It commits to no hard border in Ireland and no regulatory diverge of NI to the rest of the country. Aka, no regulatory difference between the UK/Republic of Ireland (the EU).
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
That's why there's a + there
It commits to no hard border on the proviso the UK govt come up with a workable and viable solution to avoiding it. Nothing to suggest anyone has that. This is what makes Corbyn's Brexit just as pie in the sky as May's. Both rely on the magical "somehow", whereby we "somehow" resolve the Northern Ireland issue and hey presto we'll have an agreement.
Unless party polling falls to the point where there's a vote of no confidence against him and his government gets ousted. Something that'll be even more likely if he doesn't have a majority and has to work alongside the Lib Dems or SNP.
Voter fear over immigration has been fostered by the DM and the like for decades, and isn't going to disappear after Brexit. If Corbyn's intention is to essentially lie to people at the moment and placate and promise to address those fears over immigration, before doing nothing at all when he's actually elected, then he'll probably piss of a lot of people.
There's no such provisions in the agreement, that is a UK cabinet issue and will be rejected by the EU when they propose maxfac. At which point the UK will have to choose between Norway+ and no deal. And the UK can't choose no deal.
So you're still in the EU with no say, brilliant but I distinctly remember him saying he wants to leave the CU and SM.
You didn't answer me last time, will you answer this time.
Anybody there, if you're not in the CU and SM you're not at the party.
That'll be a good thing for Labour. They'll soak up SNP and LD votes like the last coalition did.
That's no guarantee and would depend on a myriad of factors pertaining to the performance of his government. The last time out the Tories gained from a coalition, but the Lib Dems were seen as having betrayed their voters and Cameron's government weren't particularly disliked considering they were the incumbent one. I'm talking here if a Corbyn government starts to poll in shockingly low figures for a current government because pro-Brexit Labour voters feel betrayed and lied to because their version of Brexit was ignored by someone who'd said he would implement it.
But it doesn't commit to no hard border in Ireland at all. Phase 1 agreement simply says:
"The United Kingdom also recalls its commitment to the avoidance of a hard border, including any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls."
"The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border."
Everyone wants to avoid a hard border, but there is not an agreement on how to do so. You appear to be under the impression a lack of agreement on what can solve the border issue will be the default position of no hard border, which doesn't make sense. If no agreement on the Irish border will result in their not being a hard border then what exactly is the point of discussions on the subject if the breakdown of talks would instantly resolve it?
What a joke.
By certain demographics. Others went to the Tories, the same will happen in another coalition, but with different demographics.
That's the stage 2 wording, recall meaning it committed to those things in stage 1.
Not a guarantee by any means.
And a coalition was one possibility I was talking about. It's hypothetical Labour could end up in a majority. And while it may be for their short-term gain currently, I'm not sure how it'll factor in over the long-term. If Corbyn and Labour want to build a lasting socialist movement, then being seen as betraying a significant portion of their voters the moment they step into office by staying in the CU isn't going to bode well for them.
But this still doesn't make sense. All phase one says on the border issue is, effectively, 'be nice if..'.
Besides it still doesn't explain why you think no deal on everything, including the Irish border issue, will result in the default position of there being no hard border in Ireland. This is illogical.
Silva's gone into Corbyn's version of Cake and Eat it mode.
49. The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the allisland economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
50. In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland. In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.
guarantee and be nice if aren't the same
So from 4 different posters over the past week or so ,who gave up the ghost I'll await the answers to:
1. How do you have a Norway style deal without being in the CU/SM .
2. What are the 5 benefits of having a Norway style deal
3. What are the benefits of leaving the EU other than not imposing tariffs on Japanese cars, which is already agreed but won't be when the UK leave.
4. Who would Stanley have voted for in the 2015 GE.
Weird.
1. How do you have a Norway style deal without being in the CU/SM .
2. What are the 5 benefits of having a Norway style deal
3. What are the benefits of leaving the EU other than not imposing tariffs on Japanese cars, which is already agreed but won't be when the UK leave.
4. Who would Stanley have voted for in the 2015 GE.
Weird.
Norway isn't the customs union
Is freedom of labour the same as freedom of movement btw? What about services?
Freedom of movement likely wouldn't end no matter the Brexit, we're not going to shoot ourselves in the foot twice by making people get tourist visas, freedom of labour means EU nationals have the right to work here without a workers visa but has little to do with travel arrangements as we're not in Schengen. Services wouldn't be required to uphold the Good Friday agreement, which is the reason we have to go with Norway+ in the first place (you don't check services at borders), so idk what happens there, there's no indication which way that goes.
