The problem, of course, is that this Government is focused on what it would need to do to keep Jacob Rees-Mogg happy, rather than what's in the country's best interests. Leaving the EU but staying in the CU is the blindingly obvious solution to the whole mess.
Bingo! The government has been so busy "negotiating" in its echo chamber it hasn't considered the interests of those affected by this sorry mess.
The question that Tory cheerleaders for lunacy refuse to answer - why have you turned your backs on free trade? Why are you trying to impose massive costs on British business? Why are you tell I g industry that it doesn't know what it's talking about when talking about the impacts of hard Brexit on their own industry?
As I said, political ELE. Once the Tories stop representing business and free trade, all they are left with is representing the interests of big capital - the bankers and hedge fund managers who own the party via their donations. Once the pretence of backing work has gone how will the party win the votes of working people which it needs for government? Hard to say "don't vote Labour they will bring about economic ruin" when you yourselves have just brought about economic ruin.
They can get away with it because the opposition doesn't press them on those questions.
This fascination with WW2, the misunderstanding that neutrality does not equate to actively supporting one side, and the myths around WW2 generally is, I always feel, of the key reasons we’re wholly in the shit now.
Excellent piece, Cyclefree. Brexit is certainly messy, divisive and inward looking, do maybe some parallels with the Ireland of mid 20th century.
Ireland is damaged by Brexit and is prepared to play hardball using the leverage afforded to it by membership of the EU, ironically, against a United Kingdom diminished by the loss of it.
"There is no word for schadenfraude in Gaelic" was a challenge I had to take, so have come up with àgh millteach (Scots Gaelic) which does seem to mean schadenfreude. Take that as you will.
I was sure that PB being what it is, someone would tell me there was such a word and what it was. Thank you!
So let me get this right. We can't start to talk about a free trade deal until we agree on no hard border, but we can't agree on no hard border until we have a free trade deal.
And any border on the Irish side is the fault of the British.
ROI backing for Germany during WWII was the fault of the British too no doubt...
Come on everyone. This Irish question is just the EU playing a game - they have told the Irish to bring this up. It is all part of their scheme to try to lock the UK into following EU regulations after Brexit, which will obviously be the first issue in trade talks.
The EU have said that we either accept Norway or CETA - fine, we will take CETA. But the problem is that the CETA FTA (like all FTAs) is not built on following someone else's regulations, it is built on mutual acceptance of each others regulations.
The EU are terrified (quite rightly) that the UK will diverge and become more competitive and want to find some excuse to insist on the UK using the EU's regulatory regime after Brexit.
All this Irish stuff is their way of getting there. They want to bully the UK into accepting EU regulations so that we can't really leave the CU and SM even though we won't get the benefits.
The Irish need to be told very bluntly to get stuffed. There is going to be a border between NI and ROI whatever they do. They need to focus on how to make that border as unobtrusive as possible, but it is going to exist. Norway and Sweden manage it, the Irish need to start proper discussions rather than just acting as the EU Commissions little bitch.
Completely agree. History teaches everyone that the EU is a cynical nasty bunch who have unbending belief in their righteousness. Nobody is allowed to leave, ever, especially one who's their favourite piggy bank.
Every day with them exposes how correct the brexit vote was.
A genuine question. Is resuming the civil war in Ireland and its associated costs (principally human costs, also the £ required for policing and security) an acceptable price to pay for creating a more competitive country that is free from the EU?
Frankly that's the most offensive view from so many commentators.
The people of Ireland are not going to revert to a state of civil war because of a border.
They are going to do what they have always done - ignore the damn thing. Any one who argues elsewise - including Varakhar - is playing politics with peace
At a series of meetings in 17–26 June 1940, during and after the Battle of France, British envoy Malcolm MacDonald brought a proposal to end the partition of Ireland and offered a solemn undertaking to accept "the principle of a United Ireland" if Ireland would abandon its neutrality and immediately join the war against Germany and Italy.
See Britain is prepared to sacrifice Northern Ireland for the greater good, we can do it again.
Given he used the word “neutrality” it seems clear he wasn’t serious...
The question that Tory cheerleaders for lunacy refuse to answer - why have you turned your backs on free trade? Why are you trying to impose massive costs on British business? Why are you tell I g industry that it doesn't know what it's talking about when talking about the impacts of hard Brexit on their own industry?
