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

Call me Al

theological wrote: »

I'm thankful that most Irish people probably don't think the same way as you do.

Most Irish people want the best for their country. Whether that means a good negotiated result for GB probably comes under a "nice to have but not pushed" category for most of us if it negatively impacts on our position in the single market, since the one thing that is important for us right now is stability of the EU and its market. This is what we need to prioritise.

People need to ask themselves what the Tory party, and Johnson, will need to do consolidate power, and what the intentions of a "global Britain" are.
Personally I don't believe either of those things lead to positives for their Irish trade. I'm afraid we too are in their "nice to have but not pushed" category.

10000maniacs

davedanon wrote: »

No, our trade with the UK is about 11%. And there is no particular reason to think that through-trade to the EU using the UK landbridge will be adversely affected.

Of course it will be affected. At the very least there will be tons more paperwork to be filled out and produced at the ports. It will be a mess.
Consignments would need to be checked, involving customs officers, inspections and delays. Within the EU there is free flow and, in place of officials, EU law provides for information exchange between countries, so that the authorities know goods have crossed and VAT has been correctly applied. Without such checks, the exporting country could give a VAT rebate for exports that never left the country and the importing countries could fail to tax goods coming in. Both would lead to un-tarrifed goods in free circulation, opening massive opportunities for fraud.

end of the road

theological wrote: »

The point is that they will be bigger markets to trade into than the European market will be. It is no longer the 1970's. That's part of the reason why looking to an independent trade policy is probably a good thing for Britain.

That's a strong argument irrespective of whether you dismiss it.

The fact is Britain has never been given a positive reason to stay over this period. Even during the referendum it was a fear based campaign. Even now remainers arguments are fear based. People don't buy it and rightfully so given how many doom predictions were proven wrong (George Osborne's treasury forecasts during the referendum of an immediate recession anyone?).

the campaign was based on predictions and facts, not fear. from my experience of following the whole thing, it is brexit supporters who are going on about fear.
only 1 prediction proven wrong, and even that was a could be rather then a would be.
britain already trades with those worth trading with via the EU. outside the EU it actually has little to offer, and it is going to have to negotiate deals with those countries, who have actually got more clout then britain now does, that will take years and the deals will not be in favour of britain most likely.

cryptocurrency wrote: »

The fact that the UK in the EU has better trade terms with Romania then Australia, New Zealand and much of the commonwealth is shocking considering their shared history. UK needs to focus on the commonwealth more as it is much more global and much more central to world growth. There is much more for the UK to gain from focusing on the commonwealth then the EU. Europe as discussed above is gonna become more irrelevant.

Ireland should look at this commonwealth thing much closer.

there would be nothing to look at, the commonwealth is an irrelevant historical figurehead/throwback. the countries worth trading in it we probably already trade with, on more favourible terms currently no doubt.

cryptocurrency wrote: »

EU can't and won't be punishing anyone. UK will get their deal and it will all be fine.

EU is a paper tiger, the more bullish you are with them the more you will get from them.

and yet the current deal britain has seems to suggest otherwise.
the EU absolutely could punish whoever if it was interested, which it's not, as all it needs to do is insure any deal is more in favour of it then the other country, which it will. and then sit back and see what happens.
britain will get a deal, but it will no doubt be nothing like what it currently has, it will get what it is given and it will accept it no doubt, because it won't want to make things potentially worse for it's people.

Bit cynical

davedanon wrote: »

No, our trade with the UK is about 11%. And there is no particular reason to think that through-trade to the EU using the UK landbridge will be adversely affected.

However not all trade is equal in terms of its social impact. For example, multinational trade in financial services could drop by 10% and there would be very little social impact whereas if agri-business exports dropped by a similar amount lots of businesses would go under and unemployment would rise in areas where there are few alternatives.

davedanon

Bit cynical wrote: »

However not all trade is equal in terms of its social impact. For example, multinational trade in financial services could drop by 10% and there would be very little social impact whereas if agri-business exports dropped by a similar amount lots of businesses would go under and unemployment would rise in areas where there are few alternatives.

I was specifically disputing the notion that huge amounts of our trade is with the UK.

And Coveney spoke only recently about sealed containers leaving Ireland and not being opened until they reached their destinations in the EU.

Junkyard Tom

Britain isn't going into the wider world to charm the big trading blocks into giving it sweetheart deals - no, it's heading for a solid gang-banging and it isn't the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg and BoJo who will be getting fucked.

cryptocurrency

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I believe it was you who said something like "a small chance that mandarins might have a minor delay at Dover". Now you trivialise Dover today by talking about couscous. You sound like Dominic Raab in the weeks before he found out Dover was important.

People working in car plants and Airbus are the real world. It is important for them.

No, i wasn't...I'm still mocking the very idea of Dover hysteria made by remainers

cryptocurrency

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Britain isn't going into the wider world to charm the big trading blocks into giving it sweetheart deals - no, it's heading for a solid gang-banging and it isn't the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg and BoJo who will be getting fucked.

If you believe that I've a bridge, i can sell you.