Last edited:
It's in the Single Market and the 4 freedoms apply . You mean Jeremy's hoping to negotiate his own deals.
By the way the NI border extract you quoted only applies to NI.
Yes, the freedoms will apply. That's why the far right of the conservative party is throwing a fit and wants a no deal exit.
read it again
But Corbyn said he would leave the Single Market. Doesn't add up.
And if it's not in the custom's union it has to have a border with custom's checks.
See where we're going with this.
Meant to say the EU only accept that NI is covered by the backstop (EU backstop) - the EU are not accepting the UK version.
Last edited:
These are your comments about Corbyn from the first page of this thread and you were right!
The 2017 election proved that wrong. If it wasn't for a surprise tory surge in Scotland he'd be PM.
In the event that he had become PM in 2017 where would the UK be now in the negotiations considering that his current plan couldn't work for the UK any more than the Tories' plan could.
Where would the UK should there be any other leader PM Brexit? Idk, invent a parallel universe machine and find out.
Good post.As long as we operate under neoliberalism, the wins for nominally left-wing parties aren't wins - they're ways to stop the bleeding temporarily even as the monster on the other side grows.
Your next post, about the privilege of sitting out:
So that entire rant about Harambe and Stein and privilege - how d'you square that view of history with basic facts about voters?
What about looking at the policies of the Obama presidency, in handling the financial crisis: https://jacobinmag.com/2017/12/obama-foreclosure-crisis-wealth-inequality
Win!
Even with the Brexit Leave campaign which was of course a racist and xenophobic there was a surprising level of anti EU vote in the British Asian vote.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/02/20/the-british-asian-vote-for-brexit-contains-a-few-surprises/
It's far more complicated than Seth and anarchist friends not taking part.
I image it's the same universe where Paul vote for Cameron in 2015 doesn't lead to a referendum that brings the UK out the EU.
Have a leader, from whichever party, who is sensible and rational and understands how the EU works and who stops wasting time posturing trying to boost his /her own career instead of the country's future, and makes a definitive decision.
But I didn't vote for Cameron , that's in Stanley's universe.
Ah the multi universe of redcafe is a confusing one.
Not really. It's just that all you've got is trying to make out that who people voted for previously has any relation to anything whatsoever, clearly angling to suggest Paul had no right to criticise Brexit because of how you thought he voted, same as the "didn't you vote Lib Dem?" aimed at me which apparently means I'm not allowed an opinion on the matter either.
It's not confusing, it's just shit and all you have.
It's not confusing, it's just shit and all you have.
Stans universe is the most legit so far
I've never said you can't have a opinion(Although if any mods are listening if I could have that type of power it would be great, thanks). Just that your always moaning about how Labour are unelectable yet at the same time your actively voting against them getting into power. I would take the moaning more seriously if you were like one of the progress lot who for some reason still vote Labour.
But as I said yesterday, it didn't happen and if I had voted Tory and were still living in one the safest Tory seats in the country, it would have made no difference.
I would have made a considered decision , probably I would have because I would have known what Corbyn was like but Labour had never ever won the seat where I lived. If I'd have thought about it and considered that there was a risk maybe I wouldn't. Who knows?
I didn't vote for him in 2010 either, I wasn't living in the UK for either of the elections.
You know something is wrong when you are on Stan's side.
Because Britain is already a signatory and legislatively bound by the EEA.
www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement/eea-basic-features
www.ft.com/content/16b50be8-161c-38d3-83b8-14b04faa9580
The only problem with the EEA is its essentially committing to movement of goods, persons, services and capital. All of which are a "softer" brexit. I wonder how Switzerland controls migration? Surely theres something in that.
It also makes Britain free to seek trade agreements on its own.
Theres also a cost to Britain, but it might work for a few years until theres a GE and a government gets time to undo 50 years of legislation and agreements.
Switzerland abides to FOM.
Also this might help you understand that what you're suggesting is not as easy as you think
http://lawyersforbritain.org/brexit...rt-6-can-we-stay-in-the-eea-without-agreement
Last edited:
But dont you have to apply to Switzerland if you want to move there?
Thanks will have a read.
Edit: so the work that needs to be done is around defining the "personality" of the UK post exit so that the "machinery" of the EEA still applies? (if thats what Britain wants for the near future)
As far as requiring the approval of the member states, thats still a requirement for any agreement on exit, and will still require writing legislation defining the relationship post exit. Approval (not sure if ratification is the right way to describe it) is still required from all EU states.
So it cant be any harder than whats happening now.
The purpose of getting into / onto the EEA is just buying time to work out a way to handle Brexit properly without just crashing out with no deal whatsoever.
I assumed that the EEA was an option regardless, obviously not.
Last edited: