Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

BonnieSituation

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

We have a Canadian in charge of the Bank of England. What's wrong with having non-nationals working in spending departments? I think that it's racist if you say that, for example, someone cannot work in the Treasury because they are an Indian national. Why do you think that they should be banned if they are the best person for the job?

A Canadian with Irish Citizenship no less.

BonnieSituation

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

And they didn't have visas when they came. The British population and politicians said that the Home Office had been mistaken in its actions, weven though many of these people had not acted to regularise their situation, despite reminders.

That's an interesting reading of it.

prawnsambo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

We have a Canadian in charge of the Bank of England. What's wrong with having non-nationals working in spending departments? I think that it's racist if you say that, for example, someone cannot work in the Treasury because they are an Indian national. Why do you think that they should be banned if they are the best person for the job?

It's nothing to do with race or nationality. If you're not an EU citizen, you don't have an automatic right to live and work in an EU member state. I'm surprised that a brexiter who presumably wishes to reduce the number of EU citizens moving to the UK to live and work would have a problem with that notion.

Bit cynical

Podge_irl wrote: »

The EU neither like nor want the backstop as it in fact gives the UK access to the single market without signing up to all 4 pillars. They have no desire for it to come into effect nor for the UK to stay in it for any longer than is necessary. They are not trying to "trap" the UK and it is difficult to fathom why that is such a hard concept for people to grasp.

Also the backstop is the insurance policy for the FTA negotiations. No one is looking to replace it with a different insurance policy - the whole point is that the FTA should supersede it.

I agree one of the pillars is removed and the EU would prefer all four pillars. They have conceded on that.

But the UK would have next to no bargaining power in those FTA negotiations. The two choices would be either an FTA that is so comprehensive that the insurance policy need not pay out, or else the cliff of no deal as the transition period ends. And the insurance policy would still have to exist in order to be as good (in the EU's view) as the current backstop. This sort of binary choice is basically what is facing the UK now and why they have little bargaining power. Better therefore in the UK's view that they take the hit now, which looks like what they are aiming for.

I can see why, on the surface, it seems good from the UK's perspective but I think they and the EU know that it is not really that good.

Valhallapt

Part of me fears we’ve moved closer to a no deal. Boris has “secured” 30 days, for what exactly I’m not sure, but that doesn’t really matter. The Tories who are opposed to no deal and planning to vote with opposition on VONC / GNU now have a niggling question in the back of their heads, what if Boris really can secure a better WA...........

ThePanjandrum

bobmalooka wrote: »

True, closest thing I could find was your current queen throwing a few right arm salutes.

This is a fun off topic game

When she was 7 years old in 1933. If you look at the video then you will see that the first time she raises her arm she appears to be waving so how do you know that these are Nazi salutes? At the end, Edward raises his arm straight up which is not a Nazi salute and he was the one with Nazi sympathies, although this was known until after he had abdicated and left Britain.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

I agree one of the pillars is removed and the EU would prefer all four pillars. They have conceded on that.

But the UK would have next to no bargaining power in those FTA negotiations. The two choices would be either an FTA that is so comprehensive that the insurance policy need not pay out, or else the cliff of no deal as the transition period ends. And the insurance policy would still have to exist in order to be as good (in the EU's view) as the current backstop. This sort of binary choice is basically what is facing the UK now and why they have little bargaining power. Better therefore in the UK's view that they take the hit now, which looks like what they are aiming for.

I can see why, on the surface, it seems good from the UK's perspective but I think they and the EU know that it is not really that good.

It's a soft landing for them. They can renegotiate the relationship again at any future date that suits them.

Bit cynical

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's a soft landing for them. They can renegotiate the relationship again at any future date that suits them.

Not quite. It's a hard landing. However I am suggesting, better the hard landing now (from their perspective) than at the end of the transition period.

ThePanjandrum

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's nothing to do with race or nationality. If you're not an EU citizen, you don't have an automatic right to live and work in an EU member state. I'm surprised that a brexiter who presumably wishes to reduce the number of EU citizens moving to the UK to live and work would have a problem with that notion.

I have no problem with a country controlling immigration, but there are very few jobs that I think should be reserved for people of a particular country or group of countries. Do you think a Chinese person living in Ireland though not a citizen should be banned from working, for example, in a bank or hospital? I don't.

ThePanjandrum

BonnieSituation wrote: »

That's an interesting reading of it.

It's the honest reading of it. Disprove any of my assertions.

Headshot

My god I'm watching the BBC Newsnight and shaking my head. They are such a pro brexit broadcaster and it's beyond ridiculous

Podge_irl

Bit cynical wrote: »

I agree one of the pillars is removed and the EU would prefer all four pillars. They have conceded on that.

But the UK would have next to no bargaining power in those FTA negotiations. The two choices would be either an FTA that is so comprehensive that the insurance policy need not pay out, or else the cliff of no deal as the transition period ends. And the insurance policy would still have to exist in order to be as good (in the EU's view) as the current backstop. This sort of binary choice is basically what is facing the UK now and why they have little bargaining power. Better therefore in the UK's view that they take the hit now, which looks like what they are aiming for.

I can see why, on the surface, it seems good from the UK's perspective but I think they and the EU know that it is not really that good.

Well then they should just admit that they won't keep an open border in Ireland.

The UK's problem at the moment is that they simply can not be trusted. They are stating things such as "we won't have a border in Ireland" and completely failing to back it up or even acknowledge the need for demonstrable actions to bring those statements to fruition. They have set out negotiating parameters that are ultimately not achievable in the real world (and not because of EU intransigence, but because of how the world actually works, including their beloved WTO) and are expecting everyone else to just trust them that they will make it work.

ThePanjandrum

BonnieSituation wrote: »

A Canadian with Irish Citizenship no less.

As far as I'm aware, he's never lived in Ireland though so it's only a convenience.

He has worked in senior positions in several different countries though. Maybe he should have been banned.

Mr.Nice Guy

Daniel Hannan spouting nonsense on Newsnight. How on earth is he still being treated like a credible commentator when his pre-referendum predictions have been shown to be way off the mark?

Enzokk

prawnsambo wrote: »

Like this?


I actually think he did get the wrong end of the stick with what Merkel said. And this seems to be news to him and most of the press. The future relationship has the capacity to eliminate the need for a backstop. And that can be decided even in basic form at any time. Hence the 30 days.

I agree with your reading of it. I think Merkel probably meant that the next 2 years will be time given to find the solution to the backstop with alternative arrangements, but if the UK can solve it in the next 30 days then it is good as well. She knows it cannot be solved, not in 30 days and not in 2 years.

Johnson seized upon this as his chance to get rid of the backstop, but if the EU doesn't agree then he is back in the corner he painted himself into. I mean unless he thinks the civil service has been doing nothing to research these arrangements for 2 years then it is unlikely a solution that will actually work will be found. I don't think he realizes that if the solutions were there that May would still be PM.

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

And they didn't have visas when they came. The British population and politicians said that the Home Office had been mistaken in its actions, weven though many of these people had not acted to regularise their situation, despite reminders.

That is victim blaming. Do you know the cost of citizenship? Why was the fee not waived for those people that were entitled to it? Why did they have to go through the hassle when it was easily possible to waive the fees and the test?

Windrush: UK citizenship fees and language tests waived

UK citizenship fees and language tests will be waived for the Windrush generation and their families, Home Secretary Amber Rudd has said.

She told MPs she wanted people to have the "formal status" they should have had all along, without having to pay naturalisation fees or pass any tests.

Its almost like they wanted to make it as hard as possible for people. As for only EU Citizens able to work in certain jobs, as long as the requirement is set out when people apply then surely there is no discrimination. It's like any job requirement, sometimes you need experience to be considered. That is not racist or discriminatory, right?

bobmalooka

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

When she was 7 years old in 1933. If you look at the video then you will see that the first time she raises her arm she appears to be waving so how do you know that these are Nazi salutes? At the end, Edward raises his arm straight up which is not a Nazi salute and he was the one with Nazi sympathies, although this was known until after he had abdicated and left Britain.

I know because that’s the title of the evidence you’ve provided.

Headshot

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Daniel Hannan spouting nonsense on Newsnight. How on earth is he still being treated like a credible commentator when his pre-referendum predictions have been shown to be way off the mark?

