Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Adebesi said:
The regulatory alignment one is a big stumbling once you get past woolly sentiment and try nailing it down. If we align with the EU it means when they change their rules we have to change with them, or we come out of alignment. Which is problematic #sovereignty.

I know you think we will just end up accepting that anyway, and maybe we will. But it is highly unsatisfactory, if you think about the reasons given for actually coming out. Im repeating myself but it just means when we come to the end of this process the people who wanted out wont actually be satisfied. Which means the EU remains a massive political issue for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's a big stumbling block and a difficult sell. But actually one that most remain MPs can see has too great advantages. I could see it being sold to UK with a UK body overseeing it. Where we diverge, it would open the need for bilateral agreements
JPRouve said:
The problem is that your list is just an accumulation of good sounding politicians formulas, only (5), (6) and (7) have an actual meaning. And they don't go with (4) which also doesn't go with (3). If (3) doesn't work then (2) doesn't exist and (1) goes against (7). All of that without even getting into anything actually deep and comprehensive, 18 months of PR and we are still in the most superficial phase imaginable.
Like said earlier by Rajma, CETA is the closest model but there are no open borders because Canada aren't full members of the single market and aren't members of Schengen.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously saying that a "deep and comprehensive free trade agreement" hasnt a real meaning?
 
rcoobc said:
Are you seriously saying that a "deep and comprehensive free trade agreement" hasnt a real meaning?
Click to expand...

It doesn't have a real meaning, there is no definition of it. Deep and comprehensive are by definition subjective terms. The only defined term here is free trade agreement, after that you have to define what deep and comprehensive means to you, in the case of CETA for example it means that tariffs and quotas are still applied on a range of goods, it means that borders are regulated and not open.
Of course, I'm not asking you to define those, that would be ridiculous. I'm just pointing out that we shouldn't use these type of terms in here because that's political nonsense meant to sound great to the public.
 
JPRouve said:
It doesn't have a real meaning, there is no definition of it. Deep and comprehensive are by definition subjective terms. The only defined term here is free trade agreement, after that you have to define what deep and comprehensive means to you, in the case of CETA for example it means that tariffs and quotas are still applied on a range of goods, it means that borders are regulated and not open.
Of course, I'm not asking you to define those, that would be ridiculous. I'm just pointing out that we shouldn't use these type of terms in here because that's political nonsense meant to sound great to the public.
Click to expand...
Its not political nonsense at all. Of course it needs to be defined, much more clearly than I could do using my phone to talk on a football forum.

But we have examples of previous DCFTA in Ukraine, Moldova, etc. In which we can start the discussion.

For example:

To better integrate with the EU market, Ukraine is harmonising many of its norms and standards in industrial and agricultural products. Ukraine is also aligning its legislation to the EU's in trade-related areas such as:

  • competition
  • public procurement
  • customs and trade facilitation
  • protection of intellectual property rights
  • trade-related energy aspects, including investment, transit and transport
Click to expand...

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/ukraine/index_en.htm

It may not have a picture perfect definition which can apply to all situations, but everyone knows what we are referring to when we talk about a "deep and comprehensive free trade agreement".

A free trade agreement with some regulatory and legislative alignment, and some subscriptions intuitive various services elements. Of which elements are going to be agreed, I couldn't possibly tell you
 
I think we all accept there will be tariffs, especially (more than quotas, which I dont see discussed as often, and I think there is an assumption - but I could be wrong - that we wont need quotas). Regulated borders too. There is some pie in the sky stuff about new technology systems that will allow that border control to be seamless, unintrusive and even invisible. Its easy to laugh at the notion that we will be able to implement this as-yet-uninvented technology at our borders within the next 3 years, but the fact it has been suggested at all is at least tacit acknowledgement that we will have regulated borders. Its just a case of defining what that regulation / cost will be. I think that is going to have to come from the EU side, really. The UK's opening gambit is "as low as possible" so maybe it is up to the EU to tell us how low it is prepared to go. And then we decide if we can live with it, or if WTO terms makes more sense.
 
Excuse my ignorance on the matter but why is it a big issue to have a hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland?
 
Silva said:
A hard border would break the good friday agreement.
Click to expand...

Agreements can be tweaked though. Both the Irish and the British are civilized people and surely they won't start killing one another on a frigging hard border especially if efforts are spent to facilitate movement of people and goods between ROI and Northern Ireland.
 
devilish said:
Agreements can be tweaked though. Both the Irish and the British are civilized people and surely they won't start killing one another on a frigging hard border especially if efforts are spent to facilitate movement of people and goods between ROI and Northern Ireland.
Click to expand...
Ah, how sweet. Someone give that poster a little flower. :angel:. Thanks for filling us in about ourselves. Bless.
 
Tincanalley said:
Ah, how sweet. Someone give that poster a little flower. :angel:. Thanks for filling us in about ourselves. Bless.
Click to expand...

thanks. You can spare the effort and stick it the flower up in your....

I am a Remainer. I think that Brexit is a Tory cat fight that had gone bad and will end up hurting us all. However, I sincerely fail to understand why a hard border is such a big issue.

As said I am not provoking anyone here. I am just asking a question.
 
devilish said:
thanks. You can spare the effort and stick it the flower up in your....

I am a Remainer. I think that Brexit is a Tory cat fight that had gone bad and will end up hurting us all. However, I sincerely fail to understand why a hard border is such a big issue.

As said I am not provoking anyone here. I am just asking a question.
Click to expand...
feck off, you ignorant clod. Inform yourself before coming on and offering me abuse. There are people who live along the border, on both sides whose lives are massively affected by this imposition. It has been the cause of pain and suffering in this country. Its a delicate matter which people have made great sacrifices to improve. I could not give a red shite what you are.
 
devilish said:
thanks. You can spare the effort and stick it the flower up in your....

I am a Remainer. I think that Brexit is a Tory cat fight that had gone bad and will end up hurting us all. However, I sincerely fail to understand why a hard border is such a big issue.

As said I am not provoking anyone here. I am just asking a question.
Click to expand...
I think the issue, put simply, is that the peace in Northern Ireland is extremely delicate and it wouldnt take much to set the troubles off again. Part of the settlement is the illusion of a united Ireland provided by the fact there is no border. It isnt a united Ireland, but anyone can travel between the north and the south at will, trade can occur between the two sides without impediment. The symbolism of a border in Ireland would be bad enough, but it would have practical implications as well. As I said its a very delicate and complex situation and there are better places to research this question than on here. Needless to say, whatever your or my level of understanding of it is, it IS a huge issue, EU Ministers say it will be the single hardest problem to resolve.
 
Tincanalley said:
feck off, you ignorant clod. Inform yourself before coming on and offering me abuse. There are people who live along the border, on both sides whose lives are massively affected by this imposition. It has been the cause of pain and suffering in this country. Its a delicate matter which people have made great sacrifices to improve. I could not give a red shite what you are.
Click to expand...

That what I was trying to do ie getting informed by asking questions. Stop hyperventilating and go back to the freezer else you risk to melt.
 
Adebesi said:
I think the issue, put simply, is that the peace in Northern Ireland is extremely delicate and it wouldnt take much to set the troubles off again. Part of the settlement is the illusion of a united Ireland provided by the fact there is no border. It isnt a united Ireland, but anyone can travel between the north and the south at will, trade can occur between the two sides without impediment. The symbolism of a border in Ireland would be bad enough, but it would have practical implications as well. As I said its a very delicate and complex situation and there are better places to research this question than on here. Needless to say, whatever your or my level of understanding of it is, it IS a huge issue, EU Ministers say it will be the single hardest problem to resolve.
Click to expand...

thanks for your reply
 
Adebesi said:
To be honest its been answered many times, its just what we ask for isnt actually an option.

To put it at its simplest, we want open borders for trade (especially in services - yes we know no major trade agreement has ever been signed that involves services, but we want to do the first, and we want to do it in record time) but closed borders for people. With no impediment to our ability to deals with other countries.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. And part of the problem is how this has been represented in general discourse. People always say they want less immigration in the UK, but whenever such a discussion comes up there's never a particularly developed discussion about what people are willing to sacrifice for that to be the case.

Obviously there are means through which we can reduce immigration, but in an open and globalised world ending freedom of movement with the EU is something that's likely to have some negative consequences. That's not unfair, but simply the way it is.

It'd be like the general populous coming out and making a demand like "we all want more money". It's fair for everyone to want that, yeah, but in politics it's not as simple as wanting something...because generally to achieve a political goal you're going to have to sacrifice something else in the process. I've no idea why this hasn't been brought up at all though, or why it's not been brought up enough. I presume the major parties are aware of the anti-immigration sentiment to the point wherein they're wary of stoking the fires by telling people they can't have something without losing something else in the process.
 
devilish said:
thanks. You can spare the effort and stick it the flower up in your....

I am a Remainer. I think that Brexit is a Tory cat fight that had gone bad and will end up hurting us all. However, I sincerely fail to understand why a hard border is such a big issue.

As said I am not provoking anyone here. I am just asking a question.
Click to expand...

I believe it'd violate the GFA, and if nothing else it provokes the Irish nationalists who'd rightfully argue it's a significant change to the current status quo within Northern Ireland that was agreed upon. All to satisfy the DUP, UKIP and hard-right Tories who've basically ignored that this is an issue at all.
 
Cheesy said:
I believe it'd violate the GFA, and if nothing else it provokes the Irish nationalists who'd rightfully argue it's a significant change to the current status quo within Northern Ireland that was agreed upon. All to satisfy the DUP, UKIP and hard-right Tories who've basically ignored that this is an issue at all.
Click to expand...

thanks mate

Mine was a geniune question about a subject I don't know enough about and which now have a big (and rightful) say on the future relationships between EU and UK.
 
Cheesy said:
Pretty much. And part of the problem is how this has been represented in general discourse. People always say they want less immigration in the UK, but whenever such a discussion comes up there's never a particularly developed discussion about what people are willing to sacrifice for that to be the case.

Obviously there are means through which we can reduce immigration, but in an open and globalised world ending freedom of movement with the EU is something that's likely to have some negative consequences. That's not unfair, but simply the way it is.

It'd be like the general populous coming out and making a demand like "we all want more money". It's fair for everyone to want that, yeah, but in politics it's not as simple as wanting something...because generally to achieve a political goal you're going to have to sacrifice something else in the process. I've no idea why this hasn't been brought up at all though, or why it's not been brought up enough. I presume the major parties are aware of the anti-immigration sentiment to the point wherein they're wary of stoking the fires by telling people they can't have something without losing something else in the process.
Click to expand...
I think that's fair, except they're probably more worried about losing votes than not stoking fires.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Yes I get the protest vote but I don't believe in fairies and unicorns nor self-harm.
The government held an election after the vote and still won. Yes they're in deep trouble but do you seriously think they give a toss whether some poor soul voted to leave the EU in protest hoping for a better life.
Do you even think they care whether the UK are in the EU or not, do you think Corbyn cares either?

The only thing they all care about is power and self-interest. The NHS , social care, infrastructure and all the rest people want improved will only happen if people are prepared to pay for it and no political party will ever get elected in the UK if they said they were going to provide much improved services but tax is going to be increased by 5p or 10p in the £1.
Click to expand...
To coin a favourite phrase here. Idiots voted for Cameron and his ref promise, In your opinion idiots voted to leave the EU, the same idiots voted tories back in. I can only assume Tory voters are the real idiots here, no-one else. "Things are going to shit, you know what, I'm going to vote for the same shit". Does that sound like someone with a sane mind Paul? Honestly?
 
devilish said:
Agreements can be tweaked though. Both the Irish and the British are civilized people and surely they won't start killing one another on a frigging hard border especially if efforts are spent to facilitate movement of people and goods between ROI and Northern Ireland.
Click to expand...

You’re talking about a region where people regularly demand the right to march through the areas of their political opponents beating drums and waving flags commemorating how their ancestors slaughtered them in one bloody battle or another. Within living memory the British army was based there in armored compounds and carrying out patrols that were frequently shot at and blown up by bombs. A huge amount of political capital and compromise went into trying to negotiate a peace deal that was acceptable to two sides who had spent decades hating and murdering each other.

This is not a place where you can stick up some barriers and expect people will just be fine with it.
 
Kentonio said:
You’re talking about a region where people regularly demand the right to march through the areas of their political opponents beating drums and waving flags commemorating how their ancestors slaughtered them in one bloody battle or another. Within living memory the British army was based there in armored compounds and carrying out patrols that were frequently shot at and blown up by bombs. A huge amount of political capital and compromise went into trying to negotiate a peace deal that was acceptable to two sides who had spent decades hating and murdering each other.

This is not a place where you can stick up some barriers and expect people will just be fine with it.
Click to expand...

That's why I don't understand the Good Friday agreement, the agreement is only possible within the EU Framework. How can you create in 1999 an agreement as important as the GF within a framework that you don't really control and could change very easily. The incompetence is staggering from all sides, the EU, the UK, ROI and NI.
 
Stanley Road said:
To coin a favourite phrase here. Idiots voted for Cameron and his ref promise, In your opinion idiots voted to leave the EU, the same idiots voted tories back in. I can only assume Tory voters are the real idiots here, no-one else. "Things are going to shit, you know what, I'm going to vote for the same shit". Does that sound like someone with a sane mind Paul? Honestly?
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree with you, other than the fact that all the people I know who voted for Brexit were traditional Labour voters prior to 2015 and again voted Tory in 2017 and having previously voted for Blair in the past , thinking he was the best thing since sliced bread when I couldn't stand him, now think he's the devil incarnate.
Then you have more than half the Tory MPs in favour of Remain and the leader of the opposition clearly in favour of Leave.
This is way beyond traditional Tory/Labour party politics.
 
JPRouve said:
That's why I don't understand the Good Friday agreement, the agreement is only possible within the EU Framework. How can you create in 1999 an agreement as important as the GF within a framework that you don't really control and could change very easily. The incompetence is staggering from all sides, the EU, the UK, ROI and NI.
Click to expand...

It was never even seriously considered that the situation of the UK being in the EU could change. No-one was thinking about this kind of crap back then. They were just trying to construct an incredibly delicate agreement to stop people killing each other and did so within the framework that made sense at the time. It was a momumental achievement, and about as far from incompetent as you can get. The incompetence is purely recent.
 
Kentonio said:
It was never even seriously considered that the situation of the UK being in the EU could change. No-one was thinking about this kind of crap back then. They were just trying to construct an incredibly delicate agreement to stop people killing each other and did so within the framework that made sense at the time. It was a momumental achievement, and about as far from incompetent as you can get. The incompetence is purely recent.
Click to expand...

The incompetence was then and now. You can't base a contract on a framework that can be unilaterally altered by each co-signatories without providing an alternative in case of alteration, it's not as if we were talking about something impossible, I can understand that it was seen as unlikely but you don't create contracts around unlikeliness, you need to protect yourself from foreseeable scenari.
And it doesn't take away the fact that it was indeed a monumental achievement from a political and social standpoint, legally it's a butchered job.
 
JPRouve said:
The incompetence was then and now. You can't base a contract on a framework that can be unilaterally altered by each co-signatories without providing an alternative in case of alteration, it's not as if we were talking about something impossible, I can understand that it was seen as unlikely but you don't create contracts around unlikeliness, you need to protect yourself from foreseeable scenari.
And it doesn't take away the fact that it was indeed a monumental achievement from a political and social standpoint, legally it's a butchered job.
Click to expand...

Sorry but this is nonsense. They were negotiating one of the most delicate issues in modern British history, and even raising the idea of possible constitutional changes would have probably caused half the participants to lose their fecking minds. They did the best they could do at the time, and even then there were many people left angry and frustrated on both sides. Calling it incompetent is insulting to what was a remarkable achievement.
 
JPRouve said:
That's why I don't understand the Good Friday agreement, the agreement is only possible within the EU Framework. How can you create in 1999 an agreement as important as the GF within a framework that you don't really control and could change very easily. The incompetence is staggering from all sides, the EU, the UK, ROI and NI.
Click to expand...

Nah, I think that's immensely unfair. You're talking about the endpoint of decades of negotiation, compromise and bloodshed. It took immense effort to reach even that delicate balance within the EU framework as it was literally a compromise that many thought impossible. Expecting them to futureproof against the then seemingly remote possibility of the UK leaving the EU is a bit much and rather unrealistic. Especially given that dealing with the possibility of the UK leaving the EU without Ireland would have in itself likely spoiled the negotiations as a whole.
 
Last edited:
sullydnl said:
Nah, I think that's immensely unfair. You're talking about the endpoint of decades of negotiation, compromise and bloodshed. It took immense effort to reach even that delicate balance within the EU framework as it was literally a compromise that many thought impossible. Expecting them to futureproof against the then seemingly remote possibility of the UK leaving the EU is a bit much and rather unrealistic. Especially given that dealing with the possibility of the UK leaving the EU without Ireland would have in itself likely spoiled the negotiations as a whole.
Click to expand...

Yeah, considering what'd happened in Ireland it was remarkable they managed to get to a point where the DUP and SF could (to an extent) at least fathom the idea of working together.

Government seem hell-bent on disrupting the current settlement at the moment though, which isn't particularly reassuring.
 
sullydnl said:
Nah, I think that's immensely unfair. You're talking about the endpoint of decades of negotiation, compromise and bloodshed. It took immense effort to reach even that delicate balance within the EU framework as it was literally a compromise that many thought impossible. Expecting them to futureproof against the then seemingly remote possibility of the UK leaving the EU is a bit much and rather unrealistic. Especially given that dealing with the possibility of the UK leaving the EU without Ireland would have in itself likely spoiled the negotiations as a whole.
Click to expand...

I understand that I'm harsh but I'm right too. Just read the last part of the agreement, named Agreement Between the Government of the United Kindgom and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland, that part is totally in favor of the non Irish part of the agreement, that's where the people of the Island of Ireland should have had a protection against the potential actions of the Government of the United Kingdom and Ireland. Northern Ireland only have a say in case of a United Ireland proposal but they have no say on changes regarding the legal framework of the Good Friday agreement, the narrowed basis for self determination is purposefully narrowed and it goes against the general concept of self-determination because as of today NI self-determined that they wanted to remain in the EU which is the legal framework for the Good Friday agreement.

Now, I understand your and @Kentonio's positions, I know that I'm being harsh when we take into account the context but personally I find the all thing infuriating because something is wrong here.
 
JPRouve said:
I understand that I'm harsh but I'm right too. Just read the last part of the agreement, named Agreement Between the Government of the United Kindgom and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland, that part is totally in favor of the non Irish part of the agreement, that's where the people of the Island of Ireland should have had a protection against the potential actions of the Government of the United Kingdom and Ireland. Northern Ireland only have a say in case of a United Ireland proposal but they have no say on changes regarding the legal framework of the Good Friday agreement, the narrowed basis for self determination is purposefully narrowed and it goes against the general concept of self-determination because as of today NI self-determined that they wanted to remain in the EU which is the legal framework for the Good Friday agreement.

Now, I understand your and @Kentonio's positions, I know that I'm being harsh when we take into account the context but personally I find the all thing infuriating because something is wrong here.
Click to expand...

In practical terms what do you think they could have actually done differently though?
 
sullydnl said:
In practical terms what do you think they could have actually done differently though?
Click to expand...

I will let you be the judge on the feasibility:

- First stipulate clearly that the open border is only possible because of the EU framework and the fact that the entirety of Ireland was at the time part of a common territory and that if one of the two parties were to leave the EU, the territory would de facto be separated which would make the Good Friday agreement void.
- Secondly, knowing that and considering the right of self-determination enjoyed by the people of the Island of Ireland, any act of law from the two governments that could alter the goals and ambitions of the Good Friday agreement will require the approval of a majority of the people from the Republic of Ireland and/or Northern Ireland.

Now the second point is not easy for the UK, that right should maybe be extended to all countries. Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England would have to reach separately a simple majority in order for example to leave or join the EU/NAFTA. If you are in that type of scenario, Northern Ireland has no way to complain about the current situation because it would only be possible because the majority of people in Northern Ireland made that choice.
 
LuisNaniencia said:
:lol: I can appreciate this. I'm just fed up of people just saying stuff with no rhyme or reason behind it.
Click to expand...
Yes, me too, and we're not even the ones who have to deal with them. Those treasury officials (who i'm sure are at the very top of their profession) and loads of civil servants must be fuming...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.