***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 72 *****
IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ
Before discussions start in this thread, I would like to point out that any petty arguments, personal attacks, or any other infringement of house rules, etc. will be deleted where we feel fit from now on.
We will not give notice that we have deleted something. Nor will we enter into discussion why something was deleted. That will also be deleted.
It seems that discussion about Brexit brings out the worst in some people.
Be nice, Play nice, and control your temper. Your co-operation would be appreciated.
Dave.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 10 Dec 18 at 15:20
|
Slight thread drift but still related on continuation of Ireland issue....
Before coming to UK, I assumed (along with many billions of people in the world) that United Kingdom is a country. Because it is listed in list of countries around the world. It plays in Olympics with GBR code.
But in cricket, it plays as England, Scotland etc. When I was a kid I equated England = UK.
I still don't know why England [ENG] plays in cricket but UK [GBR] plays in Olympics!
Anyway, after coming to UK I was surprised when my colleagues explained England, Scotland, Wales are separate countries!
Then my question was why then we don't have English passports instead of British passports. I still don't know the answers.
I also thought (before Internet was widely available) Great Britain = UK
Now I know,
GB = England + Scotland + Wales
UK = GB + NI = British passport
(Republic of) Ireland is a different country.
Scottish independent movement was a shock to me. I never realized parts of UK are allowed to break away. I somehow assumed England, Scotland, Wales, NI are "states" of "country" named UK.
So, United Kingdom in reality is Divided Kingdom.
To confuse matters more, Isle of Man (IoM) is not part of UK and it is not in EU but one can visit there with UK visa. I did visit IoM and it is a beautiful place.
I foresee some of you'd say "this is all because of historical reason...."
Well, I think if UK (however you define it) continuously look past in history it will miss the future. So we should look forward rather than what happened in the past.
Now coming back to real world, as we now know parts of UK can break away if they wish, let NI break away from UK if they don't want to be part of UK.
People of England should be offered a referendum whether England wants to be independent (aka get rid of) Wales, NI, Scotland.
Or, make it illegal for any part of UK to break away and become independent.
The whole concept of UK is fuzzy. A country has its own passport. We are either British or something else e.g. Indian/American/Australian/Chinese/German/French etc.
Defining someone's nationality as Scottish, Welsh, English, Irish is bad while holding a British passport.
Think about me, as an immigrant how do I now define my nationality? I can be British only - right? I have not got a clue how being English is different from being Scottish (except some accent).
So, if as an immigrant, I can align myself being British, why you guys living here for so long can't get out of English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish psychology?
It should be one country, one rule.
History should not be used as how a drunk man uses lamp post - for support rather than illumination.
Last edited by: movilogo on Thu 6 Dec 18 at 12:17
|
>>So, if as an immigrant, I can align myself being British, why you guys living here for so long can't get out of English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish psychology?
Because you are Indian. You have British Passport, but you have no allegiance or fundamental connection to E, S, I or W.
If I moved to India, got an Indian passport, that wouldn't make me Indian any more than I am either Chilean or Brazilian. Getting a passport gives me permissions and rights, but it doesn't change my place of birth or country of upbringing.
So, how can you be British? Whatever rights or privileges you hold?
Now don't get me wrong, this is *not* any kind of value statement or judgement. It is merely a statement of why E, S, I or W makes no emotional sense to you.
>>It should be one country, one rule.
It should be how those people want it to be not how an immigrant says it should be.
|
>> So, if as an immigrant, I can align myself being British, why you guys living
>> here for so long can't get out of English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish psychology?
Questions for you:
Do Indian people have a loyalty to their state as well as, or perhaps greater than, that to the Republic?
Do some of those states have seperatist movements?
History is part of it but Scotland is culturally different from England. While Catholicism is present Protestantism has several forms; most of them different to the CofE. Furthermore a Scot from Stornoway will be culturally different to one from say Galashiels - look these places up on a map.
There's a whole set of PhDs to be written about cultural differences between and within the constiuent parts of the UK andhow our identities relate to Britishness.
|
As a Scot, I have no problem identifying as British, but I'd be mortified if anyone ever thought I was English !
;-)
|
You wish! It'd be a promotion for you. As opposed to us, for whom it would be a significant lowering of status.
But to identify myself as British is no issue. Typically when asked I either say Brit or Gringo.
|
No one has ever mistaken me for Welsh, I'm just not miserable enough...
;-)
|
|
You're just jealous because our sheep aren't scrawny raggedy mountain dwellers.
|
I'm not prepared to think about your sheep preferences. I know it's a thing for you guys, but the rest of us really don't need the details...
;-)
|
>> I'm not prepared to think about your sheep preferences. I know it's a thing for
>> you guys, but the rest of us really don't need the details...
>> ;-)
We are not prepared to discuss your proclivity to wear skirts, or a furry handbag either.
|
Just two words to say to you, Morris, and Dancing...
Just not right is it?
;-)
|
No, Morris Dancing is *very* badly wrong. Very badly. Also not easy to explain to people from South America with whom one is having a quiet pint in a small village local.
On a similar tact, explaining Scotch people in skirts is somewhat easier. Though the little furry handbag is more of a challenge.
Just as well the Welsh are (comparatively) normal.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 6 Dec 18 at 18:11
|
>> No, Morris Dancing is *very* badly wrong. Very badly. Also not easy to explain to
>> people from South America with whom one is having a quiet pint in a small
>> village local.
They are drunks, easy peasy. Your Chilean friends must be able to relate to that concept.
|
>>Typically when asked I either say Brit or Gringo.
Because anywhere outside England, both are better than to say English.
|
>> >>Typically when asked I either say Brit or Gringo.
>>
>> Because anywhere outside England, both are better than to say English.
Alas tis true, I always say UK or British.
Except in the good ole US of A, "England" goes down well there
|
|
Whilst that is true, it is the look of confusion when I say Welsh which I find truly depressing.
|
>> Whilst that is true, it is the look of confusion when I say Welsh which
>> I find truly depressing.
>>
That's not confusion, that's sympathy ....
|
>> >> Whilst that is true, it is the look of confusion when I say Welsh
>> which
>> >> I find truly depressing.
>> >>
>>
>> That's not confusion, that's sympathy ....
Its not confusion or sympathy, its alarm.
|
>> >>Typically when asked I either say Brit or Gringo.
>>
>> Because anywhere outside England, both are better than to say English.
>>
I've found it never really mattered, most people around the world find English /British to be pretty much the same thing.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Fri 7 Dec 18 at 06:17
|
>> I've found it never really mattered, most people around the world find English /British to be pretty much the same thing.
Not so sure about that, the French in particular exhibit a palpable sense of relief when you point out that you are Scottish.
;-)
|
>> Not so sure about that, the French in particular exhibit a palpable sense of relief
>> when you point out that you are Scottish.
>> ;-)
Yes they are assured of a win into the next round. (round or ovoid ball game)
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 7 Dec 18 at 09:05
|
When asked by the French where i live, normally whilst making conversation on ski lifts, I say “ j’habite Yorkshire dans Angleterre nord, pres de Ecosse”.
Probably not grammatically correct but they understand, and I think that most French, like us Tykes, are quite proud of the region in which they live.
Last edited by: legacylad on Fri 7 Dec 18 at 09:20
|
>There's a whole set of PhDs to be written about cultural differences between and within
>the constiuent parts of the UK...
Three Englishmen married women from different parts of the UK.....
The first man married an English girl.
He told her that she was to do the dishes and house cleaning while he was at work.
It took a couple of days, but on the third day, he came home to see a clean house and the dishes washed and put away.
The second man married a Welsh girl.
He gave his wife orders that she was to do all the cleaning, dishes and the cooking.
The first day he didn't see any results, but the next day he saw it was better.
By the third day, he saw that the house was spotlessly clean, the dishes were done and there was a superb dinner on the table.
The third man married a Scottish girl.
He ordered her to keep the house cleaned, dishes washed, lawn mowed, laundry washed and hot food on the table for every meal.
The first day he didn't see anything. The second day he didn't see anything either. By the third day some of the swelling had gone down and he could see a little out of his left eye and his arms had healed enough that he could fix himself a sandwich and load the dishwasher. He still had some difficulty peeing though.
|
>
>> Now coming back to real world, as we now know parts of UK can break
>> away if they wish, let NI break away from UK if they don't want to
>> be part of UK.
READ THE HISTORY BEFORE YOU MAKE SILLTY COMMENTS.
The problem is that slightly over half of the NI population want to stay in the union, (which is why they are called unionists) and slightly under half want to be part of the republic of Ireland (which is why they are called republicans) NI cant "break away" and it cant be "broken up"
|
>> So, if as an immigrant, I can align myself being British, why you guys living
>> here for so long can't get out of English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish psychology?
>>
>> It should be one country, one rule.
>>
>> History should not be used as how a drunk man uses lamp post - for
>> support rather than illumination.
Ok, can we assume then that the all peoples of Kashmir are happy to be ruled going forward by India, after all its only a history problem. And of course Pakistan would be happy with that solution, after all its only a history issue.
And of course The Palestinians and the Israelis can now shake hands and share governance of Palestine and Jerusalem. After all its only a silly little history problem (albeit going back a long time, but not a problem)
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 6 Dec 18 at 18:01
|
I think this is interesting...
Supposedly views on the street.
www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-46462594/brexit-views-anarchy-on-the-streets
I'd love to know how the 'panel' were selected.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 6 Dec 18 at 16:54
|
One Lib Dem quits to support TM.
A forlorn gesture or the first swallow?
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46470414
|
If you haven't fully grasped the process we are facing, then this series of flow diagrams is worth trawling through.
[I know our writers know this stuff, but who knows what the read only crowd know?]
|
Consider the question that is asked compared with the question that is answered.
Consider the 'clever' way that points are dodged and swamped.
Essentially this is what ALL our politicians do, and it is effective.
www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-46465149/uk-pm-theresa-may-dismisses-idea-of-second-referendum
|
Westmonster.
Sounds like a balanced opinion source.
|
Someone now loves the Mogster. Farage is history.
Such a tart,
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 7 Dec 18 at 19:34
|
I am putting this here because the headline will attract attention..
Brexit: Amber Rudd says Plan B options plausible
But before you get excited, that's not what she actually said.
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46490642
|
>> www.westmonster.com/remainer-rudd-would-pursue-norway-sell-out-open-to-second-referendum/
No she wouldn't thats not what she said, but hey never let it be said a Brexiteer can understand stuff or check facts.
|
>> I am putting this here because the headline will attract attention..
>>
>> Brexit: Amber Rudd says Plan B options plausible
>>
>> But before you get excited, that's not what she actually said.
>>
>> www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46490642
Other reports suggest the word plausible was used in a Times interview:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/08/anything-could-happen-if-mps-dont-back-mays-brexit-deal-says-amber-rudd
Dog's Westmonster link seems to evade political reality - there is no majority in the Commons for a cliff-edge or 'hard' Brexit and few leavers suggested such a thing during the referendum.
On the contrary, many of those now advocating hard Brexit suggested during the referendum that Norway's situation was the model we should follow.
|
>> mobile.twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1071102537745469440
>>
>> Now there's a surprise.
I need to login to Twitter to read that but cannot due to a mix up over e-mail accounts.
Any chance of a summary?
|
Bromp;
Exclusive @SkyNews
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn reaches out to DUP saying they “dislike the backstop for very good and sensible reasons”, and that “absolutely” Labour’s Brexit negotiation can work for the party currently supporting the Government.
|
Actually there's a series of messages; [each paragraph is a different message]
.
Lisbon, if he was making plans to form a minority government, without an election, Mr Corbyn said: “Listen we are ready to step in and negotiate seriously with the EU to put up a serious alternative” 2/10
Mr Corbyn suggested the Article 50 timetable could be extended to accommodate a negotiation:
“We’d start negotiating straight away. If it meant holding things a bit longer to do it, of course,”
Mr Corbyn when asked if the people with “Love Corbyn Hate Brexit” bags at his conference who want a second referendum with Remain as an option - “are they wrong?”
JC: - “No they’re not wrong..but option is there in our motion but we don’t get anywhere until we’ve defeated deal..”
“...we are nearly there we are a few days away from it but let’s let it happen first”... said Corbyn.. full interview...
Corbyn highly dismissive of the Norway option as “not acceptable” and “it comes around every six weeks and then it goes away”
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 8 Dec 18 at 14:43
|
|
The economic model in Norway is fundamentally different to the UK's - they haven't got a Northern Ireland/Eire border to contend with. Norway situation is entirely different, what works for them might in all probability not work here.
|
Norway also accepts the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
How do the Leave supporters feel about that?
|
|
17minutes? 45 seconds and I'd had enough. What a pillock.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 29 Jan 20 at 10:40
|
>> He's er...special.
And there was me thinking it was all due to the reptoid Lizard illuminati
|
|
Isn't he the one who claimed to be The Son of God?
|
|
Yes so he claimed, not sure if that was before or after he claimed the royal family were reptoid lizards.
|
Mind you I fancy some of that advertised monoatomic gold
“Gold-plate your body, mind and soul with the “Divine Bread” of the initiates for speeding up your evolution, improvement of your consciousness, restoration of your physical superconductivity and energy upgrade of your DNA
Simultaneously it creates a light Prana-Vortex that is spiraling along a double helix through the atom nucleus and equates kundalini energy.”
What’s not to like!
|
Nice to see Margit again though .. I hired an XJ6 from Hertz and took the ole woman there for our 10th wedding anniversary. What a pillock!
:o}
|
|
On top of that the "Norway" solution involves adopting the four principles of the EU including the free movement of people. All the Brexiteers fundamentally disagree with that (apart from one maybe). It'll never fly. I reckon on one of two solutions A second referendum offering the choice of no exit or an exit with Mrs May's agreement or not leaving following a Commons Vote.
|
>> On top of that the "Norway" solution involves adopting the four principles of the EU
>> including the free movement of people. All the Brexiteers fundamentally disagree with that (apart from
>> one maybe)
Its that the one thats just lost her freedom of movement in this forum?
|
|
Negotiated an extremely hard Brexit.
|
>> Negotiated an extremely hard Brexit.
price worth paying.
|
|
Indeed. Took back control.
|
|
AIUI they're in the EEA but not the customs union. How does that play out on it's borders with Sweden or Finland?
|
|
....with less potential for tension than between the north and south of the Emerald Isle..
|
AIUI they're in the EEA but not the customs union. How does that play out
>> on it's borders with Sweden or finland
Heres a couple of reasonable links.
www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/news/is-the-norway-sweden-border-a-model-for-uk-ireland/
www.politico.eu/article/brexit-ireland-border-customs-norway-sweden/
I'm not sure their border with Finland has much to copy i would imagine it's very remote and sparsely crossed.
|
' I need to login to Twitter to read that but cannot due to a mix up over e-mail accounts.
Any chance of a summary'
Sorry been busy, mark has copied it over. Surprising he's cosying upto the DUP, can't say I saw that coming.
I find it increasingly difficult to know what JC is for and against.
You don't need a twitter account to read it or shouldn't. I've not got one but look at it quite often.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 8 Dec 18 at 18:29
|
True Brexit is out, on WTO terms.
|
That may well be what you think, but many do not.
e.g. where do you stand on Freedom of Movement?
|
“The True Brexit”
Sounds more like an an act of faith than a rational decision, which I guess it is.
Disciples of the True Brexit ar in for a major disappointment however and will soon have to return to years of wandering in the wilderness
|
>> True Brexit is out, on WTO terms.
Which would mean a hard border in Ireland if it were to remain in the UK. IIRC May said something like "we will do all we can to avoid a hard border in the event of no deal" which is just another way of saying it naturally follows from a WTO Brexit. AFAIK nobody has yet come up with the 'technology' solution.
Maybe there is a price worth paying, but I don't think it should include a civil war.
I agree that Brexit, in the absence of qualification, should have meant Brexit. But if that was the case then were we offered an option that never realistically existed?
|
WTO ? Seriously ? A G7 Country trading on WTO terms ?
|
>>were we offered an option that never realistically existed?
Absolutely. In fact I would argue that it was never even possible.
I'd also maintain that most of the politicians, including the likes of Farage, Cameron, Johnson et al knew that.
|
>>I'd also maintain that most of the politicians, including the likes of Farage, Cameron, Johnson et al knew that.
"The Brexit Mess Was Planned All Along To Thwart The Will Of The People"
:-)
|
Norway don't want us, a country with ten times their population, muggering up their club. Norwegian politician Heidi Nordby Lunde says:
I'm sceptic of letting the UK into the EFTA family because it's kind of like having an abusive partner spiking the drinks and inviting to a Christmas party and thinking that this will go well...
...I think you would mess it all up for us, the way you have messed it all up for yourselves.
|
|
Labour's Richard Burgon, MP for Leeds East and Shadow SoS for Justice, spent last ten minutes of R5's Pienaars Politics tying knots avoiding saying what Labour would do in a second referendum.
|
I think it's a bit of a leap to translate her comments as 'Norway doesn't want us'.
That's her viewpoint, I'm not aware she was speaking on behalf of the EFTA?
|
We're we not in EFTA in the 1960s? Indeed I think we may have been a founder member. We left it when we joined the Common Market as has.
Bit ironic really..
|
|
We were. I rather think of it as circular, should it actually come to pass.
|
>> That's her viewpoint, I'm not aware she was speaking on behalf of the EFTA?
She's not but her view is one expressed by a significant number of Norwegian politicians. They're currently the 'superpower' in EFTA and may not want to cede that position. Even less so cede it to a country with a reputation for industrial scale b minded exceptionalism in the EU.
They have a veto.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 9 Dec 18 at 13:23
|
I think it perhaps wise to cross that bridge when we come to it. A few noisy politicians don't always tell us the concensus. I read that a member of the Swiss government were keen and interested in us joining but who knows how a government will think until we get to that point?
It needs all four countries to agree to a new member? I had a look but couldn't find the mechanism of joining.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 9 Dec 18 at 13:33
|
According to Article 56 of the EFTA Convention, “any State may accede to the Convention provided that the EFTA Council decides to approve its accession. As regards further formal requirements, any new member state would have to apply to become a party to existing EFTA free trade agreements (Article 56(3)).
www.efta.int/faq
|
|
Yes I found that, however it doesn't say if it needs all four countries to agree. However I suppose it doesn't matter I don't think we'll end up joining it.
|
A decision to accept a new member country would be taken by the council represented by the member countries at ministerial level. Decisions taken by the Council are agreed by consensus so yes all existing member countries including Norway would have to agree.
|
>> >>I'd also maintain that most of the politicians, including the likes of Farage, Cameron, Johnson
>> et al knew that.
>>
>> "The Brexit Mess Was Planned All Along To Thwart The Will Of The People"
No, don't be silly.
"The Brexit mess was largely caused by politicians lying through their teeth to get on tv and improve their own career"
|
|
Nothing new there then. Did you see Boris on the Andrew Marr show (er) MP materiel if I ever saw one.
|
|
Remoaners will resort to anything to overturn the peoples vote we had in 2016.
|
>> Remoaners will resort to anything to overturn the peoples vote we had in 2016.
OK so the vote in 2016 was for Brexit.
Two and a half years on and the emerged fact is that leaving has costs.
What are the compensating gains?
How will Brexit benefit you and your neighbours (or me)?
|
>>How will Brexit benefit you and your neighbours (or me)?
My wife and I voted Leave for the benefit of Great Britain - in the long term, but 'that woman' has negotiated a bad deal, so I, like many Brexiteers, have all but given up now but will punish the Cons at the ballot box by, in many cases, voting for Corbyn.
|
>>My wife and I voted Leave for the benefit of Great Britain
Northern Ireland not part of the plan? ;-)
What would the have been the outcome of a good negotiation?
Roger's WTO nonsense?
I'm sure good old blighty can negotiate a better trade deal with the US, China, Japan, Korea etc as a smaller partner than as part of a bloc of nearly half a billion souls...
Remember a substantial part of the deal was created by 'it will be the easiest negotiation ever' David Davies brexit muppet.
Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan - any Brexit architects who haven't slipped out the back door?
|
This deal isn't what Brexiteers voted for back in 2016. Cameron said that a vote for leave was a vote to leave the EU entirely and May promised to leave the single market and the customs union but, come 2018 she planned to stay in those trade agreements which will result in the UK (and N.I.) leaving the EU *IN NAME ONLY* and we will still have to cough up the readies and be obligated to the EU. I see it all as a plan to make sure we never leave the EU so well done to Remainers like Robbins and May etc.
My hope is that may is relieved of her duties and someone like BJ, Davis, or Raab takes over to renegotiate the deal, even if that only amounts to ditching the backstop. We live in interesting times :(
|
>> This deal isn't what Brexiteers voted for back in 2016.
>> We live in interesting times :(
So what is a moaning brexiteer called?
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 10 Dec 18 at 10:25
|
>>even if that only amounts to ditching
>> the backstop.
So a hard border for NI somewhere?
Because the current transition deal says;
"we have two years to come up with a workable solution for NI and if not we get the backstop"
so you wanted…
"we have two years to come up with a workable solution for NI and if not we get a hard border"
and that would have been "a better deal"?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 10 Dec 18 at 09:30
|
>> and that would have been "a better deal"?
Exactly. The MPs complaining that "we could be in the backstop forever" somehow never deal with this. You can't dispense with the backstop unless the negotiation/transition period itself is self-extending, but that would amount to the same thing.
You could try to design a different backstop that doesn't require a hard border but nobody has done that as far as I know.
Or you could put a time limit on the backstop, but then you would need a backstop to the backstop (and so on).
No lawyer will ever advise signing an agreement that includes an "agreement to agree" without including a provision for what happens if there is a failure to agree, even if that is termination - even then, you need proper termination provisions - who pays what to whom, and how the relationship works thereafter (since we will continue to inhabit the same planet, to trade, travel and interact).
Some of these people are not fit to be part of the discussion. Others (Johnson, Mogg) are just being disingenuous.
It must be clear by now that a full Brexit without a workable plan in place would be a disaster, and that no other kind of Brexit can be agreed upon by this Parliament in the foreseeable future, or possibly ever.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 10 Dec 18 at 10:25
|
I'm only a clown from the Old Kent Rd. remember, but surely something could be done Re: the Irish border with N.I. using cameras and pre registration of goods.
Basically, neither the Irish Republic or the EU want the UK to fully leave, so I wouldn't expect them to offer up any ideas or help on that matter.
Another option could be to let the Republic of Ireland/EU set up their own one-way border to check goods coming into the Republic of Ireland from Northern Ireland.
|
>> I'm only a clown from the Old Kent Rd. remember, but surely something could be
>> done Re: the Irish border with N.I. using cameras and pre registration of goods.
Well, never say never but I don't think so.
Remember, it is a minor border with little traffic at this time and if it stayed that way then it is a non-issue of no relevance or import.
However, if it becomes the only easy route between the EU and the UK it will become very big very quickly. Imagine that there is a disparity in tariff, or product restriction between the EU rules and the UK rules, and that little border over there is free flowing. Let us say, just for example, that the tariff into the UK was lower than the one into the EU. And I could justify it in either direction.
Were that the case, then suddenly it would be *the* main way of bringing your product into one or the other at a lower tariff.
That border would become a huge huge leak.
Easy, you might think, we'll simply have the same tariff and product rules in the UK and the EU, which will mean that border will never be an advantage to anyone.
Brilliant idea. Guess what the backstop is?
Using cameras and pre-registration has two issues;
It would still be a hard border, just not as visible. And the political fallout, and perhaps physical fallout, would be unpleasant.
With pre-registration you would have to check that what was registered was what was actually being carried. That's a hard border, albeit a leaky one.
If any non-intrusive way of performing border checks was possible, then why wouldn't it be used by law enforcement on the entrances to a major city, to a stadium, or to a beach resort thus preventing bombs? Because as a standalone border it doesn't work.
So it comes down to this;
1) A hard border to stop such behaviour
2) Remove the reason for such behaviour (aligned regulation and tariff).
3) Some as yet unknown solution.
How about we agree that for a certain period of time we will try to work out what 3) is. If we're near the end of our allotted time but we think we're close then we'll extend that time period. But just once.
If we come up with a 3) we'll use it, but if we don't then our fallback position is 2)
Care to take a wild shot at what the transition agreement says?
>> Basically, neither the Irish Republic or the EU want the UK to fully leave, so
>> I wouldn't expect them to offer up any ideas or help on that matter.
Actually the backstop is a bit crap. And it is most unlikely that Ireland, The EU or the UK would want it. It's not good for all three parties though for differing reasons.
So the backstop itself is a pretty good incentive to try to work out 3).
>> Another option could be to let the Republic of Ireland/EU set up their own one-way
>> border to check goods coming into the Republic of Ireland from Northern Ireland.
Unless we have identical tariffs and product regulation it is a two-way problem. If we did have identical tariffs and product regulation could you guess which legal body would over see that they stayed that way and would deal with issues?
tl:dr
I don't think there is a third solution. If there is, I have no idea what it could be.
|
Another option could be to let the Republic of Ireland/EU set up their own one-way border to check goods coming into the Republic of Ireland from Northern Ireland.
The major problem with that idea is that the border is permeable - that was the problem for the British Army during the troubles, the cost would be horrendous.One example I heard of was of a bus company who do cross border operations whose depot straddles the border, with one exit to the south and another to the north. The mainland British, in general, are largely clueless as to complex the Irish situation is both in political, religious and practical terms. The ignorance has led to 150 years of turmoil, mis-rule, and blood letting on a scale that people who don't live there have very little concept. I have the perfect solution - stay in the EU, the lesser of the two evils. If I was Irish I'd probably be taking quite a bit of joy out of this whole sorry saga, mainland Britain humiliated.
|
>>If I was Irish I'd probably be taking quite a bit of joy out of this whole sorry saga, mainland Britain humiliated.
If I was an Irish business owner I'd be more than a tad concerned that my main trading neighbour was going to put a serious dampener on my profit margins.
|
>> > like many Brexiteers,
>> have all but given up now but will punish the Cons at the ballot box
>> by, in many cases, voting for Corbyn.
>>
That's a widespread feeling I'm picking up too. I think a significant number of lifetime Conservative voters are now thinking
"We don't care any more. Do what you like. Let's have a Corbyn government and have a real mess. Just don't expect us ever to vote Conservative again!"
|
>>That's a widespread feeling I'm picking up too.
How many people have you picked this up from? Or do you mean you read it in the paper?
|
A simple cut and paste from one of the polsters. There summary of a poll on the 27th November.
A brief note about the Survation poll in today’s Mail. A lot of responses to this have really got the wrong end of the stick – the Daily Mail have, quite obviously, written it up with a very pro-deal slant and have not focused upon elements of the poll showing support for no-deal or for a fresh referendum. Nevertheless, the core of the story – that more people said they wanted MPs to vote to support the deal than wanted MPs to reject it – is quite correct.
Firstly, lets us address social media claims that the poll actually showed opposition to the deal and that the Mail has lied about it. This is untrue. What actually happened is that when the Daily Mail front page was published yesterday Survation has not yet put up the full tables, so people looking for the full results on Survation’s website stumbled upon their previous poll for the Daily Mail, which had shown people opposed the deal. Today’s poll is different – and that’s the point of the Mail’s splash – the poll suggests public opinion has changed.
The two polls asked identical questions about support for the deal (so there’s no jiggery-pokery, so changing the wording – it’s a straight comparison).
Survation’s poll conducted on November 15th found that 61% of people had heard about the deal and of those people 27% supported it, 49% opposed it. The full tables for that poll are here (the chart that lots of people were posting on social media this morning was from this poll)
Survation’s new poll conducted on November 27th asked the same questions, and found 72% had now heard about the deal. Of those people 37% supported the deal (up 10), 35% opposed the deal (down 14). The full tables for that poll are here (Wednesday’s Daily Mail story is about this poll)
In the next question Survation asked how people wanted MPs to vote on the deal. 41% said they would like MPs to vote for the deal, 38% would like MPs to vote against the deal.
So far, so good. The poll shows a sharp increase in support for the deal since it was first announced – a fortnight ago the public were opposed by nearly 2-to-1, now it is pretty much neck-and-neck. While this is only a single poll and one shouldn’t read too much into it until there is other polling evidence to back it up, it does appear to be a very clear shift.
However, before one concludes that the public are now leaning in favour of the deal, it’s also worth looking at the other questions in the poll. The poll also repeated questions asking how people would vote in some hypothetical referendums. These suggests that people continue to prefer remaining in the EU to the deal (Remain 46%(+3), Leave with the deal 37%(+3)) and that in a choice between the deal or leaving without one, they’d go for no deal (No deal 41%(+7), deal 35%(+3)).
This leaves us in a bit of a quandary. People narrowly approve of the deal and think MPs should approve it… but they also prefer both of the two obvious alternatives to the deal. For the record, the poll also finds people in favour of a new referendum on the deal by 48% to 34%. It is hard to resist the conclusion that the public are as unclear as the political classes about their preferred way forward.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 10 Dec 18 at 09:50
|
>>
>> How many people have you picked this up from? Or do you mean you read
>> it in the paper?
>>
87
Don't be so literal - you know how to pick up a general mood of public feeling, don't you? Or a strand of feeling amongst a particular group?
You say things like "The EU will never agree to it" or "The Italians" or "The French" or "the yobs and racists in such and such a party". etc
No one says "How many?" It's an instinct. We all think our instincts are correct, and sometimes they are. Sometimes not.
If you can't see that there is a significant (large, small, growing, looming, ?) feeling amongst some ordinary Conservative-leaning people that will reject the party if there is an election, then you are missing something.
|
>> you know how to pick up a general mood of public feeling, don't you?
No, I don't. And I'm guessing politicians don't either, or they'd never be voted out.
>>Or a strand of feeling amongst a particular group?
That I do know. And since you said it was "widespread" I just wondered how big your group was. 87 doesn't seem like much of a sample to me, though I guess it's quite a lot to collect opinions from in reality.
>>If you can't see that there is a significant (large, small, growing, looming, ?) feeling amongst some ordinary Conservative-leaning people that will reject the party if there is an election, then you are missing something
No, I can't see that. I am sure the feeling exists somewhere, but whether or not it is significant or widespread I haven't a clue, though I am sceptical. I just wondered which newspaper you'd read it in.
>>No one says "How many?"
Well, that's is patently untrue.
|
I dont see a switch to Corbyn from the Brexiteers, because there is less chance of a Brexit of any kind under him than May.
I do see a swing to corbyn from remainers, however, and the 2nd referendum briigde, and that will probably be enough to get him elected.
|
>> My wife and I voted Leave for the benefit of Great Britain - in the
>> long term, but 'that woman' has negotiated a bad deal, so I, like many Brexiteers,
>> have all but given up now but will punish the Cons at the ballot box
>> by, in many cases, voting for Corbyn.
Well slash my nose off to spite my misguided and uninformed face.
|
>> Remoaners will resort to anything to overturn the peoples vote we had in 2016.
Nah, some of us want you to suffer.
|
I saw Boris on the Andrew Marr show.
Haircut ministerial look, Boris knew he had to come across sincere and well spoken.
These lads are well trained at performance.Andrew was a bit lost and had to bring up the Iran case and personalities.
This deal or arrangement with the E.U was brought about by civil servants, not ministers they were the add ons
|
>> This deal or arrangement with the E.U was brought about by civil servants, not ministers
>> they were the add ons
Don't fall for that narrative Dutchie. The civil servants work to the politicians agenda. They do the legwork and bring back recommendations/advice for Ministers to accept or reject. The NI border issue was known during the referendum debate; it just got lost in the fog of war.
The PM rather than her Brexit secretaries were in the driving seat. The decision to go for a 'soft' deal post 29-09-19 as set out in the Chequers document was hers based on hard economic reality.
|
>>
>> The PM rather than her Brexit secretaries were in the driving seat.
>>
Driving? Theresa May? You have to be joking.
That's simply pressing on with car-sick passengers and a faulty sat-nav.
|
>>the peoples vote we had in 2016.
Aren't *all* votes people's votes?
|
Link to FB.
I could have written that myself....
tinyurl.com/yargtpwg
|
Brexit Discussion - Volume 70 - movilogo
