Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

CelticRambler

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Exactly but none of this is cost or problems to the UK only EU countries.

Remember no hard border on the island of Ireland. But Leo has everyman and his dog checking cars, vans, and lorries.

They couldnt stop guns, rockets and people when the troubles where on and that was with the British army not a few Guards.

When was the last time you travelled on a direct route between NI and GB? The EU inspectors working in Belfast and Larne won't be particularly interested in trying to find guns and rockets, because anyone trying to sell sensible quantities of consumer goods to consumers is going to have to import them through regular channels. And for that, the agreements are all in place (ratified by Westminster a few weeks ago, don't you remember?): pay up front for your imports from GB and reclaim later when you've proven that you haven't sold them to an EU customer.

Risteard81

joeguevara wrote: »

You have said it by stating we will be disregarded.

As for made vote again. Such ill informed diatribe.

A major part of the problem was that the treaty itself was complex. It was a legal document and those who created it obviously didn’t put much thought into how a treaty full of legal jargon could be sold to an electorate. As a result, a number of ill-informed fears about certain topics started to spread, some of which hadn’t even been mentioned in the treaty.

A number of people felt that the Lisbon Treaty could force us to increase our corporation tax. Others narrowed in on subjects such as abortion, conscription to some sort of super EU army and the lowering of the minimum wage.

It was one big confusing mess and the NO campaign took full advantage of it.

After the treaty was defeated in 2007, Ireland sought a number of guarantees from the EU. The text was changed. We got a better deal. The second referendum was voting on a treaty that had legally binding assurances in place. It was essentially a completely new vote. So, if you think we were bullied into voting until we got it right, it shows your level of knowledge on this subject.

Absolute nonsense.

Nice 2 and Lisbon 2 were acts of treason, pure and simple.

relax carry on

Kidchameleon wrote: »

And of course the glorious EU will not allow our supposedly independent country to make a deal with them

Look, it's quite clear that several posters have no understanding of how taxes and duties work between the EU and third countries. This is space the UK has put itself in. It's now a third country.
I'm explaining to you in the simplest possible terms what will happen. I did not mention a deal.
A deal between a third country (UK) and the EU will be in relation to how to what rate of duty etc apply between the EU and the UK. It will take years and will be along the lines of other third countries. Please feel free to browse TARIC for some examples of duty rates applicable to third country's with deals.

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/calculation-customs-duties/what-is-common-customs-tariff/taric_en

Risteard81

joeguevara wrote: »

No it’s not. We voted on a completely different deal the second time. It wasn’t a vote against the Lisbon treaty. It was a vote against certain parts of it. Once those were rectified and benefitted Ireland, we voted again.

There were no amendment to the EU Constitution under the guise of the "Lisbon Treaty" before the treasonous second referendum.

Risteard81

Risteard81 wrote: »

Absolute nonsense.

Nice 2 and Lisbon 2 were acts of treason, pure and simple.

By who?

joeguevara

Risteard81 wrote: »

Absolute nonsense.

Nice 2 and Lisbon 2 were acts of treason, pure and simple.

Are you maintaining that everything I said was untrue or just nonsense


Your assertion that it was pure and simple treason is based on what? What exactly, in your view puts it into the treason category?

joeguevara

Risteard81 wrote: »

There were no amendment to the EU Constitution under the guise of the "Lisbon Treaty" before the treasonous second referendum.

Are you maintaining that There were no legally binding guarantees on the application of the Treaty in Ireland.

Are you saying that the guarantees were not incorporated as a protocol to the EU treaties.

Are you also stating that the guarantees did not ensure Irish control over tax rates, military neutrality and the Irish Constitution's provisions on social and family law, including the right to life.

relax carry on

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

You see this is what you are dealing with here.

A selection of people who cannot accept what has happened and will happen here in Ireland and also are obsessed with another country whose inhabitants by large do not know they exist.

Let alone from that in their haste to condemn anything that they oppose. They do not or incapable of even understanding what was written and what they are reading.

In my post which they refer too. I clearly pointed out that IF the vat was abolished in NI then goods would be at least 23% cheaper than here in the Republic. I also pointed out clearly that any loss to the Gov would be small because of the tiny population in NI.

So in their frantic attempt to muddy what people clearly say they just keep spouting gobbledygook and pure bollox. Then start the accusations game. Who the hell would travel to NI to buy a truck load of Tampax?

It really is a pure waste of time. I am beginning to think its just one or two people with multiple Boards accounts.

I'm sorry but you repeatedly demonstrated you have no understanding of how Customs Duty or VAT works either at domestic or international level. The UKs position as third country depending on what trade deal it can make with the EU (which will take years) means there's mountains of rules etc it will have to follow to trade with EU, just like every other third country. Your position on the abolition of VAT internally in UK and subsequent belief that the loss will be made up by hoards of Irish from the Republic is just frankly nuts.

On this element of the discussion at least, it's degenerated to the level of "a man in pub told me" level of knowledge. I think I'll "Brexit" out of this thread for a while as there appears to be very little factual discussion to be had here.

Risteard81

joeguevara wrote: »

Are you maintaining that There were no legally binding guarantees on the application of the Treaty in Ireland.

Are you saying that the guarantees were not incorporated as a protocol to the EU treaties.

Are you also stating that the guarantees did not ensure Irish control over tax rates, military neutrality and the Irish Constitution's provisions on social and family law, including the right to life.

You don't even appear to understand that the 26-County state and Ireland are different entities.

Ireland has 32 Counties.

joeguevara

Risteard81 wrote: »

You don't even appear to understand that the 26-County state and Ireland are different entities.

Ireland has 32 Counties.

When did I demonstrate that lack of understanding? Also can you explain how Nice 2 was an act of treason?

Bare in mind that treason in our constitution is defined as “Treason shall consist only in levying war against the State, or assisting any State or person or inciting or conspiring with any person to levy war against the State, or attempting by force of arms or other violent means to overthrow the organs of government established by this Constitution, or taking part or being concerned in or inciting or conspiring with any person to make or to take part or be concerned in any such attempt.”

Kidchameleon

relax carry on wrote: »

Look, it's quite clear that several posters have no understanding of how taxes and duties work between the EU and third countries. This is space the UK has put itself in. It's now a third country.
I'm explaining to you in the simplest possible terms what will happen. I did not mention a deal.
A deal between a third country (UK) and the EU will be in relation to how to what rate of duty etc apply between the EU and the UK. It will take years and will be along the lines of other third countries. Please feel free to browse TARIC for some examples of duty rates applicable to third country's with deals.

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/calculation-customs-duties/what-is-common-customs-tariff/taric_en

What? Can Ireland come to a customs agreement with our UK neighbors or not without interference from the EU? No we cannot. Everything else in your post is simply obscurantism.

Irishmale0399

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What? Can Ireland come to a customs agreement with our UK neighbors or not without interference from the EU? No we cannot. Everything else in your post is simply obscurantism.

Do you understand what the benifits are to Ireland from being a member of the EU??? Do you realise how many trading partners the country has as a result???


What would you prefare??? A contract with the UK and dependance on them or being able to sit under the umbrella of the EU and trade with a number of countries???


Reading your posts one could believe you want Leo to come out and say....we are leaving the EU and going with the UK....do you want the Queen to rule Ireland yet again??

fly_agaric

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

Reading your posts one could believe you want Leo to come out and say....we are leaving the EU and going with the UK....do you want the Queen to rule Ireland yet again??

Ha...It is definitely a subtext behind some of the "Brexity-ness" and occasional piques of anger with Leo Varadkar or Ireland on the thread.
We joined with the UK back in the day, so should trot out after them now like a good little junior sidekick.

