Brexit Schmexit

[eFestivals]

Sometimes you've just got to laugh at people threatening to punch themselves in the face.

The Irish PM has just he'll block talks on there not being a border in Ireland for all of the while the EU threaten to put up a border.

Cos it's only the EU who are threatening to put up that border.

Yes, i know why, and I fully accept the reason why and that they're good reasons.

But it's still the EU who are threatening to put up a border.

And just perhaps, the way to avoid that border might be to allow talks on there not being that border?

Nah, silly idea.

[zahidf]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Sometimes you've just got to laugh at people threatening to punch themselves in the face.

The Irish PM has just he'll block talks on there not being a border in Ireland for all of the while the EU threaten to put up a border.

Cos it's only the EU who are threatening to put up that border.

Yes, i know why, and I fully accept the reason why and that they're good reasons.

But it's still the EU who are threatening to put up a border.

And just perhaps, the way to avoid that border might be to allow talks on there not being that border?

Nah, silly idea.

Well, its mainly the UK govts fault. Not Irelands or the EU

 

and this

 

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Well, its mainly the UK govts fault. Not Irelands or the EU

I agree.

But trying to argue that there can't be talks about having no border because you're putting up a border yourself is still fucking nuts.

And it's no threat, ultimately. 

Taking such an unintelligent position risks the whole thing going tits up and Ireland getting *exactly* the worst thing it says it doesn't want.

Ireland can't be told what the border situation might be until both sides are allowed to talk about *all* of the issues that will define the new border arrangements.

If Ireland won't talk about future custom arrangements then all that's left for Ireland is that hard border.

Edited November 17, 2017 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I agree.

But trying to argue that there can't be talks about having no border because you're putting up a border yourself is still fucking nuts.

And it's no threat, ultimately. 

Taking such an unintelligent position risks the whole thing going tits up and Ireland getting *exactly* the worst thing it says it doesn't want.

Ireland can't be told what the border situation might be until both sides are allowed to talk about *all* of the issues that will define the new border arrangements.

If Ireland won't talk about future custom arrangements then all that's left for Ireland is that hard border.

The UK govt envoked article 50 without sorting out the irish border issue (or as Boris says, not having a clue about it)

 

And there is a third option open to the UK govt to stop it being an issue... Cancelling Brexit. 

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, zahidf said:

The UK govt envoked article 50 without sorting out the irish border issue (or as Boris says, not having a clue about it)

True.

I'm not trying to suggest the UK's take on things is smart, but it's just as fucking stupid for Ireland to say that Ireland will veto talks and cause a hard border while saying the very thing Ireland doesn't want is that hard border.

Particularly when the ones who will erect that hard border are the ones saying they don't want that hard border.

Just as the UK has to accept the realities of the world against its wants, the same is true for Ireland. If Ireland is really that bothered about the hard border it's threatening to erect itself (while saying it doesn't want to) then it could choose to not erect that hard border (tho would have to leave the EU to do that, of course).

Ireland has choices about these things too. Either that, or it's no longer sovereign.

If its first choice is staying in the EU, fair enough. It should be grown up enough to accept that brings obligations onto Ireland by its own choice - such as for it to enforce a hard border, firstly, before anything else that might come along (such as a free trade agreement with, or EU membership of, the adjoining state) which takes that border away - just as the UK has to be with its choice to brexit.

 

Quote

And there is a third option open to the UK govt to stop it being an issue... Cancelling Brexit. 

Yep. But that's less likely when the Irish PM is being a cock with his threats. The UK is likely to go "fuck him then. He can get his own choice".

If the Irish PM refuses to allow talks that might create no border, then the creation of a border is down to him, solely. The UK is at least willing to talk to try and bring about no border. If Ireland is not, what happens is down to Ireland.

Ireland have taken themselves from the higher moral ground over the border issue to being the ones responsible for what happens by their PMs threats.

