Will Britain ever just piss off and get on with Brexit? -mod warning in OP (21/12)

goat2

I am all Brexited out, I wish they would call it one way or another, then we will have to get on with it

FrancieBrady

goat2 wrote: »

I am all Brexited out, I wish they would call it one way or another, then we will have to get on with it

You are looking at 6 to 7 years minimum of this stuff. UK politics is in chaos and it isn't going to get better any time soon. Divisions deepening rather than healing.

FrankPoll.

Boris said let's get this done

And then he proceeded to do the opposite

Peregrinus

FrankPoll. wrote: »

Boris said let's get this done

And then he proceeded to do the opposite

The only way to "get this done", in the sense of bringing it to a quick conclusion, is to revoke Article 50 notice and pretend that the 201 referendum never happened. While there is much good sense in this idea, politically speaking it is hardly feasible.

All other options - all, without exception - will take many years to resolve. A no-deal brexit will be the longest of them.

_Kaiser_

So Juncker kicking off the endgame with admission that a border will return in the event of a No Deal but blame the UK, not the EU.

While he right of course, it exposes the lie of the red line backstop requirement. As happened not THAT long ago, Ireland's interests will be thrown out to keep the EU afloat.

No doubt some will see this as a rallying cry for a United Ireland but that would be making a bad situation even worse, something I think/hope most people would realise when the republican glasses comes off.

Peregrinus

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

So Juncker kicking off the endgame with admission that a border will return in the event of a No Deal but blame the UK, not the EU.

While he right of course, it exposes the lie of the red line backstop requirement. As happened not THAT long ago, Ireland's interests will be thrown out to keep the EU afloat.

This is a bizarre argument.

In the first place, Juncker's statement here is not an "admission". Everybody has known all along that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, a hard border will ensue. (Only a few of the less grounded-in-reality ultra-brexiters have [pretended to] believe otherwise.) It's precisely because of this that the backstop is necessary, and has been placed front-and-centre of the EU's negotiating position. Far from "exposing the lie of the red line backstop requirement", Juncker is merely pointing out the reason why the backstop is a red line requirement.

As for "throwing Ireland's interests out", Juncker would hardly point to the reason why a backstop is needed as a first step in abandoning the requirement for a backstop.

lawred2

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

So Juncker kicking off the endgame with admission that a border will return in the event of a No Deal but blame the UK, not the EU.

While he right of course, it exposes the lie of the red line backstop requirement. As happened not THAT long ago, Ireland's interests will be thrown out to keep the EU afloat.

No doubt some will see this as a rallying cry for a United Ireland but that would be making a bad situation even worse, something I think/hope most people would realise when the republican glasses comes off.

What everyone already knew is not an admission.

The backstop was a promise to be given by Britain to secure a withdrawal agreement that satisfied their own red lines.

That Britain now longer likes the smell of their own actions and has sunk its own withdrawal agreement is a sad state of affairs but the consequences of that are hard borders.

Ireland's interests being thrown out? How did you arrive at that?

_Kaiser_

My point is that as it's now looking likely that a last minute deal won't be done (whether it be due to Boris himself or parliamentary chaos in the UK), the EU is positioning itself as the victim and that we should be laying the blame at the UK's feet while a border returns.

Juncker isn't wrong of course, but it completely ignores the reasons WHY people (and not just in the UK) are feeling increasingly disenfranchised with the EU, ignores the potential chaos the return of a hard border will cause on this island.. The needs of the EU must come before all.

Just seems like the blame game is ramping up rather than a alternative that would serve our interests and needs better.

FrancieBrady

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

My point is that as it's now looking likely that a last minute deal won't be done (whether it be due to Boris himself or parliamentary chaos in the UK), the EU is positioning itself as the victim and that we should be laying the blame at the UK's feet while a border returns.

Juncker isn't wrong of course, but it completely ignores the reasons WHY people (and not just in the UK) are feeling increasingly disenfranchised with the EU, ignores the potential chaos the return of a hard border will cause on this island.. The needs of the EU must come before all.

Just seems like the blame game is ramping up rather than a alternative that would serve our interests and needs better.