Peregrinus

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What? Can Ireland come to a customs agreement with our UK neighbors or not without interference from the EU? No we cannot. Everything else in your post is simply obscurantism.

Neither can the UK come to a customs agreement with Ireland without what you describe as "interference" from the EU, a consideration which highlights the misconception that Brexit gives the UK control over its own destiny.

The difference is that, for Ireland, what the EU does is not interference. We participate in it because it is to our advantage, and if the last three years have shown nothing else they have shown the willingness of our EU partners to back our interests in dealing with the UK. Obviously, though, UK advantage and UK interests will no longer feature in the EU's approach to the matter, but the UK can hardly blame anyone but themselves for that.

retalivity

It begins - EU to back Spanish claims over Gibraltar

end of the road

Risteard81 wrote: »

Absolute nonsense.

Nice 2 and Lisbon 2 were acts of treason, pure and simple.

no they weren't.
if we vote on something, and then the terms of what we vote on are changed, then we have to vote again. otherwise what would likely happen is a constitutional challenge would be taken via the courts and likely win because in all likely hood it would be a breach of the constitution for us not to have a new vote on something

that would be effectively a new issue due to the change in terms.

joeguevara

end of the road wrote: »

no they weren't.
if we vote on something, and then the terms of what we vote on are changed, then we have to vote again. otherwise what would likely happen is a constitutional challenge would be taken via the courts and likely win because in all likely hood it would be a breach of the constitution for us not to have a new vote on something

that would be effectively a new issue due to the change in terms.

I replied to the poster with these facts. The response was that I blatantly misunderstood the difference between the 26 county state and the fact That Ireland has 32 counties. It therefore appears from his response that the treason was against the 32 counties rather than we had a second referendum for Lisbon which followed new legally binding assurances Which were inserted into treaty protocols making it a completely new referendum. However it is unclear what the proposed act of treason was and when asked how it fit into the defined definition of treason in the 1937 constitution, there has as yet been no response.

Kidchameleon

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

Do you understand what the benifits are to Ireland from being a member of the EU??? Do you realise how many trading partners the country has as a result???


What would you prefare??? A contract with the UK and dependance on them or being able to sit under the umbrella of the EU and trade with a number of countries???


Reading your posts one could believe you want Leo to come out and say....we are leaving the EU and going with the UK....do you want the Queen to rule Ireland yet again??

So we are not independent, grand. And no, I dont want Leo to say anything

Kidchameleon

Peregrinus wrote: »

Neither can the UK come to a customs agreement with Ireland without what you describe as "interference" from the EU, a consideration which highlights the misconception that Brexit gives the UK control over its own destiny..

Thats a strange outlook. "Britain is not in control over its own destiny because Ireland is in the EU". Have I got that right?

Professor Moriarty

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Thats a strange outlook. "Britain is not in control over its own destiny because Ireland is in the EU". Have I got that right?

No, you've missed the point. Read it again slowly and if you still struggle I'll explain in simple language.

Kidchameleon

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No, you've missed the point. Read it again slowly and if you still struggle I'll explain in simple language.

Ok I read it again and I think I need you to explain it. Tnx.

First Up

Kidchameleon wrote:

Thats a strange outlook. "Britain is not in control over its own destiny because Ireland is in the EU". Have I got that right?

You have made many attempts to show how little you understand about the EU. I think this was your best so far.

conorhal

retalivity wrote: »

It begins - EU to back Spanish claims over Gibraltar

So the EU are acting like a crazy ex setting your stuff on fire on your lawn for dumping them?

Disgustingly petty on the EU's part but exemplary of the kind of behavior that caused the UK walk away from it.

Professor Moriarty

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Ok I read it again and I think I need you to explain it. Tnx.

No problem.

Peregrinus: Neither can the UK come to a customs agreement with Ireland without what you describe as "interference" from the EU, a consideration which highlights the misconception that Brexit gives the UK control over its own destiny..

