Non - Brexit

[TCherry]

I read somewhere, a financial analyst, yes I know.. He said that if the UK leaves then he could see Eire leaving the EU within 5 years as they are so closely tied in with us economically.
That would fix the back stop issue!

 

[dutchcherry]

I don't think this is true, the EU change their rules all the time and the UK comes with a massive bag of very persuasive cash. The rebate is in itself ridiculous, but there it is. Amazing what happens when hard cash is involved.

Well I hope so, if that worst case scenario arrives. I am just not sure how their 18 trillion USD economy will fall over backwards due to the might of our 2-3 trillion USD economy. Hard cash is helpful in any negotiation you are right, but its usually the one with the bigger pockets that comes out on top.

 

[BillMcgarrycherry]

Brexit remains a mere Word.

We were never really in the EU....we didnt take the Euro currency!
Yet getting out is so difficult due to whatever ties there were; many of us dont even know or are oblivious to what they represented!...and now the biggest tie ...is one that didnt exist before we went in...the infamous Backstop is the contentious dealbreaker or maker...watch this space maker!
The word now is bloody Mirth!

 

[billythekid]

It will be interesting to see what happens in the upcoming EU elections. Juncker is stepping down as well.

 

[SlowDownDerek]

Well I hope so, if that worst case scenario arrives. I am just not sure how their 18 trillion USD economy will fall over backwards due to the might of our 2-3 trillion USD economy. Hard cash is helpful in any negotiation you are right, but its usually the one with the bigger pockets that comes out on top.

I'm talking about the UK contributions to the EU budget rather than saying they rely on our economic might. I think we were 18% of net contributons last year, the second largest contributor, so we'd be in a buyer's market.

 

[dutchcherry]

Brexit remains a mere Word.

We were never really in the EU....we didnt take the Euro currency!
Yet getting out is so difficult due to whatever ties there were; many of us dont even know or are oblivious to what they represented!...and now the biggest tie ...is one that didnt exist before we went in...the infamous Backstop is the contentious dealbreaker or maker...watch this space maker!
The word now is bloody Mirth!

The backstop did not exist because the politicians who have wanted to leave for 40 odd years had no plan and did not give a flying f##k about one part of the UK called Northern Ireland. They also did not care to think about the Republic of Ireland so when the first meeting of Barnier and David 'SAS action man' Davies happened, DD had no response to the question of what the UK government planned to do about their land border with the EU. Good luck getting the minutes to that particular meeting under a FOI request. Backstop was only created by the UK Government to cover up for London's lack of knowledge / awareness of the situation.

 

[SlowDownDerek]

The backstop did not exist because the politicians who have wanted to leave for 40 odd years had no plan and did not give a flying f##k about one part of the UK called Northern Ireland. They also did not care to think about the Republic of Ireland so when the first meeting of Barnier and David 'SAS action man' Davies happened, DD had no response to the question of what the UK government planned to do about their land border with the EU. Good luck getting the minutes to that particular meeting under a FOI request. Backstop was only created by the UK Government to cover up for London's lack of knowledge / awareness of the situation.

Tbf I remember reading an article in one of the Irish papers very soon after the vote that detailed the work that their foreign minister had been doing before and after the vote. They obviously were focused on the Irish issue and had pretty much secured support for the Irish question to be brought in the withdrawal stage as one of the three red lines. Clever and proactive but in hindsight this had caused all of the issues. I personally don't think it was a good idea to have the Irish question dealt with at the first stage - how can you agree to the border situation before knowing what the trading relationship is going to be?

It wasn't just created by the UK government, the Irish government rightly or wrongly wanted it front and centre. If they succeed in forcing the UK into brexit in name only then arguably they have done well. If the whole thing collapses due to the backstop then maybe it backfired a bit.

 

[northstandmark]

The backstop did not exist because the politicians who have wanted to leave for 40 odd years had no plan and did not give a flying f##k about one part of the UK called Northern Ireland. They also did not care to think about the Republic of Ireland so when the first meeting of Barnier and David 'SAS action man' Davies happened, DD had no response to the question of what the UK government planned to do about their land border with the EU. Good luck getting the minutes to that particular meeting under a FOI request. Backstop was only created by the UK Government to cover up for London's lack of knowledge / awareness of the situation.

Perusing a withdrawal via EEA membership would have made the whole issue irrelevant, would have shown understanding and concern for the Irish as well a clear way forwards for the rest of us.
Hey ho, that ship long since passed, because too many on both sides talked it down. Again like May's deal, it's not Remain, and not Brexity enough, for either of the two camps to get behind.

 

[BillMcgarrycherry]

The backstop did not exist because the politicians who have wanted to leave for 40 odd years had no plan and did not give a flying f##k about one part of the UK called Northern Ireland. They also did not care to think about the Republic of Ireland so when the first meeting of Barnier and David 'SAS action man' Davies happened, DD had no response to the question of what the UK government planned to do about their land border with the EU. Good luck getting the minutes to that particular meeting under a FOI request. Backstop was only created by the UK Government to cover up for London's lack of knowledge / awareness of the situation.

Agree that DD didnt have a clue...but Londons lack of knowledge and care about anywhere other than the South East is, and was always part of why most of the other parts of Britains population were not enamoured with the EU......only London and surrounding area benefitted from being in it as indicated by the Referendum poll figures!
Its no small wonder though that the island of Ireland and its silly border went to the back of minds due to the troublesome nature of its existence and its issues! I would hope that both Europe and Britain in the future leave the whole island of Ireland alone to 'grow up' and come into the 21st Century!

 

[SlowDownDerek]

Agree that DD didnt have a clue...but Londons lack of knowledge and care about anywhere other than the South East is, and was always part of why most of the other parts of Britains population were not enamoured with the EU......only London and surrounding area benefitted from being in it as indicated by the Referendum poll figures!
Its no small wonder though that the island of Ireland and its silly border went to the back of minds due to the troublesome nature of its existence and its issues! I would hope that both Europe and Britain in the future leave the whole island of Ireland alone to 'grow up' and come into the 21st Century!

You've certainly got very.. er.. interesting views on Irish politics Bill.

In fact they need more Englishman gracing them with their opinions about the troublesome nature of their silly border with such reasonable proposed solutions as "grow up".

I agree with the first bit though tbf.

 

[dutchcherry]

Tbf I remember reading an article in one of the Irish papers very soon after the vote that detailed the work that their foreign minister had been doing before and after the vote. They obviously were focused on the Irish issue and had pretty much secured support for the Irish question to be brought in the withdrawal stage as one of the three red lines. Clever and proactive but in hindsight this had caused all of the issues. I personally don't think it was a good idea to have the Irish question dealt with at the first stage - how can you agree to the border situation before knowing what the trading relationship is going to be?

It wasn't just created by the UK government, the Irish government rightly or wrongly wanted it front and centre. If they succeed in forcing the UK into brexit in name only then arguably they have done well. If the whole thing collapses due to the backstop then maybe it backfired a bit.

As always, a reasoned reply SDD, and I cant disagree. My annoyance with the whole situation (not your comment but your correct description) you hint at with the following: "Clever and proactive but in hindsight this had caused all of the issues. I personally don't think it was a good idea to have the Irish question dealt with at the first stage - how can you agree to the border situation before knowing what the trading relationship is going to be?"

I agree you cant agree a border before knowing what the trading situation is, but I'm glad someone was proactive in reminding those involved that the UK/EU border is a very fragile complex issue.

If as some suggested before the referendum that 'no one is talking about leaving the customs union' (Hannan) and 'only a mad man would leave the single market' (Digby Jones I think off the top of my head but im probably wrong), 'Norway' (Farage) then I agree it would not need to be brought up at the start of the withdrawal agreement negotiations, or maybe even at all.

What angers me is very quickly, when the loud prominent leavers could not write down a plan accommodating their contradictory promises as it would be held up to scrutiny and be easily picked apart, those people changed tack and were saying that leaving 'obviously' meant the so called hard Brexit of leaving both the CU and the SM.

When that thinking came into the equation, the EU then has to put the border at the top of their priorities. In a strange way, those that said the threat of no deal has to be kept on the table to help our leverage, i think having it there meant they shot themselves in the foot. It brought the border issue to the fore early on and gave it the starring roll.

The fact the UK then came up with a solution, asked the EU to accommodate it, then the UK voted it down is just embarrassing icing on the cake.

 

[dutchcherry]

Agree that DD didnt have a clue...but Londons lack of knowledge and care about anywhere other than the South East is, and was always part of why most of the other parts of Britains population were not enamoured with the EU......only London and surrounding area benefitted from being in it as indicated by the Referendum poll figures!
Its no small wonder though that the island of Ireland and its silly border went to the back of minds due to the troublesome nature of its existence and its issues! I would hope that both Europe and Britain in the future leave the whole island of Ireland alone to 'grow up' and come into the 21st Century!

2nd Para - I don't want to go there if you don't mind please Bill.

1st Para is a very good point and it is true for many. Someone said on here to me they voted to leave so as to give London a 'kick'. I'm not saying that's wrong, its someones view and opinion. I would ask you though, would you ever be convinced that if UK taxes are not being invested in your area, it is UK politicians you should maybe have blame? Would you ever be comforted by EU law that ring fences billions of pounds of our membership fees to be invested in the poorest areas of the UK to make sure the Govt does not just keep it and leave behind these places?

 

[AFCB Lost in Brum]

nobody voted for a “ hard” Brexit .That term wasn’t even invented till a couple of weeks after the referendum when the vote went the wrong way .
People did vote to “leave” the EU with all that it would entail
So hard Brexit has no popular mandate but leaving with all that it would entail is democratic.
Bit of a mixed message.

'...a mixed message'?

Coming from the one who's posts no-one can decipher

 

[SlowDownDerek]

As always, a reasoned reply SDD, and I cant disagree. My annoyance with the whole situation (not your comment but your correct description) you hint at with the following: "Clever and proactive but in hindsight this had caused all of the issues. I personally don't think it was a good idea to have the Irish question dealt with at the first stage - how can you agree to the border situation before knowing what the trading relationship is going to be?"

I agree you cant agree a border before knowing what the trading situation is, but I'm glad someone was proactive in reminding those involved that the UK/EU border is a very fragile complex issue.

If as some suggested before the referendum that 'no one is talking about leaving the customs union' (Hannan) and 'only a mad man would leave the single market' (Digby Jones I think off the top of my head but im probably wrong), 'Norway' (Farage) then I agree it would not need to be brought up at the start of the withdrawal agreement negotiations, or maybe even at all.

What angers me is very quickly, when the loud prominent leavers could not write down a plan accommodating their contradictory promises as it would be held up to scrutiny and be easily picked apart, those people changed tack and were saying that leaving 'obviously' meant the so called hard Brexit of leaving both the CU and the SM.

When that thinking came into the equation, the EU then has to put the border at the top of their priorities. In a strange way, those that said the threat of no deal has to be kept on the table to help our leverage, i think having it there meant they shot themselves in the foot. It brought the border issue to the fore early on and gave it the starring roll.

The fact the UK then came up with a solution, asked the EU to accommodate it, then the UK voted it down is just embarrassing icing on the cake.

Don't disagree with a lot of this, which is the point I've been making to Wallmth - my view is that we have to leave but there is no clear mandate for this full on no deal scenario. Apparently the threats contained in government remain campaign literature is binding but leave campaign promises of orderly withdrawal, Norway model etc were not.

I do however think that the EU and the Irish have deliberately used the specific difficulties surrounding the Irish border as leverage in these negotiations. That is quite a dodgy thing to do in my mind.

 

[SlowDownDerek]

2nd Para - I don't want to go there if you don't mind please Bill.

1st Para is a very good point and it is true for many. Someone said on here to me they voted to leave so as to give London a 'kick'. I'm not saying that's wrong, its someones view and opinion. I would ask you though, would you ever be convinced that if UK taxes are not being invested in your area, it is UK politicians you should maybe have blame? Would you ever be comforted by EU law that ring fences billions of pounds of our membership fees to be invested in the poorest areas of the UK to make sure the Govt does not just keep it and leave behind these places?

Whatever way you dress it up the UK public know that any EU expenditure in their area represents a fraction of what it could have been if the UK government had invested it directly.

As much as we clearly have domestic issues the idea that we need a supranational organisation to take money off our elected government to ensure that we get fair investment is bizzare in my mind. I know people don't like the democratic arguments here but surely this is the opposite of how a democracy should operate.

 

[Def_II_Royalz]

SDD, not trolling, asking a serious question here as following this from the US is a bit overwhelming for me and you seem to have studied this situation deeply: is it the case that the backstop/Irish question would have been insignificant at this stage if it had just not come up at all and as an ancillary question to this, would it not have reappeared in a much more problematic form later down the line?

Tbf I remember reading an article in one of the Irish papers very soon after the vote that detailed the work that their foreign minister had been doing before and after the vote. They obviously were focused on the Irish issue and had pretty much secured support for the Irish question to be brought in the withdrawal stage as one of the three red lines. Clever and proactive but in hindsight this had caused all of the issues. I personally don't think it was a good idea to have the Irish question dealt with at the first stage - how can you agree to the border situation before knowing what the trading relationship is going to be?

It wasn't just created by the UK government, the Irish government rightly or wrongly wanted it front and centre. If they succeed in forcing the UK into brexit in name only then arguably they have done well. If the whole thing collapses due to the backstop then maybe it backfired a bit.

 

[AFCB Lost in Brum]

...the EU then has to put the border at the top of their priorities. In a strange way, those that said the threat of no deal has to be kept on the table to help our leverage, i think having it there meant they shot themselves in the foot. It brought the border issue to the fore early on and gave it the starring roll...

But people, on both sides, repeatedly forget that the EU consistently does everything it can to prevent the will of a nation's people, if that will doesn't fit with the EU's plans.

The EU's objective is to get the nation in, make it follow the EU's rules, remove sovereignty, and then federalise Europe.

The poison chalice handed to Mrs May was to negotiate with a block who's sole aim in those meetings is to prevent us leaving the EU in any shape or form.

If negotiations go well what message does that send any other EU country that's flirting with the idea of leaving?

The EU needs Brexit to either not happen or go horrifically badly.

Unfortunately, we're so obsessed with our own pathetic MPs, on both sides of Brexit, that, with classic British arrogance, we've pretty much ignored what the other side is about, how they're organising themselves, what their aims and objectives are, etc.

 

[SlowDownDerek]

SDD, not trolling, asking a serious question here as following this from the US is a bit overwhelming for me and you seem to have studied this situation deeply: is it the case that the backstop/Irish question would have been insignificant at this stage if it had just not come up at all and as an ancillary question to this, would it not have reappeared in a much more problematic form later down the line?

I'm certainly no expert but it's my understanding that the border issue depends entirely on the nature of whatever free trade area conditions are agreed, which are likely to be on an industry specific basis.

If for example we agree to standardising regulations in the agricultural industry but not in say petrochemicals then agri products wouldn't need border checks but petro would. It would then need to be determined what the precise nature of the border checks would need to be in each industry where they are required.

In the long run it would probably just find it's level - it's not like there aren't cross-border regulation/tax differences at present - they are just dealt with by using non-border checks and declarations.

With it being brought to the front of the negotiations it seems to me that we are arguing about hypothetical controls that may never be required.

 

[dutchcherry]

Don't disagree with a lot of this, which is the point I've been making to Wallmth - my view is that we have to leave but there is no clear mandate for this full on no deal scenario. Apparently the threats contained in government remain campaign literature is binding but leave campaign promises of orderly withdrawal, Norway model etc were not.

I do however think that the EU and the Irish have deliberately used the specific difficulties surrounding the Irish border as leverage in these negotiations. That is quite a dodgy thing to do in my mind.

Agree to disagree on the 2nd para if you don't mind. ROI, in my opinion, have stood up for themselves as a sovereign equal EU member, and also for NI. I think it has come as a surprise to some in the UK Govt that the The ROI has a voice and not in total servitude to the UK anymore.

Your other point about no mandate is spot on. If say at a general election there is no clear winner, you can at least fall back and have a coalition. Its a shame in this instance that no such solution is possible. I am of the view Corbyn and May both ticked the box to leave the EU, so its ironic that they should have not worked together as i think they have a lot in common in their dislike of the EU. May on her quest for immigration targets, and Corbyn for his dislike of their company nationalisation rules.

 

[BillMcgarrycherry]

2nd Para - I don't want to go there if you don't mind please Bill.

1st Para is a very good point and it is true for many. Someone said on here to me they voted to leave so as to give London a 'kick'. I'm not saying that's wrong, its someones view and opinion. I would ask you though, would you ever be convinced that if UK taxes are not being invested in your area, it is UK politicians you should maybe have blame? Would you ever be comforted by EU law that ring fences billions of pounds of our membership fees to be invested in the poorest areas of the UK to make sure the Govt does not just keep it and leave behind these places?

Cant argue with those positive aspects of our Membership re - the Ring fencing and your point about tax investment by our Gov 'mt......I was on the fence before the vote and very Euro orientated for many years but frustrated by much , i.e. Fishing and Farming details ( family involvements) and not least the fact that we didnt accept the Currency. With regard the currency...if you are going to join something ...join in full!
IF....there was a 2nd referendum, my wife and I have discussed this...we will probably switch back to Remain...once again out of frustration but hoping that the new generations can make a better fist of it!
The Irish thing...you didnt want go there on that subject...fair enough.
I did go there.....and was in close proximity to a 'sectarian' bomb explosion in Bangor Woolworths shop ( meant to be a safe area) in 1974...(I was on leave from naval duty in the Belfast dockyard, sat in a pub across the road)...not a pleasant experience!
I dont think I heard any one Irish person talk sense about anything for the whole 6 months I was there...so i'm slightly biased I suppose!