - caused relocations, paused investments, messed up supply chains and you had a statement literally saying to F ... Business coming from a very senior Tory and someone whose name has been thrown around as a potential prime minister!!!??0 -
Not really EU imposed is it? If the UK leave the EU and we stay in ther has to be a border based on international rules as is my understanding. Not the EU's fault the UK wants to leave and can't pass the very deal they agreed to. It is why when the Irish govenment came out months ago saying they had no plan for a border I was intensely annoyed with them. You're the government and should know the old adage failing to prepare is preparing to fail.
The Irish Government did plan. What they didn't do is fall into the trap of publicly stating they had a plan which the DUP, Brexiteers and UK Government would have immediately landed on the Irish Government as an act of bad faith and that "The Irish Government". The Irish Govt. line has always been we do not want a border and therefore should not publicly plan for it.
In the real word the adage is that those who publicly prepare for brexit will be deliberately mid represented by the Brexit Ultra's.0 -
Micosoft had it. The Irish government had a plan; it would just have been a very bad idea to say so publicly, since it would mean Ireland did not believe UK assurances that, even in in a no-deal situation, it would honour its no-hard-border commitment. Ireland in fact didn't believe those assurances, but it would have been a very bad idea to say so openly, since it would inflame things and make it easier for the UK to walk away from its assurances, and how would this be of any possible advantage to Ireland?Not really EU imposed is it? If the UK leave the EU and we stay in ther has to be a border based on international rules as is my understanding. Not the EU's fault the UK wants to leave and can't pass the very deal they agreed to. It is why when the Irish govenment came out months ago saying they had no plan for a border I was intensely annoyed with them. You're the government and should know the old adage failing to prepare is preparing to fail.0 -
There's been a lot of planning here behind the scenes and Ireland has some pretty effective business development agencies and infrastructure that is very fit for purpose in a mess like this and they had been very active anyway due to the 2008 issues that we'd worked through.
There's been a lot or focus on diversification of exports and it has had results.
I think Ireland's generally been pretty good at getting itself prepared as best as we can.
My view of it is that it's a crash out we will probably be ok. It'll be a few bumps but we'll adapt because we're small and nimble.
The UK has a much bigger issue because it's going to have to deal with the shock of disruption of all of its supply chains very dramatically. Ireland still remains connected to a huge market and has a lot of alternatives.
Also because we're small, the volumes of goods are just much easier to deal with.
The funniest bit though was the idea that the UK could find a way or splitting Irish politics on the border issue or find a pro British Tory like party here. They seemed a bit taken by surprise when the whole spectrum of Irish politics adopted a solid line on Brexit.
They may differ on most other areas of policy, but Irish parties managed to all be on more or less the same page on this. Even SF and FG have had common ground.0 -
It must be very difficult being a non-British euroskeptic over the last 24 months.Merkel might then tell Varadkar to get back in his box, as the whole idea of the WA and the backstop veto would immediately become redundant.
What was initially seen as heralding the fall of the EU, a fresh attack on a corrupt and inept institution has yielded the exact opposite outcomes than a euroskeptic would have expected.
Where they expected that Merkel and Macron would wade in and take the lead, use smaller EU countries as body armour, and bully and threaten the UK, instead the leaders of the big countries have decisively stepped back, given the spotlight to the small countries and used the weight of the EU to protect them.
Brexit was going to prove that the EU was nothing more than a step towards a new German federal superstate. Instead it's proven the opposite.
Where they expected that slow, incompetent EU bureaucrats would be chasing their tails while the savvy UK politicians dictated the playbook, instead the EU bureaucrats have been completely prepared from day one, have stood serenely and patiently waiting for the UK to get their sh1t together, and have never once been thrown a curveball or been knocked off guard by the UK.
Brexit was going to prove that the EU doesn't work, that it serves no purpose except to give big fat pensions to some foreign civil servants. Instead it's proven the opposite.
It's quite an amazing phenomenon of Brexit. Not only has the factual part of an orderly exit from the EU been proven impossible, but even the fantasy stuff, the Brexit-related "wins" that people voted on and that people attached to their own personal visions of Brexit, have been proven wrong.
There is not a single angle from which Brexit is not a complete and utter failure to deliver.0 -
My view of it is that it's a crash out we will probably be ok. It'll be a few bumps but we'll adapt because we're small and nimble.
Down the pub with the local farmers, I've been hearing what I view as the usual 'beal bocht,' "farming will be ruined" "lots of farmers hurt by this" "what's the gummint gonna do." Personally I think this is a knee jerk reaction, farmers seem to look for the worst in every event and tend to find something. I think the farming business in Ireland will suffer some cuts and bruises from this, but that Northern Ireland will be hammered far worse, and farmers that trade to Northern Ireland from here will be seriously impacted.
Now, as callous as it seems, if this means realignment of our farming to other markets than NI and the UK, I think that's good - but it really does suck to be forced into that.
Beyond farming, it's the unintended consequences that scare me. Lots of smart people in Ireland and the EU are planning and preparing like crazy, but reasoning under uncertainty is always tricky. It's going to be a crazy ride if the UK crash out, which is still in my opinion the likeliest view, if not now, after the short extension if one is requested and granted.0 -
So despite TM being told, both directly and I assume indirectly, that the EU would be favourable to a longer extension provided TM provided a plan as to what she was actually planning to do, and that the EU would not look favourably on a short extension on the basis that even if there was a plan if offered no chance of success, despite all this TM failed to get any consensus for her own cabinet and this yet again failed to actually make any decision.
Opting instead for the path of least resistance for her own party, in the knowledge that it solves nothing.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well I think part of the German super state idea is coming from the UK itself being structured as England and some irrelevant countries that it keeps tied up in the boot.
They kept approaching Merkel as if she ran the EU and she kept politely explaining that they needed to talk to Barnier and that she wasn't running the EU and was just German Chancellor.
They're projecting their own structural dysfunction onto the EU. They don't really understand multilateral organisations or voluntary power sharing as equals.
I'm not saying everyone in England is like this, but those driving Brexit and many of the senior Tories most definitely are.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement