Yes, it's incessant pro-Corbyn cheerleading in here, isn't it?
Blair does talk sense often. He also made some terrible mistakes. Iraq was one.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Blair does talk sense often. He also made some terrible mistakes. Iraq was one.
That is right. It is very much a personal decision.
I am not too concerned about further integration. We are already not part of the Euro currency or the Shengen agreement. The EU knows well the very strong opposition to federalism from the UK.
So too do our politicians which is why the public have never been given the option of joining or not. Successive governments signing treaties handing over more powers to the EU without public mandate was not the best way forward and here we are.
This is why some people are angry about our membership. It is why they are mainly older too, they have watched this happen.
Name a PM who hasn't made terrible mistakes.
Iraq aside, Tony Blair government was as good as any in my lifetime. Investment in the NHS and schools was of massive benefit.
We have had MEP's who have been elected have we not.
Look. I really do understand that there arguments for both sides.
My simple mind thinks that the economy is the most important thing.
And with an increasingly global trade, why leave on the biggest trading blocks, even bigger than the US by value.
That’s why I voted remain. I work for a global company that actually starts with the word Euro! I deal intrinsically with colleagues and clients in all corners of the EU. But I have family and a few friends that voted leave and I have to say I’m with them in some points of Brexit ... and none of them are racist, most of them are educated and all of them feel let down and angry.
I wonder if the EU could somehow wind back the clock - now they’ve seen the situation just deteriorate further and further - if they would offer Theresa May a 5 year time-limit on the backstop, and if that would have got the deal through parliament?
What happens at the end of 5 years? Magical solutions will not have been invented.
Then they should be honest and rename the ‘backstop’.
Ireland might have had a unification vote by then? .... Perhaps not but that would be one solution
The actual name is Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
No deal is better than No deal right?
I know. But do you agree with me that it’s a misrepresentation for the EU to pretend that it’s a last ditch insurance policy that they don’t intend to use?
We all know full well that the backstop would come into force and persist (unless the UK signs up to single market rules for NI and the customs union as part of a permanent future relationship) because there is no other solution that is palatable to the EU and Ireland.
The Uk government keep insisting there is a technological solution, the EU says there isn't one. Everyone who's honest knows there isn't one. So the backstop lasts until the UK come up with the technological solution.
EU calling the UK's bluff and if the UK government are so confident there is one, why should they worry about the backstop which is only an insurance policy that lasts until the technological solution is found.
After the Uk leave, if I ship a consignment of goods which are legal in the EU but are illegal in the UK, and ship (by truck and ferry )it from France to Cork to Belfast and then to Liverpool where will the inspection of the goods take place? And on the return journey I collect a consignment of goods which is legal in the UK but illegal in France?
Last edited:
Border in the Irish Sea whatever happens?
Problem is it's kinda hard for the UK to object on the basis that the magical solutions will never exist when they're currently arguing in favour of said magical solutions.
Everyone saying "just get on with it" or "this has gone on long enough" are like teenagers who keep saying they'll clean their room tomorrow. Dickhead, you can just ignore the truth all you want but the reality is that this shit needs to be sorted out eventually.
"We'll make amazing deals with other countries when we're gone" we can't make any now so how exactly is that going to work?
"We'll be in a stronger position to bargain" we'll be desperate to make deals, so no we won't be in a stronger position. We'll be in a very very bad position, with our bare arses stuck up to the sky begging to get the red hot poker shoved up it.
"We'll make amazing deals with other countries when we're gone" we can't make any now so how exactly is that going to work?
"We'll be in a stronger position to bargain" we'll be desperate to make deals, so no we won't be in a stronger position. We'll be in a very very bad position, with our bare arses stuck up to the sky begging to get the red hot poker shoved up it.
Well that's not what the EU initially proposed and they clearly stated that they wanted a definitive solution so there is no misrepresentation by the EU. Also there is also no palatable solutions for the UK, you forgot to mention them in your last sentence.
Even Boris’s proposals keep NI in the single market for goods, so we’re just talking about customs.
No solution (some mix of technology /trusted trader schemes / SME exemptions) is ever going to be 100% effective, or probably anywhere close to that in the short term. The question really is ‘how near 100% does it have to be for the backstop to terminate?’ And who gets to decide this threshold and certify it has been achieved.
Put another way, what level of smuggling are the EU and the UK willing to tolerate over the border?
I'd be happy if they smuggle Tayto crisps to Scotland, tbh.
NI can't be in two legal jurisdictions at the same time with different laws. The Uk Brexiters keep saying they want control of their borders -having an open border through Ireland to the UK is not controlling their borders, why not open up Dover/Calais - the reason is they are expecting Ireland to police their border for them.
So why did the Brexiteers campaign during the referendum that the Irish border was not an issue and saying otherwise was scaremongering? What else have we got to worry about? Maybe this Brexit thing is a shit idea after all.
Hunt and Johnson blaming the EU if we crash out with a No Deal (which is what they want but don't want to be blamed for it themselves) and Laura Kuenssberg is doing her duty as Tory Minister of Propaganda and acting like a good little lapdog.
Not a thing? Load of rubbish, of course its the default position whether we like it or not
Maybe if Johnson has to ask for an extension he should ask for one so the Northern Irish can have a referendum on whether they want to be in the customs union with a border in the Irish sea, or outside the customs union with a border between the North and South. One or the other. Everyone claims to know what the Northern Irish want, but how about actually asking them? Yes they voted marginally to remain, but that was voting as a part of the UK, I suggest this would move on from that result. Whatever the Northern Irish decide, so be it, the Brits, Eire, the EU, should accept their decision.
Last edited:
Some of the idiots that voted that way said it wasn't and it was presented as such, but anyone with a semblance of sense knew that it was all going to go to shit.
The problem for the EU is as follows:
- A no deal, no extension strategy makes sense; let the UK fall apart for a few months, then ram the initial withdrawal agreement with a few wording changes down their throats knowing they don't have much choice but to accept or fall apart further.
- However this strategy precludes a tory GE loss [whilst almost guaranteeing one], and a referendum to remain, which would be far preferable to all. Which would happen if the strategy was followed, as no deal impact during a campaigning period would possibly kill the tories, the lib dem and brexit party vote would be in tatter.
Which leads to the practical considerations of either allowing no deal and installing Corbyn, who may well fast track some sort of Norway+ agreement to end the chaos, or extending and hoping that the tories lose and we can get another referendum.
- A no deal, no extension strategy makes sense; let the UK fall apart for a few months, then ram the initial withdrawal agreement with a few wording changes down their throats knowing they don't have much choice but to accept or fall apart further.
- However this strategy precludes a tory GE loss [whilst almost guaranteeing one], and a referendum to remain, which would be far preferable to all. Which would happen if the strategy was followed, as no deal impact during a campaigning period would possibly kill the tories, the lib dem and brexit party vote would be in tatter.
Which leads to the practical considerations of either allowing no deal and installing Corbyn, who may well fast track some sort of Norway+ agreement to end the chaos, or extending and hoping that the tories lose and we can get another referendum.
But it wasn’t even talked about as a possibility or the ‘best’ version of Brexit like it is now.
I've thought this way for years its the sensible way to view Northern Irish politics in general.
That might be a way forward, it would be better than the current situation where the Tories seem to think the DUP speak for everyone in Northern Ireland.
Laura decides it's 'untested' despite the courts discussing this when the government promised they would send it and secondly all the prominent lawyers on Twitter shouting its proven with Padfield.
It's okay Laura we wouldn't expect you to do any research beyond Doms email.
She’s a good little lap dog to be fair to her.
One of the responses which perfectly encapsulates the Brexit mindset, perfectly apt for a cliff-edge Brexit
That's probably going to be the outcome, with written-in guarantees that NI remains firmly part of the UK in every other aspect and there will be no moves toward reunification. This is not as bad a scenario for NI as many think.
Not bad? It's amazing for NI. They'll be the bridge between the EU and the UK. They'll boom.
Exactly, a massive attraction for businesses that would want to relocate or start up there. The good folk of NI won't know themselves.
And ironically, the DUP will find that rather than moving towards reunification the desire to stay put will be strengthened because of that unique position
Brexit is a terrible idea. It always was. But we are where we are now.
That would violate the GFA. There are specific provisions about the process for unification in the treaty.
When they say ‘control our borders’, I think they just mean the ability to restrict who has the right to work legally in the UK.
I think Brexiters envision a future where the UK has zero (or in any event very low) customs tariffs on all imported goods, regardless of origin, and regulations lower than or equal to the EU. In this future, the UK would have no customs duties to collect from EU imports and no concerns about EU goods being substandard or illegal in Britain. So the Brexiteers perceive no real danger from goods being smuggled into Britain from Ireland. In a sense, they’re not worried about policing the border because they don’t think there will be anything they need to keep out or inspect.
The EU on the other hand has real concerns that Britain could undercut EU regulations and therefore smuggling goods into Ireland is a big concern from a safety, customs and market protection perspective. (See Merkel’s fear about Britain going down the Singapore route: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/11/angela-merkel-stresses-danger-of-britain-becoming-singapore-on-thames-no-deal)
The reason free-market Brexiters think they’ll win in the end is because they think there is a fundamental asymmetry of risk when it comes to trade.
Personally, I don’t agree with their logic - unilaterally eliminating all import tariffs would pretty quickly decimate UK producers and cause mass unemployment or a slashing of wages. I am just explaining their thought process.