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

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

Explain how he’s handing control of ni to dup

The ridiculous notion that Unionists in the northeast corner of Ireland would get to choose what EU regulations were acceptable or not. The utter shamelessness of the DUP cowering in behind the GFA, they so hate, as a method of stymying majority support for the backstop in the North.

You are being played like a fiddle and you can't see it. The current government want to try to engineer a crash-out and you guys are helping them despite being the region, under current UK jurisdiction, that will suffer most.

On the upside, we've all gotten a refresher course on just how difficult Unionists are to deal with and how reckless the British are when it comes to Ireland.

This will not be forgotten and you will not drag people in the north out of the EU without consequences.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The ridiculous notion that Unionists in the northeast corner of Ireland would get to choose what EU regulations were acceptable or not. The utter shamelessness of the DUP cowering in behind the GFA, they so hate, as a method of stymying the majority support for the backstop.

You are being played like a fiddle and you can't see it. The current government want to try to engineer a crash-out and you guys are helping them despite being the region, under current UK jurisdiction, that will suffer most.

On the upside, we've all gotten a refresher course on just how difficult Unionists are to deal with and how wreckless the British are when it comes to Ireland.

This will not be forgotten and you will not drag people in the north out of the EU without consequences.

The absurd thing about this is that if (in the fantasy world that the EU would agree to this) this deal got through, it would bring an end to NI quicker than a No Deal would.
The only problem is that this way would be the much less 'scenic' route, because NI would become unmanageable and a constant trenchant debate about it's place in the EU.

I love the way the EU are dealing with Boris's juvenile attempts to play the blame game here.

Annd9

downcow wrote: »

Explain how he’s handing control of ni to dup

This is the second PM to put the future of NI in DUP hands . Brexit would be signed sealed and delivered if May had not been reliant on DUP votes in the HOC , but don't let truth get in the way of good story .
I'm wondering if Downcow would be opposed to a referendum in NI on a NI only backstop , seeing as you are all about democracy ?

quokula

quokula wrote: »

This sort of extreme ignorance is why the numbers move so much once election campaigning starts and more people actually engage their brains.

Apologies for mocking labour Komrade

Peregrinus

downcow wrote: »

Explain how he’s handing control of ni to dup

There's a couple of aspects to this:

Effectively, Johnson’s plan would give DUP indefinitely recurring opporunities to impose a permanent hard border in Ireland - regardless of the wishes of the majority in NI, in the Republic or indeed in Great Britain.

The default position, if the DUP do not agree each time to renew the arrnagements with the EU, is that there will be a hard border with the Republic and no border with GB. That's obviously a skewed arrangement; in no way can it be said to represent an attempt to find parity between the two communities in NI.

To make matters worse, the arrangements only which Johnson is willing to contemplate are very bad for NI businesses - much, much worse than the backstop would be. This of course maximises the chances that the DUP will veto their continuation. Once can't aviod the suspicion that Johnson has intentionally designed the arrangements to be needlessly lousy so as to help ensure that they won't survive.

Finally, we might reasonably ask whether it's a good idea to put NI in the position of endlessly having to opt between substandard arrangements to minimise the border with Ireland, or a hard border with Ireland. Turning this into a running sore that must be poked and prodded every four years has obvious political risks, quite apart from the lasting commercial uncertainty.

No. From every point of view this is a lousy idea which is harmful to Northern Ireland, both politically and economically.

twinytwo

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's a couple of aspects to this:

Effectively, Johnson’s plan would give DUP indefinitely recurring opporunities to impose a permanent hard border in Ireland - regardless of the wishes of the majority in NI, in the Republic or indeed in Great Britain.

The default position, if the DUP do not agree each time to renew the arrnagements with the EU, is that there will be a hard border with the Republic and no border with GB. That's obviously a skewed arrangement; in no way can it be said to represent an attempt to find parity between the two communities in NI.

To make matters worse, the arrangements only which Johnson is willing to contemplate are very bad for NI businesses - much, much worse than the backstop would be. This of course maximises the chances that the DUP will veto their continuation. Once can't aviod the suspicion that Johnson has intentionally designed the arrangements to be needlessly lousy so as to help ensure that they won't survive.

Finally, we might reasonably ask whether it's a good idea to put NI in the position of endlessly having to opt between substandard arrangements to minimise the border with Ireland, or a hard border with Ireland. Turning this into a running sore that must be poked and prodded every four years has obvious political risks, quite apart from the lasting commercial uncertainty.

No. From every point of view this is a lousy idea which is harmful to Northern Ireland, both politically and economically.

The funny thing about all of this, of Arlene actually had two brain cells to rub together, she could have put NI in a very strong position economically.

However her outright hatred for everything Irish means she would rather have the troubles back than a stable economy.

Boggles

The only thing people need to know about the deal is the DUP are happy with the deal.

No thanks.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's a couple of aspects to this:

Effectively, Johnson’s plan would give DUP indefinitely recurring opporunities to impose a permanent hard border in Ireland - regardless of the wishes of the majority in NI, in the Republic or indeed in Great Britain.

The default position, if the DUP do not agree each time to renew the arrnagements with the EU, is that there will be a hard border with the Republic and no border with GB. That's obviously a skewed arrangement; in no way can it be said to represent an attempt to find parity between the two communities in NI.

To make matters worse, the arrangements only which Johnson is willing to contemplate are very bad for NI businesses - much, much worse than the backstop would be. This of course maximises the chances that the DUP will veto their continuation. Once can't aviod the suspicion that Johnson has intentionally designed the arrangements to be needlessly lousy so as to help ensure that they won't survive.

Finally, we might reasonably ask whether it's a good idea to put NI in the position of endlessly having to opt between substandard arrangements to minimise the border with Ireland, or a hard border with Ireland. Turning this into a running sore that must be poked and prodded every four years has obvious political risks, quite apart from the lasting commercial uncertainty.

No. From every point of view this is a lousy idea which is harmful to Northern Ireland, both politically and economically.

That constant debate/running sore becomes one for the whole island though, not just NI. It couldn't not be, as it would affect the whole island.

It is criminally irresponsible for the UK to suggest this and selfish, abject clutching at straws in the face of utter defeat by the DUP.

threeball

McDermotX wrote: »

Maybe that welfare case he has to go to in order to do that should tell him to piss off this time, rather than looking like a fool again.

Didn't she look into the procedure for removing a prime minister after the last time. It's like he's copying Donald Trump doubling down on every mistake.

knipex

Nobbies wrote: »

The e.u wii accept boris johnson,s new proposals all be after a few tweaks. Why?

the alternatives are more uncertain. he has being adamant there will be no extension asked for by him.
even if he were to resign and leave it to someone else to ask for a extension there would be a general election in the u.k soon after.
that would do one of two things.
it would change everything into the tories favour and leave them with the dup again if they needed them or else return a parliament similar to the one currently there which has really being a impasse.
if the latter were to happen we would only be back here again with more carry on delaying progress.
the former would give boris the go ahead for a no deal early next year
so when the e.u weight it all up thats how it will have to be viewed.

Your assuming the EU have a preference for a bad deal over no deal...

They don't..

Or are terrified at the prospect of no deal

They arent ...

Topgear on Dave

twinytwo wrote: »

The funny thing about all of this, of Arlene actually had two brain cells to rub together, she could have put NI in a very strong position economically.

However her outright hatred for everything Irish means she would rather have the troubles back than a stable economy.

No one has ever got to be top dog in NI politics by either compromising or worrying about economic performance.

FrancieBrady

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

No one has ever got to be top dog in NI politics by either compromising or worrying about economic performance.

The GFA was a compromise for nationalists (it was for everybody bar those who opposed it..i.e. the same DUP) and it worked out ok for them.