Edited November 18, 2017 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

True.

I'm not trying to suggest the UK's take on things is smart, but it's just as fucking stupid for Ireland to say that Ireland will veto talks and cause a hard border while saying the very thing Ireland doesn't want is that hard border.

Particularly when the ones who will erect that hard border are the ones saying they don't want that hard border.

Just as the UK has to accept the realities of the world against its wants, the same is true for Ireland. If Ireland is really that bothered about the hard border it's threatening to erect itself (while saying it doesn't want to) then it could choose to not erect that hard border (tho would have to leave the EU to do that, of course).

Ireland has choices about these things too. Either that, or it's no longer sovereign.

If its first choice is staying in the EU, fair enough. It should be grown up enough to accept that brings obligations onto Ireland by its own choice - such as for it to enforce a hard border, firstly, before anything else that might come along (such as a free trade agreement with, or EU membership of, the adjoining state) which takes that border away - just as the UK has to be with its choice to brexit.

 

Yep. But that's less likely when the Irish PM is being a cock with his threats. The UK is likely to go "fuck him then. He can get his own choice".

If the Irish PM refuses to allow talks that might create no border, then the creation of a border is down to him, solely. The UK is at least willing to talk to try and bring about no border. If Ireland is not, what happens is down to Ireland.

Ireland have taken themselves from the higher moral ground over the border issue to being the ones responsible for what happens by their PMs threats.

But irelands position is consistent with the good friday agreement and their stated position from the referendum result onwards. Why did the Tories invoke Art 50 when they hadnt sorted the Irish border question out with the Irish? (Or even think about it!)

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, zahidf said:

But irelands position is consistent with the good friday agreement and their stated position from the referendum result onwards. 

And not consistent with their EU commitments.

If that no-border it is to be achieved, it needs people on both sides to work towards it.

It won't be achieved by Ireland refusing to work towards it, will it?

Remember, it's not the UK that is saying it wants a border by default or threatening to put a border in place; that's Ireland. That's as relevant as all other facts around this issue.

Ireland might not like the fact the UK is leaving the EU, but it is (as far as we all know) - so Ireland has to work with the reality of what the UK is doing, and not be a dick by threatening to cause what it says it doesn't want.

Threatening to not hold talks and so cause that border they don't want is threatening to punch themself in the face. It's moronic, and no threat to the one who's not taking the punch.

Edited November 19, 2017 by eFestivals

[bunique]

52 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Remember, it's not the UK that is saying it wants a border by default or threatening to put a border in place;

I am sure the UK government have previously stated that the border will begin at the Irish/NI border, not at the land border to mainland UK. That was it’s stated position early on post-referendum. And yet since then it appears it hasn’t thought through how to deliver that and meet the needs of citizens who’ve enjoyed free movement for however many years. 

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, bunique said:

I am sure the UK government have previously stated that the border will begin at the Irish/NI border, not at the land border to mainland UK. That was it’s stated position early on post-referendum. And yet since then it appears it hasn’t thought through how to deliver that and meet the needs of citizens who’ve enjoyed free movement for however many years. 

If you put all statements together, what they were talking about in that instance was the border with the EU and EU regulations.

Brexit doesn't change anything about a people border in Ireland unless Ireland revoke the CTA treaty.

And the UK has made clear - consistently - that they want a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU where goods keep on flowing as unhindered as now.

By Ireland refusing to talk about a FTA then Ireland end up having to construct the border they say they don't want. That is the simple fact of what will happen. Ireland would be forcing the worst option on themselves.

(unless you're daft enough to the British govt will change its mind because Ireland refuses to talk?)

[LJS]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

If you put all statements together, what they were talking about in that instance was the border with the EU and EU regulations.

Brexit doesn't change anything about a people border in Ireland unless Ireland revoke the CTA treaty.

And the UK has made clear - consistently - that they want a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU where goods keep on flowing as unhindered as now.

