Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

axer

Did the EU actually invoke article 16? Every media outlet seems to have reported they did including the irish times, but my understanding is the EU just proposed invoking it. Does anyone know for for and have a credible source to back that up?

BorneTobyWilde

Boris doesn't obey rules. Goods were flowing into NI before Jan, so in reality what is the issue with them flowing in now,,, just red tape. Would like to see Boris telling NI to stop checking goods, and then I would like to see Ireland telling EU there will never be a hard border.
And what could the EU do......... nothing.

What should have happened with Brexit is that there should have been a treaty for the whole of Ireland, that goods could flow as normal between UK and Island of Ireland, no customs, no duty on ANYTHING, no VAT. Business as usually.

bobmalooka

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Boris doesn't obey rules. Goods were flowing into NI before Jan, so in reality what is the issue with them flowing in now,,, just red tape. Would like to see Boris telling NI to stop checking goods, and then I would like to see Ireland telling EU there will never be a hard border.
And what could the EU do......... nothing.

What should have happened with Brexit is that there should have been a treaty for the whole of Ireland, that goods could flow as normal between UK and Island of Ireland, no customs, no duty on ANYTHING, no VAT. Business as usually.

How did it take them 4 years to make a deal when you had the solution all along?

The same people who claimed it was absolutely terrible that the EU threatened to kick their child out of the house have nothing to say when the UK threatens to run away from home. It's a parent child relationship instead of an adult adult one.

Hurrache

axer wrote: »

Did the EU actually invoke article 16? Every media outlet seems to have reported they did including the irish times, but my understanding is the EU just proposed invoking it. Does anyone know for for and have a credible source to back that up?

None reported that they did, none with any sense anyway.

tubercolossus

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

,,, just red tape. and then I would like to see Ireland telling EU there will never be a hard border.
And what could the EU do......... nothing.

What should have happened with Brexit is that there should have been a treaty for the whole of Ireland, that goods could flow as normal between UK and Island of Ireland, no customs, no duty on ANYTHING, no VAT. Business as usually.

First of all, what you call 'just red tape' involves, among many many other things, food safety standards. 'Ref tape' keeps you and everyone else safe.

Second, why on earth would we do that? We are the EU. NI is part of a 'third country'.

Thirdly, where do you propose putting the border between the EU and the UK, a 'third country? Eh?

ErnieG

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Would like to see Boris telling NI to stop checking goods, and then I would like to see Ireland telling EU there will never be a hard border.
And what could the EU do......... nothing.

By doing that Ireland would de-facto leave the Single Market, so the EU could/would introduce border controls between Ireland and the other countries of the Single Market. Which Ireland very much does not want.

BorneTobyWilde

tubercolossus wrote: »

First of all, what you call 'just red tape' involves, among many many other things, food safety standards. 'Ref tape' keeps you and everyone else safe.

Second, why on earth would we do that? We are the EU. NI is part of a 'third country'.

Thirdly, where do you propose putting the border between the EU and the UK, a 'third country? Eh?

Where was that all these past years? Why all of a sudden is it an issue.

UK import vast amounts of Chinese tat, all of which ends up on Ebay or other sites, Amazon ect, and again it was all okay to buy it and have it delivered anywhere in the EU. Now we have all this bull '' needs to be made in UK'' to have zero tariffs. Again red tape, to protect EU from getting contaminated with tat that doesn't meet EU standards, but again where was the concern all along.... it was fine up to Dec.
The free trade deal didn't need all this red tape, free should mean free.

ujjjjjjjjj

tubercolossus wrote: »

First of all, what you call 'just red tape' involves, among many many other things, food safety standards. 'Ref tape' keeps you and everyone else safe.

Second, why on earth would we do that? We are the EU. NI is part of a 'third country'.

Thirdly, where do you propose putting the border between the EU and the UK, a 'third country? Eh?

The entire thing has been a fudge since day one and it will continue to cause problems in way way or the other.