It just shows much BBC has fallen tbh

I did laugh at the part when the Simon Fraser was making the point about the promises of the leave party before the referendum about this will be the easiest deal and the BBC host stopped him in his track and changed the topic

Bit cynical

Podge_irl wrote: »

Well then they should just admit that they won't keep an open border in Ireland.

The UK's problem at the moment is that they simply can not be trusted. They are stating things such as "we won't have a border in Ireland" and completely failing to back it up or even acknowledge the need for demonstrable actions to bring those statements to fruition. They have set out negotiating parameters that are ultimately not achievable in the real world (and not because of EU intransigence, but because of how the world actually works, including their beloved WTO) and are expecting everyone else to just trust them that they will make it work.

I agree with this. There will of course be a border especially in the case of no deal. All the UK and Ireland can do is minimise the impact of it. Make sure violations of the GFA are avoided. Make it as efficient and least disruptive as possible. Even with a fairly comprehensive FTA there would still technically be a border though issues like smuggling would be greatly reduced.


Both sides are dishonest here.

ThePanjandrum

Headshot wrote: »

My god I'm watching the BBC Newsnight and shaking my head. They are such a pro brexit broadcaster and it's beyond ridiculous

Anyone who thinks that the BBC is pro Brexit is mistaken.

ancapailldorcha

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that the BBC is pro Brexit is hallucinating.

No more snide comments please.

prawnsambo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

I have no problem with a country controlling immigration, but there are very few jobs that I think should be reserved for people of a particular country or group of countries. Do you think a Chinese person living in Ireland though not a citizen should be banned from working, for example, in a bank or hospital? I don't.

Where in my post did I say this?

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

I agree with this. There will of course be a border especially in the case of no deal. All the UK and Ireland can do is minimise the impact of it. Make sure violations of the GFA are avoided. Make it as efficient and least disruptive as possible. Even with a fairly comprehensive FTA there would still technically be a border though issues like smuggling would be greatly reduced.


Both sides are dishonest here.

That really depends what solution Ireland has. And I believe (and all indications are) that the border will be in the Irish Sea in the case of a hard brexit. There may be some leakage through Larne if the British don't play ball, but it will be small and manageable.

Professor Moriarty

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that the BBC is pro Brexit is hallucinating.

Andrew Neil. But he's gone. I'm about to watch Newsnight so I can't comment on tonight's show. However, Newsnight regularly hammers Brexiteers, as does Marr. Much more so than pro-EU guests.

ThePanjandrum

bobmalooka wrote: »

I know because that’s the title of the evidence you’ve provided.

That's brilliant. The Sun said it so I know it's true. I shall read your future contributions in this light.

bobmalooka

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

That's brilliant. The Sun said it so I know it's true. I shall read your future contributions in this light.

You provided the source, I’m merely accepting your contribution at face value.

ThePanjandrum

prawnsambo wrote: »

That really depends what solution Ireland has. And I believe (and all indications are) that the border will be in the Irish Sea in the case of a hard brexit. There may be some leakage through Larne if the British don't play ball, but it will be small and manageable.

Sorry but if you mant to maintain open borders for Northern Ireland with the other parties to the agreement (some people claim that open borders are in the BA although they can never say where) then the border will have to be between Ireland and the EU. maintaining the integrity of the Single Market, you see.

MrMusician18

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Daniel Hannan spouting nonsense on Newsnight. How on earth is he still being treated like a credible commentator when his pre-referendum predictions have been shown to be way off the mark?

In fairness, many "remain" commentators were way off the mark too

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

Not quite. It's a hard landing. However I am suggesting, better the hard landing now (from their perspective) than at the end of the transition period.

Economically it's not. Your insistence that the UK is somehow trapped by the EU is contingent on you being colour blind to all the red lines they erected around themselves and the political necessity of kow-towing to the DUP. All avoidable and all within their power to avoid except for bad decision piled on bad decision. It's been a slow motion car crash from day one.

ThePanjandrum

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No more snide comments please.

Changed.

prawnsambo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Sorry but if you mant to maintain open borders for Northern Ireland with the other parties to the agreement (some people claim that open borders are in the BA although they can never say where) then the border will have to be between Ireland and the EU. maintaining the integrity of the Single Market, you see.

They will be open. I just said so. Unless you're suggesting that Ireland somehow takes control of sea crossings between Ni and GB? That would be a novel idea.