You make wild statements like a passionate footballer supporter in love with their team at all costs but their team has never won anything.

cryptocurrency

davedanon wrote: »

I was specifically disputing the notion that huge amounts of our trade is with the UK.

And Coveney spoke only recently about sealed containers leaving Ireland and not being opened until they reached their destinations in the EU.

Via the UK...oh how i belly laughed. You don't see who is calling the shots here on the viability of such a proposal.

The UK will always give themselves the option and legal ability to open and inspect anything that passes through it's territory.

The fact you believed that and someone elected said it just goes to show how we can't take the remain side seriously. Nuts.

Thanks for the laugh though.

Junkyard Tom

cryptocurrency wrote: »

If you believe that I've a bridge, i can sell you. You make wild statements like a passionate footballer supporter in love with their team at all costs but their team has never won anything.

Did I hurt your feelings or something? You seem to be very emotional on this subject.

The EU exists to pool its collective weight so that it can hold its own against the likes of the US and China. The individual countries could be pushed around but as a collective, not so much.

This doesn't even require an understanding of economics rather arithmetic - which seems persistently lacking in Brexiters many of whom seem wedded to the dyscalculic notion that Britain leaving the EU will hurt the EU more than itself.

cryptocurrency

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Did I hurt your feelings or something? You seem to be very emotional on this subject.

The EU exists to pool its collective weight so that it can hold its own against the likes of the US and China. The individual countries could be pushed around but as a collective, not so much.

This doesn't even require an understanding of economics rather arithmetic - which seems persistently lacking in Brexiters many of whom seem wedded to the dyscalculic notion that Britain leaving the EU will hurt the EU more than itself.

People and politicians are talking about sealed containers passing through UK territory as the UK helplessly watches sealed containers pass through it's territory. I'll say it again, sealed containers.
Like UK planes not being allowed to use Irish sky.

This is where remainers get ideas from.

KWAG2019

Interesting comments quoted from Hungarian minister that Juncker got the immigration/ Brexit conundrum the wrong way around. He chose to support illegal immigration over Britain remaining in EU. Clear pressure for new commission to deliver good trade deal with Brits.

Brexit has turned from UK turmoil to focus on EU. This time next year we will see if perception of it has changed to be positive.

Junkyard Tom

cryptocurrency wrote: »

People and politicians are talking about sealed containers passing through UK territory as the UK helplessly watches sealed containers pass through it's territory.

Oh no, not this again. Haven't read this one in a while. The implied threat is that Britain could make life very difficult for Ireland if it prevents the use of its land-bridge?

Well you see Ireland is the EU so if Britain makes life difficult for Ireland it's making like difficult for the EU. Britain can point a gun at Ireland alright, it's just that Brussels has a cannon pointed at London.

Also, Ireland is already developing alternative routes to ameliorate any potential disruption. Geography is destiny and Britain is pretty much encircled by the EU.

RasTa

Crypto is brit emmigrant so maybe why he is so passionate

Call me Al

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Interesting comments quoted from Hungarian minister that Juncker got the immigration/ Brexit conundrum the wrong way around. He chose to support illegal immigration over Britain remaining in EU. Clear pressure for new commission to deliver good trade deal with Brits.

Brexit has turned from UK turmoil to focus on EU. This time next year we will see if perception of it has changed to be positive.

Can you link to these comments please?

KWAG2019

Call me Al wrote: »

Can you link to these comments please?

I can’t because I saw them on Twitter. Follow Sam Coates Sky News.

Kidchameleon

Evd-Burner wrote: »

Do you seriously believe the stuff that you say?

The EU are weak & a paper tiger. They said there would be no more negociations after the May "deal"

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/03/uk/brexit-negotiations-rejected-intl/index.html

After which they completely flip flopped and renegociated with PM Johnson

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-50083026

The EU will concede more soon enough.

end of the road

cryptocurrency wrote: »

The EU caused brexit so yes the UK is right to move.

Tax Harmonisation -- EU are making enough moves on this and a disaster to the UK -UK Leaves
EU Army - Not in the UK's national secuirty interest - UK must and will be strong against its formation - UK Leaves
Federal Europe - Something strongly hated by sane EU citizens, not in the UK's interest - UK Leaves
Border Controls - Not a EU storng point - UK population has serious concerns - EU can't fix - UK Leaves

Seems a simple choice to me. The EU in it's current form and it's current trajectory is not in the interest of the UK or it's people. The currect call was made, many times. Staying in the EU would be economically catastrophic for the UK.

britain caused brexit. from what i can see and from my experience of following it, based on feelings and bluster and emotion and a belief it will go back to a time that really never existed, and which parts of it that did, weren't that good.
tax harmonisation, would require all members to vote for it, all members likely won't vote for it unless it can be guaranteed it will benefit them. would be perfectly fine for britain.
EU army, just an idea, unlikely to happen. means nothing for the uk, who will invest in big equipment but not the basics that the ground troops actually need, at least based on the past.
federal europe, won't happen unless all members vote for it. would have been fine for the uk, who probably would have voted for it, and if they didn't, then it wouldn't have happened.
border controls, not the job of the EU to fix, it's for each country to fix it, britain refuses to fix it, refuses to pay for the staff and resources to enforce them. britain can even deport EU citizens after a certain timeframe if they do not find work, the same as any other european union member.
the EU is in the interests of the uk, that is why it joined it, it's not in the interests of a small few who seem to want to undo what modernisation britain has gone through however. the wrong call was made, staying in the EU would be economically beneficial for the uk, being outside won't be as economically beneficial.

