BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

TheBigBean

Surrey Commuter wrote:

why does living in Surrey change the fact that there will be losers from leaving the EU and change whether the Govt is being dishonest in pretending otherwise?

You mostly seem to advocate losses in things that you won't be affected by e.g. fishing, living in NI etc. Reference to Surrey was mostly about it not being in NI, but it was KG that brought that up.

KingstonGraham wrote:

Well spotted, but not sure of the relevance.

They could accept that there is no way to have a border but also not have a border, and decide not to have a border and accept the logical consequences for the rest of the UK. What they seem to want to do is have a border, pretend there isn't a border, and let NI accept the logical consequences.

Hope that helps.

The relevance of Kingston is that it is not in NI, and whilst I am still not clear what you are advocating, the two default extreme options would be to unite Ireland or create a hard border. Neither is likely to go down well with half the residents, and life for the people like TailWindHome may become unpleasant. I am not convinced that is something to advocate lightly especially from afar.

Imposter wrote:

You forgot to mention where you are based - and how your location affects your viewpoint?

Not in NI.

rjsterry

Harsh but fair.

Lewis Goodall
@lewis_goodall
·
Oct 6
Lib Dems to Labour= you’d rather have no deal than a GNU

Labour to Lib Dems= you’d rather have no deal than us

Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Each time, apparently without irony, that they’re each accusing the other of exactly what they’re guilty of. And they’re both right.

Actually, just fair.

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

Harsh but fair.

Lewis Goodall
@lewis_goodall
·
Oct 6
Lib Dems to Labour= you’d rather have no deal than a GNU

Labour to Lib Dems= you’d rather have no deal than us

Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Each time, apparently without irony, that they’re each accusing the other of exactly what they’re guilty of. And they’re both right.

Actually, just fair.

They don't have the numbers even if Lib Dems and Labour could agree.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Well spotted, but not sure of the relevance.

They could accept that there is no way to have a border but also not have a border, and decide not to have a border and accept the logical consequences for the rest of the UK. What they seem to want to do is have a border, pretend there isn't a border, and let NI accept the logical consequences.

Hope that helps.

The relevance of Kingston is that it is not in NI, and whilst I am still not clear what you are advocating, the two default extreme options would be to unite Ireland or create a hard border. Neither is likely to go down well with half the residents, and life for the people like TailWindHome may become unpleasant. I am not convinced that is something to advocate lightly especially from afar.

I'm advocating not pretending there's an easy answer. If the government wants to enact a policy that means there is a border between NI and Ireland, then they need to accept that there are consequences. If they think that makes it unsellable, then there might be a reason for that.

Your two default options don't take account of the fact that the current position with the UK in the EU does not have a hard border or a united Ireland. These are only the default options because of positions that the UK government has chosen to take.

TheBigBean

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Well spotted, but not sure of the relevance.

They could accept that there is no way to have a border but also not have a border, and decide not to have a border and accept the logical consequences for the rest of the UK. What they seem to want to do is have a border, pretend there isn't a border, and let NI accept the logical consequences.

Hope that helps.

The relevance of Kingston is that it is not in NI, and whilst I am still not clear what you are advocating, the two default extreme options would be to unite Ireland or create a hard border. Neither is likely to go down well with half the residents, and life for the people like TailWindHome may become unpleasant. I am not convinced that is something to advocate lightly especially from afar.

I'm advocating not pretending there's an easy answer. If the government wants to enact a policy that means there is a border between NI and Ireland, then they need to accept that there are consequences. If they think that makes it unsellable, then there might be a reason for that.

Your two default options don't take account of the fact that the current position with the UK in the EU does not have a hard border or a united Ireland. These are only the default options because of positions that the UK government has chosen to take.

No one is pretending it is easy. It's been three years with no solution. Yes, revoking would solve that particular problem, and no doubt create others elsewhere.

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Harsh but fair.

Lewis Goodall
@lewis_goodall
·
Oct 6
Lib Dems to Labour= you’d rather have no deal than a GNU

Labour to Lib Dems= you’d rather have no deal than us

Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Each time, apparently without irony, that they’re each accusing the other of exactly what they’re guilty of. And they’re both right.

Actually, just fair.