So: Country A cannot agree to stuff about buying and selling things with country B, because country B is part of a big gang which helps country B to buy and sell things everywhere. The gang, which country B is very happy to be in, has rules and stuff. This shows that only stupid people think country A will sell more things and be happier now that they have left the gang.

Salary Negotiator

conorhal wrote: »

So the EU are acting like a crazy ex setting your stuff on fire on your lawn for dumping them?

Disgustingly petty on the EU's part but exemplary of the kind of behavior that caused the UK walk away from it.

Or the EU continues to demonstrate that it supports and will support the positions taken by its members over non-members.

Exactly as it should.

Peregrinus

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Thats a strange outlook. "Britain is not in control over its own destiny because Ireland is in the EU". Have I got that right?

No, you've got it wrong. It's "the UK cannot make a customs agreement with Ireland without 'interference' from the EU because Ireland is in the EU. The effect of Brexit is not to make the UK magically unaffected by the EU's position, but simply subject the UK to an EU position which take account of Ireland's interests, but not the UK's".

(And of course customs agreements with Ireland are not the only policy area in which something similar to this holds true.)

FrancieBrady

conorhal wrote: »

So the EU are acting like a crazy ex setting your stuff on fire on your lawn for dumping them?

Disgustingly petty on the EU's part but exemplary of the kind of behavior that caused the UK walk away from it.

Ha ha ha, this beats all.

What did the UK expect? That the EU was going to side with it?

conorhal

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Or the EU continues to demonstrate that it supports and will support the positions taken by its members over non-members.

Exactly as it should.

BS, its petty spite and you know it.

Spain likes to whip up a Gibraltar crisis every time it's government is unpopular and feeling impotent so it bullies a small sovereign territory to generate popularity via nationalistic fervor.
This is nothing but rooster-pricking from a flailing, spiteful socalist government backed by a flailing spiteful EU.

Let the EU back Catalonia instead, they actually want to leave Spain, oh no wait, Catalonia they threw under the bus.

Kidchameleon

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No problem.

Peregrinus: Neither can the UK come to a customs agreement with Ireland without what you describe as "interference" from the EU, a consideration which highlights the misconception that Brexit gives the UK control over its own destiny..

So: Country A cannot agree to stuff about buying and selling things with country B, because country B is part of a big gang which helps country B to buy and sell things everywhere. The gang, which country B is very happy to be in, has rules and stuff. This shows that only stupid people think country A will sell more things and be happier now that they have left the gang.

So, Ireland cannot independently make a trade agreement with the UK. That was my point. Again, I'm not sure why you are trying to obfuscate this, we are not independent within the EU. Weather that is good or bad for us is besides the point. The UK has decided they want to make their own way in the world and more power to them.

Peregrinus

conorhal wrote: »

So the EU are acting like a crazy ex setting your stuff on fire on your lawn for dumping them?

Wait, what? This bears no relationship at all to the story quoted in the post you are replying to.

Cast your mind back to 1985, when Spain wished to join the EU, of which the UK was already a member.

Since one of its member states (the UK) had a particular interest affected by Spanish accession (Gibraltar), the EU required Spain to make an agreement with the UK normalising the border with Gibraltar on terms satisfactory to the UK before they would allow Spain to accede. In other words, they protected the interests of a member state when dealing with a non-member state. Gibraltar benefitted hugely from that.

Now, it's the UK that's a non-member state seeking to make an agreement with the EU and a member state (Spain) has a particular interest affected by that agreement. Just as it did for the UK back in the 80s, the EU will protect the interests of Spain (and, of course, Gibraltar) when dealing with the UK.

You may consider that to be "acting like a crazy ex setting your stuff on fire on your lawn" but, to be honest, that says rather more about you than it does about the EU.

conorhal wrote: »

Disgustingly petty on the EU's part but exemplary of the kind of behavior that caused the UK walk away from it.

Nonsense. If this kind of behaviour caused the UK to walk away, they would have left in the 80s, for the reason just pointed out.