|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Shake it all about: Brexit thread II
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I see Mrs May has said that we will make our own laws. That sounds fine, but if we are mirroring EU regulations, then legal oversight over these will be by ECJ.
I guess they will do their usual sleight of hand; once we have accepted the rulings of the ECJ, then it will become 'our law'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
According to some cabinet minister (I can't remember who it was now) on R4 this morning the new Brexit arrangement between the UK is going to be a perfectly simple set of 3 arbitrators, 1 each from the EU and the UK and 1 independent. Not judges, arbitrators.
So the UK can leave the ECJ and the EU still gets its interests heard in a normal adjudication system.
Of course there are several obvious problems with this idea. Why would the EU agree to a new arbitration panel when it has a perfectly well functioning court? What is the point of a separate arbitration panel if it is going to have to follow the rulings of the ECJ? Why would the EU pay for a separate body? Why would they agree to a trade arbitration body where the EU and UK look like equal parties rather than the ECJ where the UK is just one party of many countries?
Once again, this seems to boil down to the Tory government ministers asserting that the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU, to the extent that they (the Tory ministers) think that they (the EU) will agree to a body that they (the EU) see no need for.
Proof, if any more were needed, that the Government in general, and the Brexiteers in particular, are living in an absurd and increasingly tragic parallel universe.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Not only are the government in a parallel universe, they're seeking to pull us all through the mirror (replicating EU regulations) to Wonderland so we can all join with the Mad Hatter at his insane tea party.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Not only are the government in a parallel universe, they're seeking to pull us all through the mirror (replicating EU regulations) to Wonderland so we can all join with the Mad Hatter at his insane tea party.
The Mad Hatter is down the rabbit hole. Through the Looking Glass you find Tweedledum and Tweedledee (jam yesterday and jam tomorrow but never jam today) and Humpty Dumpty (when I say £350 million it means exactly what I choose it to mean neither more nor less).
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I assume that Barnier has realized that it's the Tory party conference on 1 October, therefore negotiations with the EU will be subject to a kind of paralysis, in case any govt minister should say something that causes horror to the Ultras. It's omerta from now on for the jolly gang of negotiators.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I can't quite believe what I'm reading......... here
Does nobody see the parallels that run down through history?
I'm utterly dumbfounded.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
FFS
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
So much misinformation. Leaving the EU does not imply ending freedom of movement, and that wasn't on the ballot paper.
I suppose they are winding up to hard Brexit, and there are even rumours of the govt pulling out of the talks. I can't believe that, as it could crash the economy.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose they are winding up to hard Brexit, and there are even rumours of the govt pulling out of the talks. I can't believe that, as it could crash the economy.
There was some talk on twitter the other day from a non-Tory Leave supporter that this was the intention all along, that the Tory headbangers were always looking for economic collapse in order to bring in privatisation of the NHS, a complete breakdown in public services etc.
It sounds scarily like Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine in action.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
There are a lot of rumours of a pull-out by the UK. Hopefully, it's a bluff. They must know that planes could not take off, trucks could not go through borders, food and animals would have lengthy inspections, and so on. Absolute chaos.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
I see it was leaked. Trial balloon or a moderate voice sabotaging more extreme views? Either way it points to a blindness to facts. But then, so did the Brexit vote.
What a nightmare.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I can't quite believe what I'm reading......... here
Does nobody see the parallels that run down through history?
I'm utterly dumbfounded.
The only vaguely close historical parallel for me is British Empire Asians being ejected from East Africa. Any closer?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think the govt will be focused on the party conference on 1 October. So there will probably be lots of right wing and anti-EU rhetoric to please the Ultras, and to protect May's position. Probably, the EU understand this, and will not take all the rhetoric seriously. Or am I a hopeful fool?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I'm a hopeful fool. I still hope that our government will see sense, take a step back and withdraw their stupid Article 50 declaration. At which point we can have time to do things properly. Recognise that the only thing the vote last year can say for certain is that a large portion of the electorate (maybe even a majority) have serious concerns about EU membership. That is justification enough for a proper debate on EU membership - Parliamentary time, public consultation, lots of impact studies (which the government have, apparently, done but in the name of giving Parliament power has decided not to share them with Parliament or anyone else), leading to a properly laid out plan for exiting the EU which we can then all vote on. A process that should take at least two terms of Parliament (so we get a chance to vote for people in Parliament who might be saying things on the subject we agree with, as well as time to actually do that work).
As I say, a hopeful fool am I.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I can't quite believe what I'm reading......... here
Does nobody see the parallels that run down through history?
I'm utterly dumbfounded.
Ian Wright, director general of the Food and Drink Federations said:
quote:
If this does represent the government's thinking it shows a deep lack of understanding
Well, he said more but this represents the problems' root.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I can't quite believe what I'm reading here.
It's a Home Office study. You don't have to be a raving xenophobe to work at the Home Office. One of my best friends used to work at the Home Office (as they say). But clearly the Daily Mail have put something in the water.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the govt will be focused on the party conference on 1 October.
Which goes along with their apparent strategy so far, which is to privilege the interests of the party (and their standing within it) over that of the country.
I'd be hopeful, if they showed any signs that they are able to ever do otherwise.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I suppose the stuff about immigration is a pledge to racists, who seem to hog the limelight, in terms of trash Tory tabloids. You know, all those areas with few immigrants, which want to stop them in other areas.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm a hopeful fool. I still hope that our government will see sense, take a step back and withdraw their stupid Article 50 declaration. At which point we can have time to do things properly. Recognise that the only thing the vote last year can say for certain is that a large portion of the electorate (maybe even a majority) have serious concerns about EU membership. That is justification enough for a proper debate on EU membership - Parliamentary time, public consultation, lots of impact studies (which the government have, apparently, done but in the name of giving Parliament power has decided not to share them with Parliament or anyone else), leading to a properly laid out plan for exiting the EU which we can then all vote on. A process that should take at least two terms of Parliament (so we get a chance to vote for people in Parliament who might be saying things on the subject we agree with, as well as time to actually do that work).
As I say, a hopeful fool am I.
That would be nice. The problem is that most of the people's issues aren't the fault of the EU, but the failings of previous governments.
I'd also like you to know that should IndyRef2 happen, you should so go for it. London - or the UK government - has fallen down the rabbit hole.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
They just seem confused to me. There is talk of frictionless trade, yet also indications of a hard Brexit - you can't have both.
I should think that business leaders are screaming at ministers that they are going to be ruined, if border checks come in, planes can't take off, food and animals have to have rigorous inspection, and so on. Presumably, somebody somewhere is discussing this, and trying to estimate its effect. I guess we will be told about it down the road, or through leaks. Taking back control, you see.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
They just seem confused to me. There is talk of frictionless trade, yet also indications of a hard Brexit - you can't have both.
Aren't the various trade agreements that the EU is currently negotiating with other countries supposed to aim for, ultimately, frictionless trade?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
They just seem confused to me. There is talk of frictionless trade, yet also indications of a hard Brexit - you can't have both.
Aren't the various trade agreements that the EU is currently negotiating with other countries supposed to aim for, ultimately, frictionless trade?
In that case we may as well have stayed in. Let's face it, the "Four freedoms" come as a package, even the Swiss don't get to cherry pick.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Which goes along with their apparent strategy so far, which is to privilege the interests of the party (and their standing within it) over that of the country.
That's a generous view. Many of them don't seem to care about the interests of their party.
Mind you I see no reason to suppose May isn't sincerely acting in the interests of the country for a value of 'interests of the country' defined entirely by petty xenophobia.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
They just seem confused to me. There is talk of frictionless trade, yet also indications of a hard Brexit - you can't have both.
Aren't the various trade agreements that the EU is currently negotiating with other countries supposed to aim for, ultimately, frictionless trade?
Well, a country like Turkey has a customs union with the EU, (not the customs union), but I don't know if the talk of hard Brexit would include that or exclude it. Presumably, the Turkish deal excludes free movement of people, but includes goods, and is tariff free. But I think Turkey has to accept EU regulations on various goods - that doesn't sound very hard.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
They just seem confused to me. There is talk of frictionless trade, yet also indications of a hard Brexit - you can't have both.
Aren't the various trade agreements that the EU is currently negotiating with other countries supposed to aim for, ultimately, frictionless trade?
Frictionless trade in some areas and not others - most don't cover services at all.
All of which took time to achieve, including common regulatory standards, agreeing with mechanisms for maintaining regulatory convergence, and agreeing the dispute resolution bodies.
In most cases, the first of these consisted of adopting the existing EU regulations whole-cloth (and of course the maintenance of regulatory convergence means that in effect those countries are now subject in some way to the baneful influence of 'Brussels'). So all of which is anathema to the hard-Brexiters regardless of their 'trade is fairly simple' stance.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I keep trying to find out what hard Brexit actually means, and the Ultras have apparently written a letter to Mrs May, asking that all ties to the EU are broken. Surely, they cannot mean this literally? You can't break all ties - trade would be impossible. You couldn't even drive an HGV into France.
Well, it hasn't been published yet, so it's not clear. I suppose May may use this as a kind of bluff to the EU - look at these people, you'd better treat me nice, or I will release them.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I keep trying to find out what hard Brexit actually means, and the Ultras have apparently written a letter to Mrs May, asking that all ties to the EU are broken. Surely, they cannot mean this literally? You can't break all ties - trade would be impossible. You couldn't even drive an HGV into France.
Well, it hasn't been published yet, so it's not clear. I suppose May may use this as a kind of bluff to the EU - look at these people, you'd better treat me nice, or I will release them.
The Ultras are 50 - 60 MPs and there are 610 other ones who are, hopefully more sensible. The Guardian's story about the letter is here.
The Irish Greens are taking the UK Government to court over their deal with the DUP as it potentially breaches the Good Friday Agreement and the Bribery Act.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I keep trying to find out what hard Brexit actually means
And, this is a surprise? Two years after we needed to know what a Leave vote was voting for it still appears that no one has worked out what Brexit means. When someone has worked that out, hopefully they'll let us know and we can vote on whether or not we want it.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can't break all ties - trade would be impossible. You couldn't even drive an HGV into France.
I don't know anyone who takes such an extreme view of breaking ties. Brazil, Japan and China all have trade ties with the EU. The fear is that the negotiations will go so sour that the EU will seek to exclude the UK, its citizens and produce from its markets. But that would be against WTO rules, and against Article 50 itself which says:
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.
So the arrangements for withdrawal and the future relationship are requirements of the Article 50 process. It isn't possible for the UK to be expelled in March 2019 without the future relationship being agreed, albeit that the government may not get all it's asking for.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I have to say that there are two areas where I agree with the UK's negotiating position and oppose that of Msr Barnier. One is on the Irish border. We were asked to come up with a proposal which maintains an open and invisible border. So the UK's position paper proposed two scenarios. The ideal one would be a bespoke customs arrangement, not membership of the Customs Union, which would make a border unnecessary. Failing that, exempt small businesses, which comprise 80% of cross border trade from customs regulation. These ideas were dismissed as daydreams. But the UK correctly says that the exact arrangements for the border depend entirely on the final agreement.
So yesterday Mr Barnier, after saying he was worried by the UK proposals, said that it's the responsibility of the Uk alone to solve this issue and that nothing, not even the peace process, is as important as the integrity of the SM and CU. He's wrong! A border will affect the island of Ireland most of all, so if he objects to the UK's ideas, the Irish government and the EU should come up with some suggestions of their own. In her Article 50 letter, the Pm made it very clear that she has no wish to harm the Irish Republic. Everyone here, not just the UK, needs to think outside the box to find a way to preserve the open border. The UK has at least tried, No one else has.
The so called divorce bill. Inconvenient as it is for an unelected bureaucrat like Mr Barnier, the UK team is answerable to an electorate of which 72% think a Brexit bill of 30 billion in unacceptable. 66% think 20 billion is unaccepatble. Barnier knows this. They could get away with paying a substantial sum if it's presented as part of a package which includes a future deal, but no UK team is able to commit to £75 billion without anything to show for it. The maxim was "nothing as agreed until everything is agreed." What happened to that?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I would just like to correct a point I worded rather badly in my last post. I didn't want to imply that Mr Barnier has no concern for peace in Ireland. What he actually said was,
"The UK wants the EU to suspend the application of its laws, its customs union and its single market at what will be a new external border for the EU. And the UK wants to use Ireland as a kind of test case for the future EU-UK customs relations. This will not happen."
I don't think the UK wants the EU to suspend anything. The preservation of the Irish Peace Process is so important that it may have to trump the considerations of the Customs Union. In fact it was the joint visit by former PM's Tony Blair and John Major to NI just before the referendum which persuaded me to vote Remain against my Eurosceptic instinct.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The preservation of the Irish Peace Process is so important that it may have to trump the considerations of the Customs Union.
If it's important enough to trump the considerations of the Customs Union it's important enough to trump the considerations of the Brexit referendum.
I'm absolutely with the EU negotiating team on this one. The Brexiteers seem to think that even though they've thrown the toys out of the pram they don't need to accept responsibility for picking them up.
If 72% of this country don't want this country to pay its debts or honour its past commitments then I do not see why Mr Barnier should fold before that. I should guess that 72% of the people in the countries he represents agree with him, whether or not he's democratically elected.
If you think the bill is too much you need to say which specific items in the bill are unreasonable.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you think the bill is too much you need to say which specific items in the bill are unreasonable.
I don't have access to a line by line account of the bill, but I presume that the UK team who "flabbergasted" their opposite numbers last week by picking it apart, know why they don't recognise the obligations listed. In fact there's no legal basis for a settlement within Article 50 "unless a withdrawal agreement is concluded which resolves this issue.(para. 135)." The EU needs to accept that any payments made over and above our membership up to the point of departure, are a good will gesture, and any agreement to pay more should be contingent upon our future relationship with the EU.
While many, myself included, believe that a United Ireland would probably be the best solution, even after Brexit, 63% of NI voters support remaining part of the UK. Under the GFI, such a vote would kick the idea into the long grass for a generation. So a solution to the border issue is imperative upon ALL parties to the negotiation, not just to the UK. As I said, thinking outside the box. The UK has set the ball rolling with ideas. Let's hear from the others.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can't break all ties - trade would be impossible. You couldn't even drive an HGV into France.
I don't know anyone who takes such an extreme view of breaking ties. Brazil, Japan and China all have trade ties with the EU. The fear is that the negotiations will go so sour that the EU will seek to exclude the UK, its citizens and produce from its markets. But that would be against WTO rules, and against Article 50 itself which says:
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.
So the arrangements for withdrawal and the future relationship are requirements of the Article 50 process. It isn't possible for the UK to be expelled in March 2019 without the future relationship being agreed, albeit that the government may not get all it's asking for.
I'm flabbergasted that you should chop my post up, and reply to one sentence from it. What's the point in doing this? I don't get it. It's misrepresentation, can you please stop doing it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm flabbergasted that you should chop my post up, and reply to one sentence from it. What's the point in doing this? I don't get it. It's misrepresentation, can you please stop doing it.
It seems a common practice on this forum to take a line from someone else's post and comment on it. I'm sorry if you see this as misrepresentation. Your post was about Tory hardliners wanting to cut all ties with the EU. I don't imagine that even the nuttiest of them wants to see our aeroplanes and lorries grounded and unable to enter the EU. The ties they want to cut are with the Single Market, the Customs Union and the ECJ. The world is full of countries who trade with the EU on that basis. But I think there are enough opponents of such ultra Brexit in the Commons and the Lords to make it unlikely to happen.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
the government may not get all it's asking for.
At the moment I don't think the government knows what they want to ask for, even though that should have been laid out clearly two years ago. Of course, if they ask for nothing and get nothing then they will get all that they ask for.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Paul TH:
quote:
Everyone here, not just the UK, needs to think outside the box to find a way to preserve the open border. The UK has at least tried, No one else has.
This seems very peculiar. Are you suggesting that the EU should intervene and enforce something or come up with idea of governance and political and economic policy about something that the UK specifically voted for and is now enforcing; namely an exit from the EU? That would seem to me to be highly inappropriate on many levels, not least politically. Imagine trying to get this idea past the hardline Brexiteers; 'Well we have this great idea from the EU that's going to solve the issue we never even thought about when we started this whole charade; let's plumb for that'.
And that's the problem. Not once - not even once was the issue of Northern Ireland, its border or the GFA ever mentioned in any of the Brexit debates or commentary or early discussions. It was like Northern Ireland didn't exist. Now it is becoming painfully apparent that this is a significant problem so the solution seems to be to hand it back to the EU to sort out. It's an utter farce.
[ 09. September 2017, 11:41: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you think the bill is too much you need to say which specific items in the bill are unreasonable.
I don't have access to a line by line account of the bill, but I presume that the UK team who "flabbergasted" their opposite numbers last week by picking it apart, know why they don't recognise the obligations listed.
When you use quotes round 'flabbergasted' whom are you quoting?
quote:
In fact there's no legal basis for a settlement within Article 50 "unless a withdrawal agreement is concluded which resolves this issue.(para. 135)."
The blog post you cite there disagrees with the House of Lords there and is arguing that there is indeed a legal basis.
In any case, the House of Lords is hardly going to be considered a neutral body.
quote:
The EU needs to accept that any payments made over and above our membership up to the point of departure, are a good will gesture, and any agreement to pay more should be contingent upon our future relationship with the EU.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this arrogant bollocks.
The UK needs to accept that it needs a lot more of the EU's good will than it has so far done anything to deserve.
quote:
The UK has set the ball rolling with ideas. Let's hear from the others.
'Ideas'? What 'ideas'? The UK hasn't come up with any 'ideas'. 'We won't have a customs union but we won't have customs checks either' isn't an idea. It's just a complete delusional refusal to face the problem.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I don't imagine that even the nuttiest of them wants to see our aeroplanes and lorries grounded and unable to enter the EU.
Perhaps some of them actually think of this kind of thing.
In reality, they are attempting to play (badly) a high stakes game of brinkmanship. They know these things are all unacceptable at some level, so they are pushing for a hard Brexit (which would contain none of the mechanisms that facilitate any of the above) on the basis that everyone else is more reasonable and can be bullied into doing whatever it takes to continue to allow these things to operate.
There are words I can find to describe them, but I suspect they wouldn't be allowed, even in Hell.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
'Ideas'? What 'ideas'? The UK hasn't come up with any 'ideas'. 'We won't have a customs union but we won't have customs checks either' isn't an idea. It's just a complete delusional refusal to face the problem.
The UK came up with two possible scenarios, which depend on what future relationship we have with the EU. It has assured Ireland that it wants to maintain the Common Travel Area, so no immigration border will be required. Ireland has welcomed this. We also proposed a bespoke customs union, not The Customs Union, which would render a customs border unnecessary, which has been branded as delusional, fantasy etc. If the Irish government is deadly serious about the importance of an open border, it should respond in kind to such an offer, and petition Mr Barnier and his team to take this offer seriously, because it's the only solution possible which maintains an open border.
It may have to apply only to Ireland, in which case Ireland needs a bilateral arrangement with the UK, or if good sense were to prevail, it could apply to the whole EU/UK future relationship. Imposing tariffs and restricting trade is to no one's benefit. If Ireland and the EU refuse to accept anything the UK proposes, and refuse to propose anything themselves, they can hardly complain later about the harmful effects of a hard border.