By Ireland refusing to talk about a FTA then Ireland end up having to construct the border they say they don't want. That is the simple fact of what will happen. Ireland would be forcing the worst option on themselves.

(unless you're daft enough to the British govt will change its mind because Ireland refuses to talk?)

Are you saying its possible for one EU country to have a free trade & free movement agreement with its next door neighbour which happens to be a non-EU member?

And there wouldn't need to be a "hard" border?

Just curious...

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

Are you saying its possible for one EU country to have a free trade & free movement agreement with its next door neighbour which happens to be a non-EU member?

And there wouldn't need to be a "hard" border?

Just curious...

No.

I'm saying that EU membership obliges border states (like Ireland will be) to have a hard border (unless there's a FTA).

Not the UK to have a hard border.

The UK is saying it won't erect a border; Ireland (really the EU) is saying it will. Ball is in Ireland's court, not the UK's.

Ireland can have the blame for a border (if that's what happens) end up at the UK's door, but not if it refuses to allow the possibility of anything but a hard border (which it does by refusing talks).

Just because the UK is being an arse about just about everything brexit doesn't get to mean no one else can be an arse.

The FTA that might be agreed is what will define what the Irish/NI border looks like, not anything else. It's simply not possible for the UK to give any meaningful commitment on that border at this point, because *everything* about that border is in the grant of the EU, not the UK.

[zahidf]

22 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

No.

I'm saying that EU membership obliges border states (like Ireland will be) to have a hard border (unless there's a FTA).

Not the UK to have a hard border.

The UK is saying it won't erect a border; Ireland (really the EU) is saying it will. Ball is in Ireland's court, not the UK's.

Ireland can have the blame for a border (if that's what happens) end up at the UK's door, but not if it refuses to allow the possibility of anything but a hard border (which it does by refusing talks).

Just because the UK is being an arse about just about everything brexit doesn't get to mean no one else can be an arse.

The FTA that might be agreed is what will define what the Irish/NI border looks like, not anything else. It's simply not possible for the UK to give any meaningful commitment on that border at this point, because *everything* about that border is in the grant of the EU, not the UK.

 

 

[bunique]

That’s a really interesting article. It appears the border issue is about much more than simply a customs exchange. And why is it the EU that’s been doing the unpicking of the North South cooperation and not the UK govt? It’s so fucking lazy. 

[eFestivals]

20 hours ago, zahidf said:

 

 

so the UK is not sovereign and has to do what the EU says and cannot leave the EU unless it does what Ireland says...?

Look, my personal view is that the UK is being stupid with brexit, but sovereignty is what sovereignty is, and Ireland has to work with what sovereignty is just as the UK does.

Ireland is perfectly entitled to refuse talks if it wants to (that's what sovereignty allows it) - but if it blocks talks that writes in stone a new hard border, a new hard border that the UK is saying it doesn't want and which Ireland will be the ones to erect.

What does Ireland punching itself in the face do for Ireland? Does it gain any benefit from it? Nope.

Does it lead to the no-border Ireland says it wants, or does it guarantee that the hard border Ireland says it doesn't? 

Ireland plays its part in the final outcome no more or less than the UK does; it has sovereign choices just like the UK does.

If Ireland insists on a hard border by no talks, that's what it'll get - set in stone by the Irish choice to rule out all other options and erect a border, and not any UK doing.

Matey can stamp his foot all he likes and point at Britain, but his attitude is not going to get him anything but the worst outcome. If he wants a better outcome, he has to allow a chance of that better outcome.

[eFestivals]

19 hours ago, bunique said:

That’s a really interesting article. It appears the border issue is about much more than simply a customs exchange. And why is it the EU that’s been doing the unpicking of the North South cooperation and not the UK govt? It’s so fucking lazy. 

The UK isn't (in theory) trying to unpick anything of the GFA. The CU/SM arrangements are not the GFA.

It's perfectly possible (in theory and in reality) for the GFA to be maintained with the UK outside of the CU/SM, via a different set of (to be agreed) border rules.

It's *not* possible (in theory or reality) for the GFA to be maintained if Ireland causes the default of a hard border by refusing talks.

This is why Ireland's current position is the bad one, and not the UK's position.

Ireland can shift responsibility back to the UK within talks. Without talks it's all Ireland's doing.

Edited November 20, 2017 by eFestivals

[bunique]

26 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It's perfectly possible (in theory and in reality) for the GFA to be maintained with the UK outside of the CU/SM, via a different set of (to be agreed) border rules.

Yes but why is it the EU which appears to be identifying all the strands that need to be considered and not the UK? The tone of reports coming out of the negotiations, whatever the topic, appears to be that the UK has done very little in the way of research, contingency planning, preparation for 2019, and is leaving it all to the EU to sort out whilst bringing nothing to the table. There was some interesting chat yesterday about Just In Time and the impact on the British car industry of any hold ups at the border. The Brexiteers solution was that the UK will just build its own factories to make the required parts. It’s such a pie in the sky concept. Despite being a Remainer I have no desire to see Brexit be a complete failure if the govt is going to proceed regardless but have zero confidence right now that they know what they’re doing 

[eFestivals]

23 minutes ago, bunique said:

Yes but why is it the EU which appears to be identifying all the strands that need to be considered and not the UK?

they're defining nothing at all by refusing to talk about solutions - apart from their own intransigence, their own willingness to destroy the GFA.

All Ireland has to do is allow talks, and then responsibility is shifted back onto the UK to suggest solutions in those talks.

But for all the while they won't allow talks the ball is in Ireland's court, not the UKs. 

 

Quote

The tone of reports coming out of the negotiations, whatever the topic, appears to be that the UK has done very little in the way of research, contingency planning, preparation for 2019, and is leaving it all to the EU to sort out whilst bringing nothing to the table.

I don't think that's really true, but that's a different thing to whether what the UK might suggest will be acceptable to the EU &/or Ireland.

As I said, it's the new customs arrangements that will define the NI/Ireland border, so anything the UK has to say will come out in the talks of a new customs arrangement - if those talks of a new customs arrangement are allowed to happen.

 

Quote

There was some interesting chat yesterday about Just In Time and the impact on the British car industry of any hold ups at the border. The Brexiteers solution was that the UK will just build its own factories to make the required parts. It’s such a pie in the sky concept. Despite being a Remainer I have no desire to see Brexit be a complete failure if the govt is going to proceed regardless but have zero confidence right now that they know what they’re doing 

Brexit will defo screw up existing arrangements, but that doesn't by default mean that alternative suitable arrangements can't take their place.

If screwing up existing arrangements meant very much then nothing could ever change - so don't take yourself down that intellectual dead end. Whether or not alternative arrangements can be made that are suitable is another thing, tho. 

There's plenty of bad arguments on the anti-brexit side of things, and anti-change is one of them - particularly when most of the same anti-change people are happily supporting the humongous changes Jezza plans making, and very often supporting Jezza's own brexit stance too.

All change breaks a few eggs. The point is to get something better *overall* from the change.

And actually, the sort of brexit argument you've outlined above of "the UK will just build its own factories to make the required parts" is one of the possible benefits of brexit *IF* things work out in a particular way. It's precisely what's driving Jez's want of brexit.

The question for both Jez and the tories is whether they're able to create those sorts of benefits. Personally I think they're both deluded via their own lack of intellect and ideas and adherence to dogma and ideology over reality, but it doesn't mean i'm blind to the possibilities of benefit that brexit could create.

Edited November 20, 2017 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

Hard to disagree

 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Hard to disagree

hard to disagree for 15 months ago, easy to disagree today with what the change in polling indicates.

Edited November 20, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

just took a peek at the comments below the Hate Mail's "May to pay more to the EU" story.