When will people get it into their heads that the 'EU's needs' are our 'needs'.
The SM and CU have to be intact for it to work. That the UK didn't think of that before this reckless decision is their fault and nobody else's.

To not protect the CU/SM or aid in that, would be our fault as a constituent part of the EU.

FrankPoll.

There'll have to be an extension and an election

Hard brexit won't be allowed to happen, no one benefits

_Kaiser_

FrankPoll. wrote: »

There'll have to be an extension and an election

Hard brexit won't be allowed to happen, no one benefits

It's probably the only realistic option at this stage alright.

Personally I think this whole debacle and the underlying causes behind it just shows why the EU doesn't work as a political entity, but should have just remained as the EEC trade body.

Wait till they get serious about tax harmonisation next (the outcome of the Apple appeal will kick that off) and the problems it'll cause here. Let's see then how aligned our interests are. Of course we all saw that with the "cheapest bailout in history" to protect German banks, or how Greece and allegedly Ireland were bullied into it (not exactly the finest example of solidarity), but how quickly some forget it seems.

Peregrinus

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

My point is that as it's now looking likely that a last minute deal won't be done (whether it be due to Boris himself or parliamentary chaos in the UK), the EU is positioning itself as the victim and that we should be laying the blame at the UK's feet while a border returns.

Juncker isn't wrong of course, but it completely ignores the reasons WHY people (and not just in the UK) are feeling increasingly disenfranchised with the EU, ignores the potential chaos the return of a hard border will cause on this island.. The needs of the EU must come before all.

What Francie said. We are the EU. Obviously a hard border on Ireland affects us more than the rest of the EU, but a leaky border in Ireland which imperils the Single Market also affects us more than the rest of the EU (since it must jeopardise our place in the Single Market).

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Just seems like the blame game is ramping up rather than a alternative that would serve our interests and needs better.

But that's the point. There is no alternative to the backstop which would serve our interests and needs better; all the alternatives are worse. (Except the UK revoking Art 50 notice and agreeing with itself to pretend that the 2016 referendum never happened. But that's not within the EU's power to deliver.)

If the EU decides to leave with no deal, there are no good options for us. But the least bad option is to continue to press the UK to enter into an agreement to honour its no-hard-border commitment. And the pressure on the UK to do that is diminished if they point to can to anything at all which suggests that a hard border can be avoided without them making the decisions they need to make. So Irish/EU voices suggesting that hard border could be avoided by unilateral EU action (or inaction) would be doing Ireland no favours at all.

lawred2

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

It's probably the only realistic option at this stage alright.

Personally I think this whole debacle and the underlying causes behind it just shows why the EU doesn't work as a political entity, but should have just remained as the EEC trade body.

Wait till they get serious about tax harmonisation next (the outcome of the Apple appeal will kick that off) and the problems it'll cause here. Let's see then how aligned our interests are. Of course we all saw that with the "cheapest bailout in history" to protect German banks, or how Greece and allegedly Ireland were bullied into it (not exactly the finest example of solidarity), but how quickly some forget it seems.

please... humour us!

SeaBreezes

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

So Juncker kicking off the endgame with admission that a border will return in the event of a No Deal but blame the UK, not the EU.

While he right of course, it exposes the lie of the red line backstop requirement. As happened not THAT long ago, Ireland's interests will be thrown out to keep the EU afloat.

No doubt some will see this as a rallying cry for a United Ireland but that would be making a bad situation even worse, something I think/hope most people would realise when the republican glasses comes off.

What??!? UK is leaving the EU and of course if no deal then there would be a hard border, which they have already 'bent the rules' for us to try and prevent.

UKs only response, maybe Ireland would drop their standards to our level? And leave the EU? Hmmmm. Oh and no legal framework we 'promise' to Implement it someday...' right. We all know how reliable UK promises are.,.

I think The EU are only just realising how sociopathic the 1% really are and that they will crash the UK economy to avoid paying tax on their billions anyway they can. The EU cares more about its citizens, and cannot comprehend this level of belligerent disregard for the common folk. That's why it took so long to understand. Boris is just driving home the point.

And I've heard all the arguments about what COULD happen in the future, (EU armies, tax and overlord rule) and while I doubt they will happen they are imaginary what ifs... cross that bridge if and when you get there.

And I blame our capitulation during the bank crash on our politicians at the time. More backbone and standing up to the EU would have gotten us more from the EU. They caved too easily and quickly and 'took one for the team' instead of protecting the populace. That said, we are STILL better off in the EU than outside. Imagine relying on the UK to protect our interests...

knipex

FrankPoll. wrote: »

There'll have to be an extension and an election

Hard brexit won't be allowed to happen, no one benefits

At this point I have serious doubts that an extension would be granted even if requested. (especially looking at the labor conference).

SeaBreezes

FrankPoll. wrote: »

There'll have to be an extension and an election

Hard brexit won't be allowed to happen, no one benefits

Name one benefit to the UK from leaving the EU? And a tangible one, not the made up fabulous trade deals they could have with far off shores.. or bendy bananas.. or inky chips.. or non-existent money to NHS..

The 1% benefit, the owners of offshore accounts in the caymans. And I guarantee if that tax was removed from the WA it would be signed in the morning.

What we are looking at here is parliament desperately trying to stop the 1% crashing he economy for financial gain. Democracy versus the elite. Wonder who actually controls Britain..

take everything

take everything wrote: »

I don't really follow the Brexit stuff but the "backstop".

This is something I always suspected to be a steaming turd of nonsense and increasingly it seems to be the case.

And I'm someone who doesn't even follow this.

Backstop: it's barely a word. Or is it.
And wasn't it always the case that Ireland has no power in this fight. When push comes to shove, neither the EU or the UK will be pushed around by this country.

Was it just us getting notions as usual.

So, I come back to this post which then was reflexively ridiculed.

Admissions now from Juncker that a border of some form is inevitable. Just as I suspected (and was denigrated for daring to do so) in this post.

Even Varadkar admits an alternative to the backstop (whatever that is) is needed.

Igotadose

take everything wrote: »

Even Varadkar admits an alternative to the backstop (whatever that is) is needed.

No, he welcomes those that will work as well as the backstop. Now, where are those alternatives?

Backstop's clearly defined in the WA.

Nate--IRL--

take everything wrote: »

Even Varadkar admits an alternative to the backstop (whatever that is) is needed.

Everybody has been asking the UK to produce the Alternative they promised would replace the backstop, from the very start.

It hasn't materialised, in fact, they have recently said they'd need at least another year.

Nate

FrancieBrady

take everything wrote: »

So, I come back to this post which then was reflexively ridiculed.

Admissions now from Juncker that a border of some form is inevitable. Just as I suspected (and was denigrated for daring to do so) in this post.

Even Varadkar admits an alternative to the backstop (whatever that is) is needed.

It didn't make any sense first time around in fairness to you.

Padre_Pio

No deal = border
Deal = backstop or some acceptable alternative.

This has been true for the past year. Nothing has changed since then.

20Wheel

i dont want to see a border for several reasons, including not wanting the dup to feel like theyve won something, and likewise with the euroskeptics/brexiters who would no doubt turn such a compromise into a storyline about how the eu wants jackbooted conscription, 9/11 inside job, gay frogs, 4th reich etc.

so, i wonder about this speculation that the EU will "make" ireland put up a border, or effectively blackmail ireland in order to secure the single market.

i see a few counters to this theory that we'll be 'forced' by the big bad eussr.
one option might be to secure points of entry/exit and demand that all commercial goods leaving the island from our ports/airports can prove compliance with the single market. costly and complicated, yes, but this would only have to be endured slightly longer than the post brexit UK could endure having an open border with europe and all those awful pakistanis and caribbeans which the eu has been sending them since the 60's (cough....commonwealth).

(edit; battery issues, delay)

anyway, so in the event of no deal and the eu requirements for a border ireland can go down the route of disobedience in the same way as hungary has regarding non-compliance with eu border policy. its important to remember that at this same time, at the time when we are being sanctioned/processed for sanctions by the EU the UK is also having to endure an open border with Europe. This was one of the key reasons for brexit, 'control of our borders'.