They don't have the numbers even if Lib Dems and Labour could agree.

SNP, PC and the Tory rebels need inserting into the equation, but the result is broadly the same.

Anyway, as posted earlier it's just a question of whether the EU grant Johnson's A50 extension request. Maybe if there was a real threat, they'd coalesce around a caretaker PM.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Well spotted, but not sure of the relevance.

They could accept that there is no way to have a border but also not have a border, and decide not to have a border and accept the logical consequences for the rest of the UK. What they seem to want to do is have a border, pretend there isn't a border, and let NI accept the logical consequences.

Hope that helps.

The relevance of Kingston is that it is not in NI, and whilst I am still not clear what you are advocating, the two default extreme options would be to unite Ireland or create a hard border. Neither is likely to go down well with half the residents, and life for the people like TailWindHome may become unpleasant. I am not convinced that is something to advocate lightly especially from afar.

I'm advocating not pretending there's an easy answer. If the government wants to enact a policy that means there is a border between NI and Ireland, then they need to accept that there are consequences. If they think that makes it unsellable, then there might be a reason for that.

Your two default options don't take account of the fact that the current position with the UK in the EU does not have a hard border or a united Ireland. These are only the default options because of positions that the UK government has chosen to take.

No one is pretending it is easy. It's been three years with no solution. Yes, revoking would solve that particular problem, and no doubt create others elsewhere.

Revoking isn't the only solution that allows us to continue with regulatory and customs alignment with the EU. It's the most logical one, but not the only one.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

why does living in Surrey change the fact that there will be losers from leaving the EU and change whether the Govt is being dishonest in pretending otherwise?

You mostly seem to advocate losses in things that you won't be affected by e.g. fishing, living in NI etc. Reference to Surrey was mostly about it not being in NI, but it was KG that brought that up.

But if you back the bus up you would acknowledge that I think Brexit is a terrible idea, these are all things that I believe could and should have been avoided. If we ease the bus forwards and I accept Brexit has to happen then I advocate EEA to minimise the amount of losers.

My comment about NI, fishermen (you forgot farmers) is that our politicians are still selling Brexit as a utopian paradise with no losers. If they were honest about the impact their red lines had on people's lives then we could have a grown up debate. It was only recently that our stated aim was to get a deal as good as the one we already had.

Fish/Agric - economically insignificant but high emotional value to our negotiating partners
NI - I think Brexit brings a united Ireland closer so we may as well roll with it.

Services would impact all of us the most but I would not bother trying to protect as I don't believe it is achievable

kingstongraham

TheBigBean wrote:

No one is pretending it is easy.

pblakeney

One presumes that the “our” is English and possibly Welsh in the long term.

imposter2.0

TheBigBean wrote:

Imposter wrote:

You forgot to mention where you are based - and how your location affects your viewpoint?

Not in NI.

Just like many of the rest of us then. So how was your previous comment relevant?

surrey_commuter

PBlakeney wrote:

One presumes that the “our” is English and possibly Welsh in the long term.

less of the Welsh, Brexit is a product of English nationalism

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

One presumes that the “our” is English and possibly Welsh in the long term.

less of the Welsh, Brexit is a product of English nationalism

And Health and Education spending are devolved, I believe.

TheBigBean

Imposter wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Imposter wrote:

You forgot to mention where you are based - and how your location affects your viewpoint?

Not in NI.

Just like many of the rest of us then. So how was your previous comment relevant?

I have explained that already. Does yours have any relevance or this a circular loop of irrelevance?

imposter2.0

TheBigBean wrote:

Imposter wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Imposter wrote:

You forgot to mention where you are based - and how your location affects your viewpoint?

Not in NI.

Just like many of the rest of us then. So how was your previous comment relevant?

I have explained that already. Does yours have any relevance or this a circular loop of irrelevance?

I just think it's a bit odd that you call out people for 'not being based in NI' when you aren't either..

tailwindhome

Alejandrosdog wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

Exactly. Ireland saying it would be against the law for guide dogs to cross the border we need a deal scaremongering etc etc. but in reality the standards either side of the border are identical today and on the day we leave, it's not beyond the ability of man to either change repeal or make new laws to enable this and 100,000 other emotional downsides.

and they will.