And the most popular comments are calling for May to resign, because she's supposedly wasting the UK's money if she pays more.

If nothing else, those sorts of attitudes will probably be good for Labour's comparative share of a general election vote (should we have one) .... tho Labour might well have a similar problem of hanging onto the 'hardcore' remainers just as the tories might have difficulty holding onto the 'hardcore' leavers.

[zahidf]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

just took a peek at the comments below the Hate Mail's "May to pay more to the EU" story.

And the most popular comments are calling for May to resign, because she's supposedly wasting the UK's money if she pays more.

If nothing else, those sorts of attitudes will probably be good for Labour's comparative share of a general election vote (should we have one) .... tho Labour might well have a similar problem of hanging onto the 'hardcore' remainers just as the tories might have difficulty holding onto the 'hardcore' leavers.

Maybe but i would argue that any hardcore remainers who cared that much about it to let it effect their vote, voted Lib dems anyway

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Maybe but i would argue that any hardcore remainers who cared that much about it to let it effect their vote, voted Lib dems anyway

Nah, I don't think that holds.

Most remainers accept they lost the vote, and that it should be followed thru on. On the basis of that, they were happy to vote Corbyn back in June to stop May having a free hand over how things panned out (remember, she played the election as about giving her that free hand).

However, that was how things stood back in June. Since June, there's much more that's clear about what an alternative deal (or no deal) might look like, and so the choices are much more stark.

Not only that, opinion is turning too. What was once accepting the public's will over brexit no longer looks like it is the public's will - and if Jez were to be still for brexit, he'd be against (what those people consider to be) the public will.

Just using the strength of feeling in those Hate Mail posts, I'd say it's more likely the tories will lose more leavers than Labour might do remainers ... but i reckon that only stands because of the many people who think Jez would change to remain if he won (when everything he says suggests it's as unlikely as May reversing brexit).

The situation is still very fluid, and it was brexit that won Corbyn that big vote, not Corbyn who won it all.  Things can change in an instant.

[zahidf]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nah, I don't think that holds.

Most remainers accept they lost the vote, and that it should be followed thru on. On the basis of that, they were happy to vote Corbyn back in June to stop May having a free hand over how things panned out (remember, she played the election as about giving her that free hand).

However, that was how things stood back in June. Since June, there's much more that's clear about what an alternative deal (or no deal) might look like, and so the choices are much more stark.

Not only that, opinion is turning too. What was once accepting the public's will over brexit no longer looks like it is the public's will - and if Jez were to be still for brexit, he'd be against (what those people consider to be) the public will.

Just using the strength of feeling in those Hate Mail posts, I'd say it's more likely the tories will lose more leavers than Labour might do remainers ... but i reckon that only stands because of the many people who think Jez would change to remain if he won (when everything he says suggests it's as unlikely as May reversing brexit).

The situation is still very fluid, and it was brexit that won Corbyn that big vote, not Corbyn who won it all.  Things can change in an instant.

True but i dont think Corbyn cares about Brexit over anything else. If he can do the other stuff he cares about inside the EU, i dont think he would go against the party and members

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

True but i dont think Corbyn cares about Brexit over anything else.

He cares enough about it to have made it a central part of his politics for 40 years.

He cared enough about it to vote with the tory headbangers for a ref in 2011.

He cares enough about it to have explicitly ruled out CU & SM membership at least twice (that i know of) since June, because (he said) it would stop him carrying out his other policies.

How come you're deaf to all this stuff?

 

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

If he can do the other stuff he cares about inside the EU, i dont think he would go against the party and members

But he's explicitly said - at least three times - that he can't do it when within the EU.

Sadly, one of those times was also full of the sort of brexiter guff that Farage is proud to spout about what the EU supposedly allows and doesn't, but it's also clear where Corbyn's heart lies - strongly - and the sort of opinions he's listening to and being guided by.

[zahidf]