For things to work in a proper manner you have to have a border between the North and the South with the North operating as part of the UK but it was clear that this could never politically be allowed to happen so we end up with a fudge. Add into the mix Unionist fringe elements, an incompetent European Commission and Ursula's brain fart and we end up with a messy situation a month into it.

Things will hopefully over time settle down as Britain and the EU slowly but surely move on. The trade channels will settle down and paperwork will be worked out. In some respects it is a minor miracle there hasn't been more chaos.

This fudge however will always have potential pitfalls, I think there is plenty of mileage to run.

Gerry T

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Where was that all these past years? Why all of a sudden is it an issue.

UK import vast amounts of Chinese tat, all of which ends up on Ebay or other sites, Amazon ect, and again it was all okay to buy it and have it delivered anywhere in the EU. Now we have all this bull '' needs to be made in UK'' to have zero tariffs. Again red tape, to protect EU from getting contaminated with tat that doesn't meet EU standards, but again where was the concern all along.... it was fine up to Dec.
The free trade deal didn't need all this red tape, free should mean free.

I'll presume you mean Chinese goods that are CE stamped and manufactured to EU standards. The big difference now is that the UK add's zero value. In other words if someone in the EU wants that Chinese product they can buy it from China and not pay the middle man (UK). Why would the EU encourage trade where all the UK did was act like a post box and add 20 or 30% onto the price. That's why the EU tariffs this practice.

A really good example of this is the UK buying a product in France and selling it to Ireland, That good is now hit with a tariff if all the UK does is ship the good to Ireland, acting like a distributor or agent.
But if the UK buys a french product and uses it in conjunction with other EU or UK made parts to make a new product, then the UK is adding value and the new product can land in the EU tariff free.

It's a really good practice and it's there to cut out lazy middle men trying to profit off the EU.

Trade will improve as you say when business gets to grips with the new processes and paperwork, but it will never be as good as how it was when the UK was a member.
As people on here have pointed out several times the non tariff barriers to trade can be more restrictive than the tariff barrier (in most cases, not all, such as food)

ujjjjjjjjj

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Where was that all these past years? Why all of a sudden is it an issue.

UK import vast amounts of Chinese tat, all of which ends up on Ebay or other sites, Amazon ect, and again it was all okay to buy it and have it delivered anywhere in the EU. Now we have all this bull '' needs to be made in UK'' to have zero tariffs. Again red tape, to protect EU from getting contaminated with tat that doesn't meet EU standards, but again where was the concern all along.... it was fine up to Dec.
The free trade deal didn't need all this red tape, free should mean free.

Because this never was anything to do with standards or trade. Brexit was a red rag to the EU federalists and they have been in a strop since Britain voted to leave. Piling red tape and standards crapology up the ying yang is the way beaurcrats respond when pissed off. Making Brexit as hard as possible even if it was counter productive was always the driving force as it discourages any other bird from flying the nest.

Gerry T

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Because this never was anything to do with standards or trade. Brexit was a red rag to the EU federalists and they have been in a strop since Britain voted to leave. Piling red tape and standards crapology up the ying yang is the way beaurcrats respond when pissed off. Making Brexit as hard as possible even if it was counter productive was always the driving force as it discourages any other bird from flying the nest.

The UK could have gone for a hard brexit, just leave. Then if it wanted to sell into the EU it would need to make sure it complied with EU rules, such as product standard. We can't have any old UK crap made to little or no standard entering our market.
But the UK didn't do that, their choice. The UK decided on a lighter version but still not a very close relationship, this brings it's own set of difficulties that the UK would be well aware of, their choice and they must be happy with that decision.

When you leave the EU and want to sell into it's market your a rule taker, end of. There's no punishment, or vindictivness, just the rules that everyone outside the EU follows and have followed for decades. The UK would know this, they were instrumental in putting in place all of these rules and procedures, you could say the UK is trading with the EU on UK rules & procedures !

bobmalooka

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Because this never was anything to do with standards or trade. Brexit was a red rag to the EU federalists and they have been in a strop since Britain voted to leave. Piling red tape and standards crapology up the ying yang is the way beaurcrats respond when pissed off. Making Brexit as hard as possible even if it was counter productive was always the driving force as it discourages any other bird from flying the nest.

Red tape that the UK designed when in the EU, then negotiated an outcome to impose it on themselves when they had a plethora of other choices when leaving the EU.

We will agree that Brecit is serving to discourage others from going down the same path

Gerry T

bobmalooka wrote: »

Red tape that the UK designed when in the EU, then negotiated an outcome to impose it on themselves when they had a plethora of other choices when leaving the EU.

We will agree that Brecit is serving to discourage others from going down the same path

Snap !

Saren Arterius

seamus wrote: »

Given that the Tories decided to bring the entire UK out of the EU against the wishes of Scotland and Northern Ireland

Well, quite rightly. The UK voted to leave - so the UK left.

based on an non-binding plebiscite

"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide", as it said in the referendum leaflets delivered to every home.

it is demonstrably false to assert that UK citizens hold their politicians to account in elections.

We hold them to account by booting them out of office whenever we want to.

The British people didn't want to hold the Conservatives to account in the last election because we want Brexit.

View

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Where was that all these past years? Why all of a sudden is it an issue.

It’s an issue “all of a sudden” because the U.K. left the EU and the subsequent Transition period ended.

They are now being treated as a non-EU country which is just what Brexiters wanted.

You aren’t suggesting that the EU countries should fail to respect the wishes of Brexiters, are you?

Saren Arterius

mick087 wrote: »

Boris Johnson was elected by the citizens of the UK.
I do not have the power of the vote to change this.

I am not living or a citizen of the UK.

To answer your question i have the same powers to vote Johnson out of power as i do vote the current EU commission out of power.

The EU isn't undemocratic.

It's ANTI-democratic.

Gerry T

Saren Arterius wrote: »

...
The British people didn't want to hold the Conservatives to account in the last election because we want Brexit.

The people didn't vote them out because they wanted the version of Brexit that they were told they would get
We hold all the cards
Easiest trade deal in human history
They need us more than we need them
We will have full tariff free access and 350m a week for the NHS
We don't want to be there when Turkey joins and all those immigrants.
Global UK will be far better off out and we will prosper.

The reality so far has been very very different, early days but does it look like improving ? we now have Johnson threatening to trigger Art16 and putting a border in Ireland, just think about that and what might next happen.
What will happen to UK/EU trade and UK/USA trade, I'm sure Biden is watching and waiting.

View

Saren Arterius wrote: »

Well, quite rightly. The UK voted to leave - so the UK left.



"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide", as it said in the referendum leaflets delivered to every home.



We hold them to account by booting them out of office whenever we want to.

The British people didn't want to hold the Conservatives to account in the last election because we want Brexit.

Over 85% of U.K. parliamentary seats are “safe seats”. The Electoral Reform Society was able to correctly predict the winners of all those seats within five minutes of the deadline for nominations closing. As such, for the overwhelming majority of MPs the issue of “being held to account” just doesn’t arise - it’s the equivalent of Ireland’s sovereign right to declare war on China and launch an invasion of it. The sovereign right may sound impressive in theory but no one takes it seriously in reality.

Peregrinus

Saren Arterius wrote: »

We hold them to account by booting them out of office whenever we want to.

The British people didn't want to hold the Conservatives to account in the last election because we want Brexit.

Saren Arterius wrote: »

The EU isn't undemocratic.

It's ANTI-democratic.

Oh, for crying out loud. Do you not read your posts over before you post them?

At the last election, a clear majority of the British people voted against the Tories, and for parties that favoured a second referendum. But the Tories get an 80-seat majority and there is to be no second referendum for fear that the people might oppose the Will of the People, or something.

And it's the EU that's anti-democratic? Don't make me get sick into my own scorn.

Saren Arterius

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, for crying out loud. Do you not read your posts over before you post them?

At the last election, a clear majority of the British people voted against the Tories, and for parties that favoured a second referendum. But the Tories get an 80-seat majority and there is to be no second referendum for fear that the people might oppose the Will of the People, or something.

And it's the EU that's anti-democratic? Don't make me get sick into my own scorn.

An even bigger majority voted against each of the other parties - hence why the Tories won. And it's not the number of votes that matters - it's the number of seats.

Your argument is completely illogical.

And the FPTP post system is what we have in our parliamentary democracy - a system the British people voted democratically to keep in a referendum.

Peregrinus

Saren Arterius wrote: »

An even bigger majority voted against each of the other parties - hence why the Tories won. And it's not the number of votes that matters - it's the number of seats.

Your argument is completely illogical.

And the FPTP post system is what we have in our parliamentary democracy - a system the British people voted democratically to keep in a referendum.

Yes, but you can democratically choose an undemocratic electoral system. Which is a rational choice, if you have a preference for stable and assertive government over representative government.

What you can't do, though, is make that choice and then get all precious about democracy. You've chosen a system which delivers a thumping majority to a party that secured a minority of the vote, to drive through policies which a clear majority of the electorate have rejected. There may be good reasons for doing this but "democracy" definitely isn't one of them.

Saren Arterius

View wrote: »

Over 85% of U.K. parliamentary seats are “safe seats”. The Electoral Reform Society was able to correctly predict the winners of all those seats within five minutes of the deadline for nominations closing. As such, for the overwhelming majority of MPs the issue of “being held to account” just doesn’t arise - it’s the equivalent of Ireland’s sovereign right to declare war on China and launch an invasion of it. The sovereign right may sound impressive in theory but no one takes it seriously in reality.

According to Fabian Richter, only 15% of the UK population live in safe seats.

Saren Arterius

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but you can democratically choose an undemocratic electoral system. Which is a rational choice, if you have a preference for stable and assertive government over representative government.

What you can't do, though, is make that choice and then get all precious about democracy. You've chosen a system which delivers a thumping majority to a party that secured a minority of the vote, to drive through policies which a clear majority of the electorate have rejected. There may be good reasons for doing this but "democracy" definitely isn't one of them.

It's not undemocratic, though, is it? The party with the most seats - and usually the most votes - wins. Even if it got less than 50% of the vote, it's still higher than each of the other parties.

The difference between Britain and the EU is that Britain is a democracy.

View

Saren Arterius wrote: »

An even bigger majority voted against each of the other parties - hence why the Tories won. And it's not the number of votes that matters - it's the number of seats.

Your argument is completely illogical.

And the FPTP post system is what we have in our parliamentary democracy - a system the British people voted democratically to keep in a referendum.

The British people never voted on FPTP in a referendum.

Rather they voted on whether or not to switch to AV and rejected doing so.

A majority rejecting the latter does not mean a majority approved the former.

View

Saren Arterius wrote: »

According to Fabian Richter, only 15% of the UK population live in safe seats.

Were that the case, the Electoral Reform Society would not have been able to accurately predict the results of 85% of the seats. Mr Richter is talking nonsense.

Saren Arterius

View wrote: »

The British people never voted on FPTP in a referendum.

Rather they voted on whether or not to switch to AV and rejected doing so.

A majority rejecting the latter does not mean a majority approved the former.

However, recent polls indicate no desire among the great British public for change.

Saren Arterius

View wrote: »

Were that the case, the Electoral Reform Society would not have been able to accurately predict the results of 85% of the seats.

But it didn't.

View

Saren Arterius wrote: »

However, recent polls indicate no desire among the great British public for change.

Polls aren’t referenda.

And their results definitely don’t constitute a majority voting for FPTP in a referendum. If their results did count as such we could dispense with elections and referenda.

Strazdas

Saren Arterius wrote: »

It's not undemocratic, though, is it? The party with the most seats - and usually the most votes - wins. Even if it got less than 50% of the vote, it's still higher than each of the other parties.

The difference between Britain and the EU is that Britain is a democracy.

57% of the British population did not vote for the current government or PM - also means they have no direct representation from their constituency in Parliament.

Under the Irish system, the chances that you casted a vote for an elected TD (MP) from your own constituency are much, much higher.