As I said, political ELE. Once the Tories stop representing business and free trade, all they are left with is representing the interests of big capital - the bankers and hedge fund managers who own the party via their donations. Once the pretence of backing work has gone how will the party win the votes of working people which it needs for government? Hard to say "don't vote Labour they will bring about economic ruin" when you yourselves have just brought about economic ruin.
You're right, Brexit is a massive tax on business.
Only because business is to lazy and ignorant to understand the genius of Brexit....
This fascination with WW2, the misunderstanding that neutrality does not equate to actively supporting one side, and the myths around WW2 generally is, I always feel, of the key reasons we’re wholly in the shit now.
Brexit has certainly exposed the foetid underbelly of British nationalism - expressed as nostalgic pig-headedness and the unshakeable belief that the world owes us a living.
It does not.
Brexit turns the clock back not to better times, but to worse ones. The sick man of Europe, redux.
On paper, the Irish issue looks unsolvable. "Solutions" like carving out NI as a chunk from the UK, or EIRE joining the UK, or NI joining EIRE, as politically impossible as they are silly.
Both the EU and the UK are going to have to agree a constructive ambiguity regarding the NI land border, and agree to turn a blind eye to several things, if it is going to work.
That will require maturity, foresight and intelligence on both sides.
The question that Tory cheerleaders for lunacy refuse to answer - why have you turned your backs on free trade? Why are you trying to impose massive costs on British business? Why are you tell I g industry that it doesn't know what it's talking about when talking about the impacts of hard Brexit on their own industry?
As I said, political ELE. Once the Tories stop representing business and free trade, all they are left with is representing the interests of big capital - the bankers and hedge fund managers who own the party via their donations. Once the pretence of backing work has gone how will the party win the votes of working people which it needs for government? Hard to say "don't vote Labour they will bring about economic ruin" when you yourselves have just brought about economic ruin.
You're right, Brexit is a massive tax on business.
Only because business is to lazy and ignorant to understand the genius of Brexit....
So let me get this right. We can't start to talk about a free trade deal until we agree on no hard border, but we can't agree on no hard border until we have a free trade deal.
And any border on the Irish side is the fault of the British.
ROI backing for Germany during WWII was the fault of the British too no doubt...
Fake history now..
De Valera even sent a notice of commiserations to the German ambassador when Hitler died.
At a series of meetings in 17–26 June 1940, during and after the Battle of France, British envoy Malcolm MacDonald brought a proposal to end the partition of Ireland and offered a solemn undertaking to accept "the principle of a United Ireland" if Ireland would abandon its neutrality and immediately join the war against Germany and Italy.
See Britain is prepared to sacrifice Northern Ireland for the greater good, we can do it again.
Given he used the word “neutrality” it seems clear he wasn’t serious...
Ireland was in no position to join the war. It was a silly discussion.
Article waffling on the history of how awful the Uk has behaved surprisingly doesn’t mention Dublin’s overt support for the Germans during WWII. Their behaviour during the 70s and 80s towards the terrorist gangster mobs should be to their eternal shame too.
Strong sense of deja vu for this latest tiff. The ROI are not a home nation and aren’t our friends.
Please do not scare the snowflakes with historical facts. They - probably - believe in 'Harry Potter'.
Damian Green, who is battling for his political survival after pornography was found on his parliamentary computers, faces being dragged through the courts by one of Britain’s most senior former police officers.
The first secretary of state accused Bob Quick, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police, of circulating “false” information when the pornography claims were first reported three weeks ago in The Sunday Times. Green described Quick as “tainted”, “discredited” and “untrustworthy”.
The reports of pornography being found on a computer — which Green suggested had not been published by any other newspaper because they were “false” — were subsequently confirmed by Sir Paul Stephenson, the former Metropolitan police commissioner.
Green then appeared to drop his claim that reports of pornography being found were false and completely untrue. This weekend, a spokesman said Green had never “watched or put pornography on the computer taken from his office”.
It is understood Quick has instructed a London legal firm about a statement issued by Green on Twitter on Saturday November 4 in response to the claims. Quick intends to seek an apology and a retraction for the attack on his career and reputation. If the apology and retraction are not forthcoming, he is likely to seek redress in the courts.
This fascination with WW2, the misunderstanding that neutrality does not equate to actively supporting one side, and the myths around WW2 generally is, I always feel, of the key reasons we’re wholly in the shit now.
Another reason is that we don’t study recent history and think of the ROI as some sort of friendly half in half out of the Uk country that isn’t invariably antagonistic towards the Uk deserves our support in World Cups etc.
They are just as much a foreign country now as France or Belgium.
So let me get this right. We can't start to talk about a free trade deal until we agree on no hard border, but we can't agree on no hard border until we have a free trade deal.
And any border on the Irish side is the fault of the British.
Of course - we are the ones changing the status quo.
The EU are planning to change the Treaty of Utrecht (c.f. Gibraltar). Next time you speak think about this.
Damian Green, who is battling for his political survival after pornography was found on his parliamentary computers, faces being dragged through the courts by one of Britain’s most senior former police officers.
The first secretary of state accused Bob Quick, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police, of circulating “false” information when the pornography claims were first reported three weeks ago in The Sunday Times. Green described Quick as “tainted”, “discredited” and “untrustworthy”.
The reports of pornography being found on a computer — which Green suggested had not been published by any other newspaper because they were “false” — were subsequently confirmed by Sir Paul Stephenson, the former Metropolitan police commissioner.
Green then appeared to drop his claim that reports of pornography being found were false and completely untrue. This weekend, a spokesman said Green had never “watched or put pornography on the computer taken from his office”.
It is understood Quick has instructed a London legal firm about a statement issued by Green on Twitter on Saturday November 4 in response to the claims. Quick intends to seek an apology and a retraction for the attack on his career and reputation. If the apology and retraction are not forthcoming, he is likely to seek redress in the courts.
Article waffling on the history of how awful the Uk has behaved surprisingly doesn’t mention Dublin’s overt support for the Germans during WWII. Their behaviour during the 70s and 80s towards the terrorist gangster mobs should be to their eternal shame too.
Strong sense of deja vu for this latest tiff. The ROI are not a home nation and aren’t our friends.
Well, I could have mentioned all those Irishmen (like my own father and great-uncle) who fought for the Allies in both world wars and British support for various unionist terror organizations and the army shooting dead 13 innocent civilians for demanding the rights that British citizens on the mainland took for granted.
But that would have made the header too long.
And the point is that it is precisely because Ireland remembers that it does not want changes which risk the peace which has been hard-won.
It has often been said that the Irish remember too much. But the Enhlish should I think remember a little more.
Come on everyone. This Irish question is just the EU playing a game - they have told the Irish to bring this up. It is all part of their scheme to try to lock the UK into following EU regulations after Brexit, which will obviously be the first issue in trade talks.
The EU have said that we either accept Norway or CETA - fine, we will take CETA. But the problem is that the CETA FTA (like all FTAs) is not built on following someone else's regulations, it is built on mutual acceptance of each others regulations.
The EU are terrified (quite rightly) that the UK will diverge and become more competitive and want to find some excuse to insist on the UK using the EU's regulatory regime after Brexit.
All this Irish stuff is their way of getting there. They want to bully the UK into accepting EU regulations so that we can't really leave the CU and SM even though we won't get the benefits.
The Irish need to be told very bluntly to get stuffed. There is going to be a border between NI and ROI whatever they do. They need to focus on how to make that border as unobtrusive as possible, but it is going to exist. Norway and Sweden manage it, the Irish need to start proper discussions rather than just acting as the EU Commissions little bitch.
Never attribute to malice, that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
There is a solution - broadly what was proposed by the UK although I am sure that there are technical improvements that can be made.
If Ireland want to be disruptive so be it.
The British "solution" is essentially, deal with it, Ireland. It's long on "imaginative ways" Needless to say, the British expect the other side to be imaginative, not them.
As I mention below, I think a way out of the impasse is for the Irish to call the UK's bluff. Demonstrate how every item crossing the unmanned border will be EU compliant. You have the transition period to to come up with a solution and demonstrate that it works. This would take the sting out of the tail.
I think it's likely we'll stay in the Customs Union, but we're not in the place yet where everyone realises Brexit will entirely be an exercise in damage limitation. The Irish should give it time.
Question for rugby watchers, has there been a time since Gatland became the Wales coach that they haven't been "developing" or "rebuilding"? It seems like the Welshies I know always trot out this same pile of rubbish every time they look shit, which they do.
A perceptive article on one of the key issues regarding Brexit. Something will have to give to square the circle. The only realistic options are a soft Brexit or a hard border along the Irish Sea. A hard border across Ulster would be very problematic; County Donegal in particular requires easy access to the city of Derry.
If the Mayfly, supported by the 3 Brexiteer clowns and others, insists on a hard Brexit outside the CU/FM, a plebiscite in the 6 counties on Irish re-unification might clarify the preference of the population most affected between a hard border across Ulster and one along the Irish Sea.