So if necessary we can use a mix of placing new conditions on exports to the EU, and open non-compliance with border policy in order to buy time which can be used to pass the ball to the UK and their brexit requirement for 'control of borders'.

Additionally we can do like so many gombeens have traditionally done in this country and go down the covert non-compliance route of 'yeah I'll do that now' while giving it the long finger as we burn up time supposedly complying with eu policy, again this time can be used to pass the ball to the UK, give them the burden of erecting the border.

If we can drag it out long enough (which we're world class at) then we can get the UK to enforce this border, at which point it may even be possible to point to said UK border and start the lingering process of arguing that we don't need to enforce the border since the UK has one there already.

its like a pain endurance game, who can last longer - ireland getting sanctioned by the eu, or the uk govt under siege from its gammons who want 'control of their borders'.

Eric Cartman

http://theconversation.com/how-a-ukraine-plus-brexit-deal-could-solve-theresa-mays-problems-107297 Not a new article but still a decent deal boilerplate that could be worked off, remove any parts about tax harmonisations and it would likely provide something in the right direction of what britain wants but still handing them enough independence

lawred2

Padre_Pio wrote: »

No deal = border
Deal = backstop or some acceptable alternative.

This has been true for the past year. Nothing has changed since then.

this has been true since A50 was triggered

Padre_Pio

lawred2 wrote: »

this has been true since A50 was triggered

Yep, I'm just counting from when the Withdrawal agreement was drafted.

knipex

After Corbyn winning the vote at the labor conference I think any hope of this getting resolved dissapeared.

Labour are to remain neutral on Brexit. If they win the election they are going to spend 3 months renegotiating "the deal" and then 3 months later another referendum in which if Corbyn gets his way Labour will take no position so they wont campaign for it.. (or against it).

Bannasidhe

knipex wrote: »

After Corbyn winning the vote at the labor conference I think any hope of this getting resolved dissapeared.

Labour are to remain neutral on Brexit. If they win the election they are going to spend 3 months renegotiating "the deal" and then 3 months later another referendum in which if Corbyn gets his way Labour will take no position so they wont campaign for it.. (or against it).

My understanding is they say they will negotiate a deal and then have a referendum where the choice will be Leave with this Deal or Remain.
So people actually know what they are voting for rather than this Brexit mean Brexit means *insert soundbite here* BS that's been going on for years

If there is an actual deal on the table then all of those niggly 'This' might happen if 'that' happens but if we invent some great British technology than 't'udder' will happen and it will be right pukka rubbish the Tories have been spouting could be replaced by 'right - this is what will happen if we do this'. Which seems to me to be a good thing.

Then let 'the people' decide and if Leave wins than any MP who voted against the deal is ignoring the 'will of the people' which the Brexiteers keep telling us is a bad thing.

knipex

Bannasidhe wrote:

My understanding is they say they will negotiate a deal

That right there is the problem. There is no new deal. The deal is the deal..


How many bloody times..

Bannasidhe

knipex wrote: »

That right there is the problem. There is no new deal. The deal is the deal..


How many bloody times..

The deal that is there was negotiated by May and dictated by what she thought the Tories wanted and the DUP would accept.

New government = different criteria - no reason a new deal cannot be negotiated. It would not necessarily be a radically different deal, juts a deal without May's red lines - although Corbyn might have some of his own.

If it meant the UK would finally bloody well leave and be done with it I am sure the EU would be willing to discuss the issues.

Imreoir2

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

My point is that as it's now looking likely that a last minute deal won't be done (whether it be due to Boris himself or parliamentary chaos in the UK), the EU is positioning itself as the victim and that we should be laying the blame at the UK's feet while a border returns.

Juncker isn't wrong of course, but it completely ignores the reasons WHY people (and not just in the UK) are feeling increasingly disenfranchised with the EU, ignores the potential chaos the return of a hard border will cause on this island.. The needs of the EU must come before all.

Just seems like the blame game is ramping up rather than a alternative that would serve our interests and needs better.

What alternative? The UK have failed to come up with such an alternative, perhaps you can give them a dig out? We need the EU, if that point has not gotten through you have not been paying attention. The needs of the EU are our needs.