20silkcut

downcow wrote: »

This is the reality. Roi has led the eu into an impossible position.
The UK people want to leave (or rather a majority of them) and the eu,Westminster, and roi don’t want to accept their democratic wishes.
The majority are happy that boris seems to be having integrity with the majority. But if he goes against the people he will fall and the brexit party will triumph.
I really wish the eu and roi would stop abusing the gfa and our peace and get down to serious negotiations on how brexit can respect the integrity of the UK and yet be as positive as possible for UK,roi, and eu

Stop repeating this utter “humbug” of EU/Irl wanting the UK to stay in.

Irl/EU are not the same as British remainers.


We just don’t want a hard stupid border in the middle of our country. Otherwise piss off like the thread title says.

First Up

20silkcut wrote:

Stop repeating this utter “humbug†of EU/Irl wanting the UK to stay in.

Not just humbug; its the same fundamental mis-reading of the EU's position that set the UK's "negotiating" strategy in the wrong direction from the start.

From the day the UK triggered A50, the EU has been working on their departure - and nothing else.

What the UK thought was a trump card is just a joker.

SeaBreezes

I see trump has put 25% tariffs on Scotch whiskey, Italian cheese and French wine...

A very 'special ' relationship..

Junkyard Tom

SeaBreezes wrote: »

I see trump has put 25% tariffs on Scotch whiskey, Italian cheese and French wine...

A very 'special ' relationship..

The world is increasingly coalescing into giant trading blocs that use their leverage to counterbalance each others' economic power. Britain couldn't have picked a worse time to try to go it alone.

knipex

SeaBreezes wrote: »

I see trump has put 25% tariffs on Scotch whiskey, Italian cheese and French wine...

A very 'special ' relationship..

And of course Britain has nothing to do with Airbus

J Mysterio

SeaBreezes wrote: »

I see trump has put 25% tariffs on Scotch whiskey, Italian cheese and French wine...

A very 'special ' relationship..

25% on Irish whiskey too. :mad:

threeball

SeaBreezes wrote: »

I see trump has put 25% tariffs on Scotch whiskey, Italian cheese and French wine...

A very 'special ' relationship..

Wait til his "oldest friend" looks for a trade deal. They'll be torn a new arsehole. They have literally nothing that he wants bar the nhs. Try explaining that one to the voters

knipex

J Mysterio wrote:

25% on Irish whiskey too.

J Mysterio wrote:

25% on Irish whiskey too.

From reports only that made North of the border. Southern whiskey unaffected...

threeball

threeball wrote: »

Wait til his "oldest friend" looks for a trade deal. They'll be torn a new arsehole. They have literally nothing that he wants bar the nhs. Try explaining that one to the voters

how exactly do you sell someone the NHS?

Will there be tariffs imposed when it crosses the border? how will it be shipped to the US, airfreight or sea?

shesty

I imagine it would start with some sort of a "deal" to let American health companies...either insurers/medical device/care providers prop up or "help" out areas of the NHS where it is under staffed or needs new buildings etc.It would just expand from there, essentially creating a new market for American helath companies to oeprate in, forcing the system until it operates as the USA does.Money would most likely change hands in a quid pro quo kind of way -we will provide funding for you in exchange for access to operate in our country.All dressed up as helping and aiming to make life better for everyone using the NHS obviously.

It would take a number of years obviously but it would slowly happen once they got a foot in the door.

shesty

knipex wrote: »

Your assuming the EU have a preference for a bad deal over no deal...

They don't..

Or are terrified at the prospect of no deal

They arent ...

Have to say I am a bit concerned they might accept it with tweaking.Genuinely not sure why, just a feeling I am getting.

tayto lover

shesty wrote: »

Have to say I am a bit concerned they might accept it with tweaking.Genuinely not sure why, just a feeling I am getting.

I have a feeling we’ll be hung out to dry eventually. Just a bad feeling. Like when they made us pay the bond holders.

shesty

This is it.I think it may become hanging us out to dry vs the worse effects of a no deal Brexit...we could be considered the lesser of the two evils.You would hope the EU can stick to their guns on this and really show that it is about every country in the Union.

shesty

shesty wrote: »

I imagine it would start with some sort of a "deal" to let American health companies...either insurers/medical device/care providers prop up or "help" out areas of the NHS where it is under staffed or needs new buildings etc.It would just expand from there, essentially creating a new market for American helath companies to oeprate in, forcing the system until it operates as the USA does.Money would most likely change hands in a quid pro quo kind of way -we will provide funding for you in exchange for access to operate in our country.All dressed up as helping and aiming to make life better for everyone using the NHS obviously.

It would take a number of years obviously but it would slowly happen once they got a foot in the door.

It could be argued that this is already starting with VirginCare.

davedanon

shesty wrote: »

This is it.I think it may become hanging us out to dry vs the worse effects of a no deal Brexit...we could be considered the lesser of the two evils.You would hope the EU can stick to their guns on this and really show that it is about every country in the Union.

If they do it tells every small country in the EU in flashing neon letters that IT COULD HAPPEN TO THEM TOO. The EU cares about the single market, and the unity of its constituent members. The UK is leaving, and they have never really realised that the EU cannot afford to give them a deal that is anything but significantly worse than what they're giving up, pour encourager les autres.

If France, Germany et al throw us under the bus it sounds the death knell for the project, and if the UK leaves and ends up better off it does the same. Realpolitik always applies, yes, but in this case the realpolitik says: defend the EU. And Ireland IS the EU.

threeball

davedanon wrote: »

shesty wrote: »

This is it.I think it may become hanging us out to dry vs the worse effects of a no deal Brexit...we could be considered the lesser of the two evils.You would hope the EU can stick to their guns on this and really show that it is about every country in the Union.

If they do it tells every small country in the EU in flashing neon letters that IT COULD HAPPEN TO THEM TOO. The EU cares about the single market, and the unity of its constituent members. The UK is leaving, and they have never really realised that the EU cannot afford to give them a deal that is anything but significantly worse than what they're giving up, pour encourager les autres.

If France, Germany et al throw us under the bus it sounds the death knell for the project, and if the UK leaves and ends up better off it does the same. Realpolitik always applies, yes, but in this case the realpolitik says: defend the EU. And Ireland IS the EU.

Agree 100%. I think if Germany sh1ts the bed at the last minute then most of this country will want to get out. It would be a clear indication that we only matter as long as it doesn't affect them. If we agitate then Italy, Greece and Spain will follow suit and it's game over.

threeball

shesty wrote: »

I imagine it would start with some sort of a "deal" to let American health companies...either insurers/medical device/care providers prop up or "help" out areas of the NHS where it is under staffed or needs new buildings etc.It would just expand from there, essentially creating a new market for American helath companies to oeprate in, forcing the system until it operates as the USA does.Money would most likely change hands in a quid pro quo kind of way -we will provide funding for you in exchange for access to operate in our country.All dressed up as helping and aiming to make life better for everyone using the NHS obviously.

It would take a number of years obviously but it would slowly happen once they got a foot in the door.

This is exactly what would be put in motion. Trump has already mentioned his interest in allowing American companies access to NHS contracts.

fly_agaric

threeball wrote: »

Agree 100%. I think if Germany sh1ts the bed at the last minute then most of this country will want to get out. It would be a clear indication that we only matter as long as it doesn't affect them. If we agitate then Italy, Greece and Spain will follow suit and it's game over.

I don't think anyone would follow Ireland out if we left...
We are just not that important.
However, if we were railroaded into a poor Brexit agreement, it would be a clear marker set down that the EU's big guns (France, Germany) will never back up a small member in a geopolitical dispute with a 3rd country (which the UK will be) if it hits them financially.
A really bad precedent to set for the EU into the future.
Some things can trump money and economics when it comes to deciding policy, but the Tories in the UK don't seem to have understood that.