But when the whole of the UK leaves the EU the UK will be under WTO rules not EU rules and WTO rules require a border. If the UK want to be like Norway then they're back in the SM but with border checks.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
But when the whole of the UK leaves the EU the UK will be under WTO rules not EU rules and WTO rules require a border. If the UK want to be like Norway then they're back in the SM but with border checks.
Oooh, they had my manor on the news 
Newsnight thinks Gove says no, and who can blame him, so who will May find to be Brexit secretary now? Either a complete unknown or a loon I presume.
There has never really been a brexit secretary. May and her advisers are doing the negotiating. Davis's plans were never even read, and Raab was a puppet.
Two have resigned and at least one has refused to do it, so I tend to agree.
She should pick Ken Clarke... Just to annoy the erg
Though it seems pretty pointless having one now
I agree Britain has responsibilities towards Ireland due to history and I do not want to see any border re-introduced (I am pro-Remain). But I would emphasise that there was very limited democracy in Britain until 1830 and no universal suffrage until after WWI. The idea that most British citizens had much say in the matter is a simplistic ahistorical viewpoint.
The UK only falls into WTO rules if there is no other deal agreed. Personally I'd favour modifying a modified EFTA deal. And I don't think that's a particularly wild idea.
The problem is that the EU has always assumed that every European country wants to join the EU and has negotiated every deal with them with that in mind. Britain is moving in the opposite direction and needs a unique deal.
This might sound like a daft question, but why can't they just say no borders in Ireland, or border inspections at all port terminals leaving Ireland as a whole?
No doubt this has probably been discussed or dismissed for legitimate reasons, but I don't see why they need a physical border between the two.
No doubt this has probably been discussed or dismissed for legitimate reasons, but I don't see why they need a physical border between the two.
There will no doubt be a FTA agreed at some stage, but it will still mean a border. To not have a border the UK has to be in the CU/SM - but we're going round in circles.There's a border between Norway and Sweden and a border between Switzerland-France/Germany/Italy. If the UK want to be an EFTA member firstly they have to be accepted and secondly if they are in the SM, the 4 freedoms will apply which sort of defeats the whole purpose of Brexit plus they still have the checks. The best they can hope for is a Canada type deal but it's awful in comparison to what they have now.
One thing is absolutely certain is that the EU will never compromise on the 4 freedoms that could endanger the EU itself.
This is true. I can't speak for every Brexiteer, but personally I'm rather big fan of the four freedoms so wouldn't mind if they got worked into an FTA. I think difference in opinion we have is whether a frictionless border can be negotiated or not. I believe an agreement can be reached without defaulting to the CU/SM, you don't.
What's the point of having a FTA enshrining the four freedoms?! Why don't we just remain and keep our veto and rebate
What's the point of having a FTA enshrining the four freedoms?! Why don't we just remain and keep our veto and rebate
Because I believe in economic openness but not political union. I've said this to you several times in this thread already.
The Star has its priorities straight:
Why do people care about the European Army? We and the whole of Europe really are already heavily reliant on a "foreign" alliance for our security called NATO.
It's remarkable that people continue to distort the NI issue. Simple fact is that if we don't opt for a hard border we're allowing freedom of movement between the UK and an EU country - there's no reason for the EU to give us an exemption to this. If not we implement a border. Any 'transitional' agreement is essentially permanent but aims to placate hardline Brexiteers who clearly don't buy it.
Serious question, why don't we just cancel Brexit?
The EU's economic agreements inherently rely on a political union for the most part. Again, there's no reason for the EU to renege on this for us exclusively.
Eh...do feck off.
Their headline for recent Brexit and parliamentary fiasco:The Star has its priorities straight:
"Inside: some politics!"
Because the Republic has an open border with 26 countries. Putting checks on everything leaving our border kind of defeats a lot of the advantages of it and as your finding out it takes a lot of infrastructure and money and delays to implement checks. So our basic position is going to be 'no thanks' for obvious reasons. Its unnecessary anway. Either your going to have free movement with the EU (so no need for checks) or not in which case you'll be checking everything that comes into your jurisdiction - so why have checks on stuff leaving ireland and a second set of checks when it reaches you? Its redundant.
Also the conservatives are in government with the DUP and they aren't keen on a border with the rest of the UK. It pretty much goes against more or less their only policy / reason for existing, so they're probably not going to be too cooperative on that front.
It’s seen as the next step in the creation of a European political superstate and the continued erosion of independent member state’s sovereignty and identity.
And that it would be logistical nightmare and general farce.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/united-we-fall-a-european-army-is-a-really-bad-idea/
Last edited:
You say that like it is a bad idea.
Getting all decision making away from the spoilt toddlers in Westminster can only be an improvement.
We have a process for this - they're called general elections where we get to choose who makes the decisions.
This current batch of political incompetents will meet their fate, and replacements installed, at the UK polling station.
The EU has loads of economic agreements with other nations that aren’t part of the political union. They don’t have to renege on anything.
An army where each 27 nation member states would have a veto on possible military action would work as a cohesive unit how?
Or lets say that the wars that would be fought are decided by a voting majority of the member states. You then have the probability that nation states would have to send their troops to die in wars against their subjects political will. How would that be good for the political cohesion of the EU?
I don't see how ceding more power to a larger, more confusing and more opaque political entity has democratic merit?
It doesn't but Merkel gave Trump a stern look so the EU is great now.
And these people think they could win another referendum.
An EU army with a majority vote will increase its chances of being used solely for defensive purpose. I don't think ruining countries on the capitalist behalf will get the necessary votes it needs
Irrespective of everything, the european continent needs to be able to defend itself without the help and influence of external countries who would put their own interests first
I think you make light of the complexities involved. Remember when Spain was bombed in 2004 by Al Qeada, they subsequently voted in a government that withdrew their troops from Afghanistan. That's just a small example of the political turmoil that could threaten the unity of the EU if troops of a nation state were tied up in action against the political will of its subjects. Troops dying in wars is a very emotive issue.
That said, I agree that the EU needs an army for the reasons you stated, added to Western unity being in its worst state in decades.
We are talking about a growing European political superstate though and there are, in my opinion, legitimate questions if that is a sustainable concept.
This. Surely someone at or near the top could look at it and go “look, this is not a good idea is it?”
There is something called politics cause we are a democracy.
No party is going to take the political risk of a second referendum.
Last edited:
Yes, I get that we voted for it, but the margins were very tight and no one really knew what they were voting for. Plus I don’t think people voted out “at all costs”. No one really voted for this
I heard a protestor on the radio yesterday say there'd be a civil war if she doesn't get her Brexit and rioting on the streets. Wonder how many of these folk there are out there.
I believe with every fibre of my being, that may is fecked.
I doubt there is that significant a level of active extremism. No doubt there'll be some right wing agitators looking to capitalise on people's disaffection and some minor disorder whipped up by the likes of Yaxley-Lennon but they are bit part players in this.
I hope so. If they were to "cancel Brexit" as discussed without a vote, there's potential for some serious backlash though.
I agree but the you have to take democracy with its problems. People don't like being told they don't know shit.
Imo, a 52-48 split should have been a Norway + mandate.
I heard May say a few times in recent days that freedom of movement is now over with this deal.
I dont see how. Anyone who has driven from Dublin to Belfast will surely see and know this. I mean Brexit was primarily about this - "controlling our borders" they said. So what is to stop someone from one of these countries they want to keep out from jumping on a plane within an EU country, flying to Dublin, driving to Belfast and jumping on a boat to Liverpool? From what I know there will be very little (if any) checks on them while doing so.
That does not remove free movement of people as I see it, people can still easily get into the UK if they really want and there is absolutely no control over the border. I would be curious to know just how many of the average people on the street in the mainland UK realise this.
Are they as advantageous as the SM, and do they require the 4 Freedoms?