FrancieBrady

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Interesting comments quoted from Hungarian minister that Juncker got the immigration/ Brexit conundrum the wrong way around. He chose to support illegal immigration over Britain remaining in EU. Clear pressure for new commission to deliver good trade deal with Brits.

Brexit has turned from UK turmoil to focus on EU. This time next year we will see if perception of it has changed to be positive.

How many 'ministers' from various countries is that now who have made comments? Comments a cynic might think are designed to capitalise on something within their own political ambit. We have seen it from Polish, Italian and even here in Ireland with Michael Martin and some within FF.

Question is, is it worth paying any attention to?

Call me Al

KWAG2019 wrote: »

I can’t because I saw them on Twitter. Follow Sam Coates Sky News.

When did you see them?
I can't find any reference there to any Hungarian minister.

KWAG2019

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How many 'ministers' from various countries is that now who have made comments? Comments a cynic might think are designed to capitalise on something within their own political ambit. We have seen it from Polish, Italian and even here in Ireland with Michael Martin and some within FF.

Question is, is it worth paying any attention to?

Yes. The game now is how far the EU will go to accommodate the UK. It’s in a lot of economic interests within the EU to go very far. That reopens the old debate about federalism versus a union of nation states. Macron is much weaker than we realise. Merkel is done. This is going to be an interesting year.

KWAG2019

Call me Al wrote: »

When did you see them?
I can't find any reference there to any Hungarian minister.

Try this https://hungarytoday.hu/ministry-official-hungary-accepts-uks-decision-to-quit-eu/

Junkyard Tom

Kidchameleon wrote: »

They said there would be no more negociations after the May "deal". After which they completely flip flopped and renegociated with PM Johnson

Really clutching at straws describing that a 'renegotiation'. It's T-May's deal with a bit of tweaking, primarily on the north of Ireland, which the Irish Government okayed. Unionists consider it a worse deal for them.

It's the same pig only with a bit of lipstick on it.

RasTa

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Try this https://hungarytoday.hu/ministry-official-hungary-accepts-uks-decision-to-quit-eu/

He will be in some surprise when his own countrymen get sent back

The British government is working to leave the bloc in an orderly fashion, the ambassador said, adding that no EU citizen would have to leave the UK post-Brexit.

end of the road

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The EU are weak & a paper tiger. They said there would be no more negociations after the May "deal"

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/03/uk/brexit-negotiations-rejected-intl/index.html

After which they completely flip flopped and renegociated with PM Johnson

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-50083026

The EU will concede more soon enough.

they said there would be no more negotiations until and unless britain brought something new to the table.
britain capitulated and brought something new to the table, hence more negotiations.
the EU will conceed more if britain capitulates and offers more in the EU'S favour, which i wouldn't rule out happening.

Kidchameleon

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Really clutching at straws describing that a 'renegotiation'. It's T-May's deal with a bit of tweaking, primarily on the north of Ireland, which the Irish Government okayed. Unionists consider it a worse deal for them.

It's the same pig only with a bit of lipstick on it.

Your argument is semantic. My point stands, the EU went back into talks after the said they would not - weakness showing on their part

Bit cynical

davedanon wrote: »

I was specifically disputing the notion that huge amounts of our trade is with the UK.

And Coveney spoke only recently about sealed containers leaving Ireland and not being opened until they reached their destinations in the EU.

I understand that but the figure itself of 11% is not in itself important but rather the social impact of losing trade in a particular area. What the 11% represents in social terms is what is important.

Some of our trade figures are represented by multinationals funnelling sales through an Irish subsidiary but not employing a huge amount of people.

Others are small businesses selling to Irish and the nearby UK markets.

FrancieBrady

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Your argument is semantic. My point stands, the EU went back into talks after the said they would not - weakness showing on their part

Sigh: They always, from the start said they would go back into talks if something workable was presented.

Varadkar played Johnson in Cheshire and gave him an out and he bought it because it suited him to, the DUP didn't though.

Junkyard Tom

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Your argument is semantic. My point stands, the EU went back into talks after the said they would not - weakness showing on their part

It's quite something to witness brexiters desperately try to turn minor adjustments and statements into victories for Britain.

I'm reminded of the scene in 'The Hunt For Red October' where Captain Ramius is surrendering his Sub but the Soviet sailors interpret the events unfolding as him outmaneuvering the Americans.

ancapailldorcha

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Your argument is semantic. My point stands, the EU went back into talks after the said they would not - weakness showing on their part

Of course they did. They weren't renegotiating, they were getting the first thing they asked for. The UK caved and caved hard.