Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

listermint

View wrote: »

I have no “under the cover dream of irexit”.

Politically I am at the complete opposite end of spectrum in EU terms, being far closer to European Federalists than I am to supporters to Irexit. I would be far happier to see Ireland opt into Schengen in the morning than most if not all of the posters on this thread.

That though doesn’t alter the fact that unfortunately bonkers ideas take on a life of their own and their consequences can last decades after they fall from favour - just consider the case of Germany.

But there's no supporting evidence for such a thing to occur here. Don't forget we had nearly a decade of decline after 2008 from a period of excess and there still wasn't consistent loud and ultra negative EU views taking place. Sure there was the Merkel jokes etc in the Euros . But you surely know Ireland has different outlooks given its history.

embraer170

Read the underlined part. Having dual French-British citizenship has allowed him to continue sending products to France?!

CelticRambler

embraer170 wrote: »

Having dual French-British citizenship has allowed him to continue sending products to France?!

The whole article is nonsensical (well, logically, seeing as the whole of Brexit is nonsensical ... ) but I think the implication is that only dual nationality citizens have any good excuse for being able to speak a second language. This plucky Brit has got one over on the arrogant French by being able to complete their deliberately obstructionist French forms on account of having a French passport, in the same way as Ian Paisley Jr. can (no doubt) export Scottish potatoes to the Connemara Gaeltacht.

Or something like that. :rolleyes:

NeuralNetwork

embraer170 wrote: »

Absolutely ridiculous statement in a BBC article about how exporters are impacted.

It's disappointing to see the BBC website has articles that look like they were written for The Daily Express.

I guess that's where UK public service media is gone though. In a few years time the BBC will be about as credible as one of the tabloids, if that's the direction the Tories take it.

BonnieSituation

The BBC has always had that tendency.

The reportage of indyref1 and the lead up was when its perceived neutrality died.

yagan

GazzaL wrote: »

Prices are moving upwards, some as a result of the global shipping crisis, but now moreso as a result of Brexit and the associated paperwork.

Their prices are going to have to come down again to compete in the EU. It may be just the case that exporting is no longer profitable.

On the other hand economy of scale will allow EU businesses flood the UK market despite import costs.

NeuralNetwork

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The BBC has always had that tendency.

The reportage of indyref1 and the lead up was when its perceived neutrality died.

Well, yeah I agree they can go off into strange stuff sometimes.

I will never forget this article that tried to explain impact of the 2008 credit crunch in terms of catholic / protestant sectarian stereotypes:

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18789154

Forgetting that most of Europe is post-religious, France is practically atheist in majority, Germany's got a bit chunk of Catholic culture in its most fiscally conservative region (Bavaria) and places like Austria, which was doing very well during the recession is largely Catholic and the UK and US had taken an enormous hit, having unprecedent bank bailouts etc etc but sure, let's just blame the catholic culture of Italy and Ireland etc.

Seems there's an element stuck in some worldview from 17th century.

Akrasia

GazzaL wrote: »

I've come across that attitude amongst British businesses as well that are blaming the EU for the customs paperwork. This is what the British people voted for, and they knew what they were voting for.

They didn't have clue what they were voting for

The day after the referendum, the phrase "What is the EU" was one of the most googled questions from the UK

Akrasia

embraer170 wrote: »

Read the underlined part. Having dual French-British citizenship has allowed him to continue sending products to France?!

He also forged contracts

(Just kidding, but I had to read the 'Forged contacts' bit twice)

Akrasia

CelticRambler wrote: »

The whole article is nonsensical (well, logically, seeing as the whole of Brexit is nonsensical ... ) but I think the implication is that only dual nationality citizens have any good excuse for being able to speak a second language. This plucky Brit has got one over on the arrogant French by being able to complete their deliberately obstructionist French forms on account of having a French passport, in the same way as Ian Paisley Jr. can (no doubt) export Scottish potatoes to the Connemara Gaeltacht.

Or something like that. :rolleyes:

I think there is a delicious irony that the UK voting for brexit is going to mean that a lot more kids in British schools will need to study european languages (properly)

BonnieSituation

Akrasia wrote: »

They didn't have clue what they were voting for

The day after the referendum, the phrase "What is the EU" was one of the most googled questions from the UK

I think Gazza was alluding to how we're always told that the voters knew what they were voting for.

So, they best enjoy the consequences of their actions.

yagan

Akrasia wrote: »

I think there is a delicious irony that the UK voting for brexit is going to mean that a lot more kids in British schools will need to study european languages (properly)

Ironically it will be the EU immigrants in Britain that will benefit most from new jobs requiring EU languages!