If 66% of UK voters think that a £20 billion divorce settlement is an outrage, and 72% think so of £30 billion, the UK team owe it to the taxpayers and electors to refuse to commit to anything unless it's woven into a future arrangement. The EU needs to read Article 50 properly and see that both the separation and future relationship are contained within it.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The UK came up with two possible scenarios, which depend on what future relationship we have with the EU. It has assured Ireland that it wants to maintain the Common Travel Area, so no immigration border will be required. Ireland has welcomed this. We also proposed a bespoke customs union, not The Customs Union, which would render a customs border unnecessary, which has been branded as delusional, fantasy etc.
That's because it is delusional, fantasy, etc. If it's a different bespoke customs union from the Customs Union then it will need border checks. If it doesn't need border checks then it will be the Customs Union.
quote:
If the Irish government is deadly serious about the importance of an open border, it should respond in kind to such an offer, and petition Mr Barnier and his team to take this offer seriously, because it's the only solution possible which maintains an open border.
It is not a possible solution because it is not possible; it is nonsense. If the UK team were suggesting that there be border posts manned by leprechauns and that all cross-border traffic be carried by flying pigs it would be more realistic.
The only possible solution anyone has suggested is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union. The referendum did not ask about leaving the Customs Union so it is mendacious to maintain that the UK negotiating team are bound to leave it. If the UK doesn't like that then the UK must come up with some solutions that are actually workable and do not amount to an insistence that the world revolves around England.
quote:
It may have to apply only to Ireland, in which case Ireland needs a bilateral arrangement with the UK, or if good sense were to prevail, it could apply to the whole EU/UK future relationship.
If Ireland are to be forced to renegotiate their relationship to the rest of the EU then Ireland should have a say in the decision. It is bad enough that England outside London gets to impose its preferences upon Northern Ireland which voted against leaving the EU; at least Northern Ireland participated in the vote. The Republic of Ireland did not. The population of The Republic of Ireland is considerably larger than the margin of Leave over Remain in the referendum.
quote:
If 66% of UK voters think that a £20 billion divorce settlement is an outrage, and 72% think so of £30 billion, the UK team owe it to the taxpayers and electors to refuse to commit to anything unless it's woven into a future arrangement.
If the UK voters think that then the UK team owe it to the taxpayers and electors either to explain to them why they're wrong or else to give them the tools to justify their position.
The opinion of a random elector on a lump sum presented out of context with no information on how the sum was reached is worth precisely nothing and is of no authority.
You did not answer my question about your source for the word 'flabbergasted'.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If the Irish government is deadly serious about the importance of an open border, it should respond in kind to such an offer, and petition Mr Barnier and his team to take this offer seriously, because it's the only solution possible which maintains an open border.
Uh, no. There's another blindingly obvious one... It's called 'remaining a part of the European Union.' Another option is called 'remaining a part of the Single Market and Customs Union.' In case you hadn't heard, 48% of those voting thought the first was a good idea, and a non-zero number of the other 52% believed that a vote to leave did not mean leaving the single market.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
You did not answer my question about your source for the word 'flabbergasted'.
"flabbergasted"
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Uh, no. There's another blindingly obvious one... It's called 'remaining a part of the European Union.' Another option is called 'remaining a part of the Single Market and Customs Union.' In case you hadn't heard, 48% of those voting thought the first was a good idea, and a non-zero number of the other 52% believed that a vote to leave did not mean leaving the single market.
Remaining part of the EU is what was rejected on 23rd June 2016. It was widely believed that ending freedom of movement was one of the biggest factors in this vote. I've heard Jeremy Corbyn agree with this. If David Cameron had been given a fig leaf by the EU on that subject, the referendum would likely have gone the other way. As the UK has been told countless times, we can't stay in the Single Market without accepting freedom of movement, but ending it is the only way to respect the will of the voters last year. Hence it's a non starter to remain in the SM. There is no point to Brexit if we stay in the Customs Union therefore eliminating any possibility of trading freely with the rest of the world. So to remain in the CU and Sm entirely negates Brexit. What many may wish for, but an insult to democracy.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If it's a different bespoke customs union from the Customs Union then it will need border checks. If it doesn't need border checks then it will be the Customs Union.
The idea of a bespoke customs arrangement has already been floated by the new Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar. It has nothing to do with leprechauns and flying pigs, it's a serious attempt to solve a difficult problem for which a solution must be found. I haven't yet heard anyone suggest anything better, except the broken record that the UK should remain in the SM and CU, which if Tom Watson has his way, is just another attempt to overturn a democratic vote.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
So to remain in the CU and Sm entirely negates Brexit. What many may wish for, but an insult to democracy.
No, the insult to democracy was the fact that the vote last year was conducted without any opportunity for the electorate to be informed about what they would be voting for by putting there cross on the Leave option. There were some prominent Leave campaigners who were saying that the UK would remain within the single market, and there would be no barriers to trade with the rest of the EU - the option you're now saying would totally negate Brexit.
And, of course, the result to be used as an excuse for particular policies (labelled "the will of the people") which were not explicitly voted on is a further insult to democracy.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Remaining part of the EU is what was rejected on 23rd June 2016. It was widely believed that ending freedom of movement was one of the biggest factors in this vote.
Firstly, in absolute terms it wasn't necessarily the biggest factor:
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Leave-vs-Remain-podium-rankings.jpg
Secondly, once you are arguing about hypothetical reasons for why people may have voted to leave the EU, Alan's argument is equally as strong.
quote:
As the UK has been told countless times, we can't stay in the Single Market without accepting freedom of movement, but ending it is the only way to respect the will of the voters last year.
The vote last year was a vote to leave the EU, it was not a vote to end FoM.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by PaulTH:
quote:
The UK came up with two possible scenarios
They came up with two ideas around the issue of trade and free movement. So far they have not come up with any policy or workable framework. You keep insisting that Ireland has offered possible policy and a workable framework to allow this to happen, but they haven't. They have also talked about idea around the issues, pointing out the importance of these issues not only to Ireland but also to the future sustainability of Northern Ireland as part of the UK, as an Irish trading partner and the importance of protecting the agreed points in the GFA. You also insist that the EU hasn't proffered anything. In fact it has. It mooted what I would personally consider to be the only possible solution in regards to trade and free movement (which is clearly unacceptable to the UK, especially since they shacked up with the Diabolical Unionist Party) which involved a sea border. This would preserve the GFA. But ultimately, what you are repeatedly suggesting is that even though Britain is leaving the EU, the EU should be the ones to come up with solutions to their most intractable problems. Can't you see the irony there?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
"flabbergasted"
So not so much flabbergasted by the UK negotiators going through the proposals line by line, as that the UK negotiators decided to waste the whole of a meeting doing something that they could perfectly well have done on paper in advance of the meeting.
We still don't know if there's anything actually in the bill that the UK can reasonably object to.
quote:
Remaining part of the EU is what was rejected on 23rd June 2016. It was widely believed that ending freedom of movement was one of the biggest factors in this vote.
The majority of a majority may be a minority. 48% of the population did not vote to leave the EU. If only another 3% did not want to leave the single market then there is no majority in favour of leaving the single market or ending freedom of movement.
What is widely believed about people's reasons for a vote does not amount to an absolute democratic mandate.
[ 10. September 2017, 15:13: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What is widely believed about people's reasons for a vote does not amount to an absolute democratic mandate.
Indeed.
We were not asked "should the UK leave the Single Market?", therefore there is no basis to claim that leaving the Single Market is the will of the people of the UK expressed through the referendum.
We were not asked "should the UK leave the Customs Union?", therefore there is no basis to claim that leaving the Customs Union is the will of the people of the UK expressed through the referendum.
We were not asked "should the UK end freedom of movement between the UK and EU?", therefore there is no basis to claim that ending freedom of movement is the will of the people of the UK expressed through the referendum.
I could go on, and mention agricultural policy, fisheries, EURATOM, the ECJ, workers and consumers rights, etc. But, I'm sure you've got the picture.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