The source for this story was DAEFRA guidance notes
DAEFRA being the Dept for Agriculture, Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland
That's the UK bit.

Yes but it was Ireland who used the publication which noted the facts and used and twisted it as remain propaganda.

Twisted it how?

By quoting it......?

By using it as a threat, a reason to postpone Brexit, that no deal was a bad thing. (it might be a bad thing but the truth is that that particular issue need not be a life stopper, all that needs to happen is each side amends or creates relevant laws. However since the retainers position is that the EU is bigger will be less proportionally affected etc etc yawn in this case I suspect there are many more blind or partially sighted people in the EU than the UK though how many of them would want to cross the border is another matter.).

So. To recap. The Irish government are threatening the UK with the consequences of a no deal brexit (which they read about on the UK government's no deal preparation advice website)

Meanwhile the UK Govt are in court because the UK Parliament are trying to ensure the UK doesn't leave with no deal on the 31st October.

The UK Govt believes without the threat of leaving without a deal it won't be able to force the EU to do a deal and avoid a no deal brexit.

pblakeney

Surrey Commuter wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

One presumes that the “our” is English and possibly Welsh in the long term.

less of the Welsh, Brexit is a product of English nationalism

Weird attitude from the Conservative and Unionist Party.

Alejandrosdog

the point is....... that still all sides uk and otherwise are appealing to emotion. they're all a bunch of funts

I don't honestly believe that 90% of Parliament have a clue what's going on and the other 10% don't really care. It's shambolic and the EU is as guilty as anybody.

silvers

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Fish/Agric - economically insignificant but high emotional value to our negotiating partners
NI - I think Brexit brings a united Ireland closer so we may as well roll with it.

Services would impact all of us the most but I would not bother trying to protect as I don't believe it is achievable

Hi - Long time lurker but new poster here

I'd suggest your bias against farming is quite ill-informed and potentially risky given the direction of
a) geopolitics
b) climate change

but i know that's partly my own confirmation bias

TheBigBean

Imposter wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Imposter wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Imposter wrote:

You forgot to mention where you are based - and how your location affects your viewpoint?

Not in NI.

Just like many of the rest of us then. So how was your previous comment relevant?

I have explained that already. Does yours have any relevance or this a circular loop of irrelevance?

I just think it's a bit odd that you call out people for 'not being based in NI' when you aren't either..

I inferred, perhaps incorrectly, from their posts that they were happy to throw NI under the bus. In that context, it matters whether or not it is a self-sacrifice or a generous offering to the gods. Both posters are not shy and more than happy to robustly defend themselves against any such allegations.

briantrumpet

silvers wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Fish/Agric - economically insignificant but high emotional value to our negotiating partners
NI - I think Brexit brings a united Ireland closer so we may as well roll with it.

Services would impact all of us the most but I would not bother trying to protect as I don't believe it is achievable

Hi - Long time lurker but new poster here

I'd suggest your bias against farming is quite ill-informed and potentially risky given the direction of
a) geopolitics
b) climate change

but i know that's partly my own confirmation bias

And I'd add, potentially a profound effect on what we think of the British countryside. All, and I mean all the prettiest bits are uneconomic in world terms: small family farms in Devon, or the Lake District, or pretty much 90% of the UK are never ever going to compete with American prairies.

Alejandrosdog

briantrumpet wrote:

silvers wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Fish/Agric - economically insignificant but high emotional value to our negotiating partners
NI - I think Brexit brings a united Ireland closer so we may as well roll with it.

Services would impact all of us the most but I would not bother trying to protect as I don't believe it is achievable

Hi - Long time lurker but new poster here

I'd suggest your bias against farming is quite ill-informed and potentially risky given the direction of
a) geopolitics
b) climate change

but i know that's partly my own confirmation bias

And I'd add, potentially a profound effect on what we think of the British countryside. All, and I mean all the prettiest bits are uneconomic in world terms: small family farms in Devon, or the Lake District, or pretty much 90% of the UK are never ever going to compete with American prairies.

Exactly, re house them in a city and move the whole region on or how else are the immigrants in city going to be fed

robert88

British farming was totally screwed just after WW1.

The UK govt offered farmers big incentives during the conflict then the US farmers muscled in and flooded the market.

They have that kind of muscle and are delighted to watch us screw ourselves over Brexit.

pblakeney

Robert88 wrote:

British farming was totally screwed just after WW1.

The UK govt offered farmers big incentives during the conflict then the US farmers muscled in and flooded the market.

They have that kind of muscle and are delighted to watch us screw ourselves over Brexit.

Oh come on now. Donald has promised us the bestest trade deal in the World*. Ever!
:roll: to anyone who believes that pile of...
* for him.

TheBigBean

One interesting aspect of the EU rejecting the UK's latest proposals is that it makes the backstop look less like a backstop and more like the default that will be impossible to leave.

john80

Rolf F wrote:

john80 wrote:

bompington wrote:

john80 wrote:

When you have an EU that wants to put the UK on the same trade footing as some far flung nation with zero compliance you may draw that conclusion that the EU are so desperate to remain that they will risk no deal.

Where to start with this? :?

First, the EU does indeed want the UK to be on the same trade footing as every other member state. Otherwise known as "being in the EU".

Second, the impression I get is that it is the Leave fanatics in the UK who have steadily followed the inevitability of their twisted logic to the point where they are all going flat out for No Deal. Not the EU.

Third - "I'll go outside and top myself if I don't get to pick all the cherries from the cake, then eat the cake, then still have the cake - then it'll all be the your fault and you'll all be sorry when I'm dead"

You have agreed with me on your first point. On the second it is this stand off approach by the EU putting the responsibility solely on a principle trading partner to come up with a solution and then saying it does not meet there requirements as it is not consistent with being a member. The continued assertion by remain advocates that it is all the UK's problem to resolve is pretty naive. The third point you raise is not really very relevant. If you go and kill yourself then I would be willing to wager a bet that no one outside your immediate friends and family would give much of a toss. Looking to the future not many people if any will be financially affected by your departing. The UK leaving on no deal will have a long term financial implications for the UK and remaining EU nations on the other hand which are not best served by a no deal Brexit.

Do people think that if no deal happens then we will look back and go yes Barnier and Juncker you negotiated so well that the May deal could not pass and all other proposals were non starters with fondness. I am not so sure EU citizens will see this for anything other than an own goal.

I think that EU citizens will have seen Barnier and Juncker trying to negotiate with a country that repeatedly shot itself in the foot at every stage of the process by drawing entirely un-necessary red lines that nobody voted for and expecting that the EU would be OK about making fundamental changes to its laws to accommodate whatever it was we wanted even though we didn't know what we wanted.

Only one deal has been agreed with the EU and it would probably have gone through had it not been for one of Mays numerous own goals (the last, unnecessary election). We've brought this entirely on ourselves.

Do you really believe that the majority would not vote for control of immigration, control of standards and rules and the ability to negotiate trade deals. Pretty sensible redlines for any sovereign nation. I know this is inconvenient for you but come on man.

surrey_commuter

silvers wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Fish/Agric - economically insignificant but high emotional value to our negotiating partners
NI - I think Brexit brings a united Ireland closer so we may as well roll with it.

Services would impact all of us the most but I would not bother trying to protect as I don't believe it is achievable

Hi - Long time lurker but new poster here

I'd suggest your bias against farming is quite ill-informed and potentially risky given the direction of
a) geopolitics
b) climate change

but i know that's partly my own confirmation bias

Welcome aboard, it can get punchy in here but most is not personal.

In your opinion am I wrong that agric is economically insignificant or that it does not carry a high emotional value to our negotiating partners?

silvers

I wouldn’t measure economic significance by simplistic GDP measures only

surrey_commuter

silvers wrote:

I wouldn’t measure economic significance by simplistic GDP measures only

Other than being 2% of labour and 2% of GDP what other measures are there? There is a whole other thread saying farming is bad for the environment

Say we allowed EU agric products to be tariff free in exchange for UK automotive products being imported into the EU tariff free?

silvers

As I indicated in my first post, measures of current state are not great to plan the needs of the future.

To be clear, I think food and water are two things that can’t be judged on purely “productivity” measures. But then i’m Not an accountant.
Other than that blind spot, I find little to argue with in most of your posts