British immigrants in British sun ghettos will have to make more an effort now that their labour pool will no longer be British casuals but local Spanish who'll pay no heed to British expat sense of privilege.

Eric Cartman

yagan wrote: »

Ironically it will be the EU immigrants in Britain that will benefit most from new jobs requiring EU languages!

British immigrants in British sun ghettos will have to make more an effort now that their labour pool will no longer be British casuals but local Spanish who'll pay no heed to British expat sense of privilege.

Hah sun ghettos, im keeping that.

Id say most will just end up hiring anyone with a vague standard of english and when they dont understand something just say it a lot louder and slower

Those ‘ex pats’ just want warm brighton , dont want to engage with anything remotely foreign

View

listermint wrote: »

But there's no supporting evidence for such a thing to occur here. Don't forget we had nearly a decade of decline after 2008 from a period of excess and there still wasn't consistent loud and ultra negative EU views taking place. Sure there was the Merkel jokes etc in the Euros . But you surely know Ireland has different outlooks given its history.

I never suggested that there is support for Irexit.

Rather I pointed out that a bonkers idea can gain traction, influence history and, for good or ill, people end up living with the consequences of it decades later.

Northern Ireland, for instance, almost certainly would not exist today if our forefathers - on all sides of the then political divisions - favoured unity over all else and were willing to subjugate their other political preferences to that - ie if they were willing to put independence/home rule/maintaining the union second on their list of priorities, while keeping unity, however imperfect, at the top.

cameramonkey

View wrote: »

I never suggested that there is support for Irexit.

Rather I pointed out that a bonkers idea can gain traction, influence history and, for good or ill, people end up living with the consequences of it decades later.

Northern Ireland, for instance, almost certainly would not exist today if our forefathers - on all sides of the then political divisions - favoured unity over all else and were willing to subjugate their other political preferences to that - ie if they were willing to put independence/home rule/maintaining the union second on their list of priorities, while keeping unity, however imperfect, at the top.

So the point you are making is we could have a UI under UK rule, look where that got us. An absolute disaster for the Irish people. Genocide, famine, murder and mayhem perpetrated by the UK. If we had stayed in the UK we would be a bit like the six counties now probably, a disaster failed statelet.

eire4

View wrote: »

I never suggested that there is support for Irexit.

Rather I pointed out that a bonkers idea can gain traction, influence history and, for good or ill, people end up living with the consequences of it decades later.

Northern Ireland, for instance, almost certainly would not exist today if our forefathers - on all sides of the then political divisions - favoured unity over all else and were willing to subjugate their other political preferences to that - ie if they were willing to put independence/home rule/maintaining the union second on their list of priorities, while keeping unity, however imperfect, at the top.

Yeah sure lets keep in charge the state that colonized us and gave us genocide, plundered our country and came pretty close to wiping out our language. No thanks.

20silkcut

cameramonkey wrote: »

So the point you are making is we could have a UI under UK rule, look where that got us. An absolute disaster for the Irish people. Genocide, famine, murder and mayhem perpetrated by the UK. If we had stayed in the UK we would be a bit like the six counties now probably, a disaster failed statelet.

Not countering your argument or anything like that just recapping on how British rule finished up in this country. I’m not 100% on the history of it just recalling from my leaving cert days.

Would it be fair to say that we did extract some significant concessions from the British particularly the various land acts. Irish farmers gained more autonomy over their land than any other farmers in the U.K?
That essentially settled the Irish question in the 1910’s.
The time from the 1913 lockout, and following that the shelving of the home rule Bill, then the rising and its aftermath and finally conscription was what finished the brits in Ireland.
But if things had to stay as they were from the 1903 land act up to 1913 with home rule granted in 1914 we would quite possibly be still part of the U.K?

eire4

20silkcut wrote: »

Not countering your argument or anything like that just recapping on how British rule finished up in this country. I’m not 100% on the history of it just recalling from my leaving cert days.

Would it be fair to say that we did extract some significant concessions from the British particularly the various land acts. Irish farmers gained more autonomy over their land than any other farmers in the U.K?
That essentially settled the Irish question in the 1910’s.
The time from the 1913 lockout, and following that the shelving of the home rule Bill, then the rising and its aftermath and finally conscription was what finished the brits in Ireland.
But if things had to stay as they were from the 1903 land act up to 1913 with home rule granted in 1914 we would quite possibly be still part of the U.K?

Yes how generous of our colonizers they make us pay to get our own land buy. Such nice guys! Thankfully we are not part of the country that brought genocide with them as they plundered and colonized us.

20silkcut

eire4 wrote: »

Yes how generous of our colonizers they make us pay to get our own land buy. Such nice guys! Thankfully we are not part of the country that brought genocide with them as they plundered and colonized us.

They made us pay for that land long after we got independence.
Up until the late 1930’s.

Sam Russell

20silkcut wrote: »

Not countering your argument or anything like that just recapping on how British rule finished up in this country. I’m not 100% on the history of it just recalling from my leaving cert days.

Would it be fair to say that we did extract some significant concessions from the British particularly the various land acts. Irish farmers gained more autonomy over their land than any other farmers in the U.K?
That essentially settled the Irish question in the 1910’s.
The time from the 1913 lockout, and following that the shelving of the home rule Bill, then the rising and its aftermath and finally conscription was what finished the brits in Ireland.
But if things had to stay as they were from the 1903 land act up to 1913 with home rule granted in 1914 we would quite possibly be still part of the U.K?

You missed the army mutiny on the Curagh against the Home Rule act, and the importation of arms into NI by the UVF in 1914. So the British Gov of the day accepted the troops mutinying, and a group of citizens importing arms to foment a terrorist uprising - no action taken.

Then there was the shelling of the centre of Dublin in 1916 destroying much of it.

Then the looting and sacking and burning of the City centre of Cork by the RIC and the RIC Reserve, while preventing the fire service dealing with all the fires they had started.

Then there were the Black and Tans atrocities that were committed with impunity, and with official approval.

Then they partitioned the country including Nationalist majority areas which led to the civil war.

I'll leave it at that - there is more.

And we would have been better to remain in the UK? I don't think so.

Brexit is a bit more of the Gov abusing their people.

CelticRambler

An interesting opinion piece in the Guardian on the fate of the City of London, following the news of Amsterdam becoming the No.1 euro-trading stock exchange, and the "yeah, but that's nothing serious, really" reaction from certain quarters. Specifically, these paragraphs (my highlighting) :

We should have expected to see that any market share losses would first be seen in electronic business lines, where you can respond to a change in status by simply rerouting payment instructions – in this case chiefly to Amsterdam. The higher value-added advisory activities involving actual people are considerably more sticky, but in the end, they tend to follow the trading. It’s noticeable that Numis, one of the most successful British domestic brokerages, has opened an office in the EU. These things start as a workaround to meet regulatory obligations, but they tend to grow as people follow the money.

The trouble with this sort of development is that, like any other exponential process, it creeps up on you slowly and then suddenly it’s too big to do anything about. For the time being, the economic impact is small; the computer servers might be in Europe but the people placing the orders are still in London. The problem is that every year, the financial markets employ fewer people and more computer servers. Historically this hasn’t been a major issue for employment; as one financial market gets automated, the human beings move on to another area where the products are more complicated and the margins are higher.

Here’s where difficulty emerges: where will those new markets be? International carbon emissions permit trading also appears to be centralising in the EU. The danger to London as a financial centre is not that existing business will move, it’s that in the future, new things will happen somewhere else. As the proverb goes, the stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stones.

beerguts

cameramonkey wrote: »

So the point you are making is we could have a UI under UK rule, look where that got us. An absolute disaster for the Irish people. Genocide, famine, murder and mayhem perpetrated by the UK. If we had stayed in the UK we would be a bit like the six counties now probably, a disaster failed statelet.

More so like Wales in my opinion. If you ask people from the continent about Wales a lot have never heard about it. I could see us having a similar fate with us having no international impact or industry and just like Wales is today. Also swamped with English retirees that would pollute our politics. IMHO I think we were very fortunate to gain independence when we did from Britain even if it did cost us a portion of our island. At the time the protestant population was increasing in most provences and large Catholic emigration. I know they would have not become an majority but it could have made it much harder if our independence movement was delayed until the 50s.
But back on the topic of Brexit do you see the Brits quietly backing down from raising art 16 next week. They can't hope to actually made any significant changes to the brexit deal, this must be just using the northern trade as a useful distraction from the current situation in their internal British politics

Strazdas

beerguts wrote: »

More so like Wales in my opinion. If you ask people from the continent about Wales a lot have never heard about it. I could see us having a similar fate with us having no international impact or industry and just like Wales is today. Also swamped with English retirees that would pollute our politics. IMHO I think we were very fortunate to gain independence when we did from Britain even if it did cost us a portion of our island. At the time the protestant population was increasing in most provences and large Catholic emigration. I know they would have become an majority but it could have made it much harder if our independence movement was delayed until the 50s.
But back on the topic of brexit do you see the Brits quietly backing of raising art16 next week. They can't hope to actually made any significant changes to the brexit deal, this must be just using this as a useful distraction from the current situation in their internal politics

Most Irish historians think Ireland would have remained a second class member of the UK and would probably be a neglected backwater these days, just like Wales and NI.

The advantages of being a republic really kicked in from the early 1990s onwards.

cameramonkey

beerguts wrote: »

More so like Wales in my opinion. If you ask people from the continent about Wales a lot have never heard about it. I could see us having a similar fate with us having no international impact or industry and just like Wales is today. Also swamped with English retirees that would pollute our politics. IMHO I think we were very fortunate to gain independence when we did from Britain even if it did cost us a portion of our island. At the time the protestant population was increasing in most provences and large Catholic emigration. I know they would have not become an majority but it could have made it much harder if our independence movement was delayed until the 50s.
But back on the topic of Brexit do you see the Brits quietly backing down from raising art 16 next week. They can't hope to actually made any significant changes to the brexit deal, this must be just using the northern trade as a useful distraction from the current situation in their internal British politics

I think one of the great things about the resistance to UK rule was the fact that during ww1 many people in Ireland who could have died in Europe were persuaded to abandon UK militarism. That goes for after 1922 as well, imagine the amount of wars and slaughter the Irish people avoided by not being in the UK.
They have backed down already over the North. They are not going to risk their wider trade deal . I think there may be a bit of pay back to the DUP over them lording it over the Tories when the Tories needed those DUP votes. I mean a few bog men in the NE of Ireland are not going to over turn the will of the UK or EU. The UK government may try use the customs problems to get a few concessions from the EU but it will be about what the Tories want not the DUP.

Zubeneschamali

Strazdas wrote: »

Most Irish historians think Ireland would have remained a second class member of the UK and would probably be a neglected backwater these days, just like Wales and NI.

The advantages of being a republic really kicked in from the early 1990s onwards.

1960s onwards. We might not have outpaced NI from that date, but we were keeping up under our own steam, not on scraps from Westminster.

And the problem up to the 60s was not independence, it was, as ever, Fianna Fail.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

History forum is that way, folks!

cameramonkey

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

1960s onwards. We might not have outpaced NI from that date, but we were keeping up under our own steam, not on scraps from Westminster.

And the problem up to the 60s was not independence, it was, as ever, Fianna Fail.

From 1922 to 1960 FF were only in government for 18 out of those 38 years. I think the blame lies with a wider strata of Irish political life.

ujjjjjjjjj

Sam Russell wrote: »

You missed the army mutiny on the Curagh against the Home Rule act, and the importation of arms into NI by the UVF in 1914. So the British Gov of the day accepted the troops mutinying, and a group of citizens importing arms to foment a terrorist uprising - no action taken.

Then there was the shelling of the centre of Dublin in 1916 destroying much of it.

Then the looting and sacking and burning of the City centre of Cork by the RIC and the RIC Reserve, while preventing the fire service dealing with all the fires they had started.

Then there were the Black and Tans atrocities that were committed with impunity, and with official approval.

Then they partitioned the country including Nationalist majority areas which led to the civil war.

I'll leave it at that - there is more.

And we would have been better to remain in the UK? I don't think so.

Brexit is a bit more of the Gov abusing their people.

Think you will find the partition of Northern Ireland was agreed between the British Government and representatives of the Irish Republic as part of the 1921 Anglo Irish Treaty and was voted through the Dail. It was a creation of both parties. The civil war was caused by people who refused to accept a democratic decision.

Brexit was voted for in a referendum, if you don't like it fine, absolutely highlight the problems it causes but it's called democracy. The government merely asked a question and the people voted one way.

There were atrocities on all sides in the War of Independence and while I believe Collins was a pragmatist and felt the end justified the extreme means and it is highly likely it would have taken much longer to get the British to peacefully negotiate an independent Ireland a legitimate question is always to ask was the level of bloodshed required and were there other options.

Sam Russell

I will not draw the thread off topic, but the Government of Ireland became law on 23rd Dec 1920, predating the treaty.

Brexit was as democratic as the FPTP voting system. The Leave campaign was based on lies and illegal funding.

Strazdas

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Think you will find the partition of Northern Ireland was agreed between the British Government and representatives of the Irish Republic as part of the 1921 Anglo Irish Treaty and was voted through the Dail. It was a creation of both parties. The civil war was caused by people who refused to accept a democratic decision.

Brexit was voted for in a referendum, if you don't like it fine, absolutely highlight the problems it causes but it's called democracy. The government merely asked a question and the people voted one way.

There were atrocities on all sides in the War of Independence and while I believe Collins was a pragmatist and felt the end justified the extreme means and it is highly likely it would have taken much longer to get the British to peacefully negotiate an independent Ireland a legitimate question is always to ask was the level of bloodshed required and were there other options.

It was merely part of a democratic process. Parliament holding up the UK leaving the EU for a year and a half was also democratic. A second referendum being held would also be democratic.