A border poll would see the Unionists win. As it would in Scotland.
I don't understand why those who love the EU can't understand that people have more affiliation to the UK than their pet project.
They think the UK should suffer biblical punishments for having the temerity to leave the EU.
I love the way that hardline remainers refer to "Brexiteers" as if they were a tiny minority of villainous plotters, and not 52% of the voters, the majority of the British people.
So let me get this right. We can't start to talk about a free trade deal until we agree on no hard border, but we can't agree on no hard border until we have a free trade deal.
And any border on the Irish side is the fault of the British.
Of course - we are the ones changing the status quo.
The EU are planning to change the Treaty of Utrecht (c.f. Gibraltar). Next time you speak think about this.
At a series of meetings in 17–26 June 1940, during and after the Battle of France, British envoy Malcolm MacDonald brought a proposal to end the partition of Ireland and offered a solemn undertaking to accept "the principle of a United Ireland" if Ireland would abandon its neutrality and immediately join the war against Germany and Italy.
See Britain is prepared to sacrifice Northern Ireland for the greater good, we can do it again.
Given he used the word “neutrality” it seems clear he wasn’t serious...
Ireland was in no position to join the war. It was a silly discussion.
I’d recommend that people read That Neutral Isle by Clair Willis for a better understanding of Ireland in WW2. Some might learn something.
Damian Green, who is battling for his political survival after pornography was found on his parliamentary computers, faces being dragged through the courts by one of Britain’s most senior former police officers.
The first secretary of state accused Bob Quick, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police, of circulating “false” information when the pornography claims were first reported three weeks ago in The Sunday Times. Green described Quick as “tainted”, “discredited” and “untrustworthy”.
The reports of pornography being found on a computer — which Green suggested had not been published by any other newspaper because they were “false” — were subsequently confirmed by Sir Paul Stephenson, the former Metropolitan police commissioner.
Green then appeared to drop his claim that reports of pornography being found were false and completely untrue. This weekend, a spokesman said Green had never “watched or put pornography on the computer taken from his office”.
It is understood Quick has instructed a London legal firm about a statement issued by Green on Twitter on Saturday November 4 in response to the claims. Quick intends to seek an apology and a retraction for the attack on his career and reputation. If the apology and retraction are not forthcoming, he is likely to seek redress in the courts.
Article waffling on the history of how awful the Uk has behaved surprisingly doesn’t mention Dublin’s overt support for the Germans during WWII. Their behaviour during the 70s and 80s towards the terrorist gangster mobs should be to their eternal shame too.
Strong sense of deja vu for this latest tiff. The ROI are not a home nation and aren’t our friends.
It has often been said that the Irish remember too much. But the Enhlish should I think remember a little more.
“Everything is alway our fault” is the new British disease.
Damian Green, who is battling for his political survival after pornography was found on his parliamentary computers, faces being dragged through the courts by one of Britain’s most senior former police officers.
The first secretary of state accused Bob Quick, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police, of circulating “false” information when the pornography claims were first reported three weeks ago in The Sunday Times. Green described Quick as “tainted”, “discredited” and “untrustworthy”.
The reports of pornography being found on a computer — which Green suggested had not been published by any other newspaper because they were “false” — were subsequently confirmed by Sir Paul Stephenson, the former Metropolitan police commissioner.
Green then appeared to drop his claim that reports of pornography being found were false and completely untrue. This weekend, a spokesman said Green had never “watched or put pornography on the computer taken from his office”.
It is understood Quick has instructed a London legal firm about a statement issued by Green on Twitter on Saturday November 4 in response to the claims. Quick intends to seek an apology and a retraction for the attack on his career and reputation. If the apology and retraction are not forthcoming, he is likely to seek redress in the courts.
On paper, the Irish issue looks unsolvable. "Solutions" like carving out NI as a chunk from the UK, or EIRE joining the UK, or NI joining EIRE, as politically impossible as they are silly.
Both the EU and the UK are going to have to agree a constructive ambiguity regarding the NI land border, and agree to turn a blind eye to several things, if it is going to work.
That will require maturity, foresight and intelligence on both sides.
If the ROI (funded by the EU) are going to build a hard border - they’d better get on with it. Would cost a fortune for the Garda to police this new “Berlin’s Wall”.
Any plans in place for this ? Tells you all you need to know...
It only needs to be a hard border for goods, because of the CTA.
A retrograde move of course, but not that difficult.
As I said - if the ROI are serious about a hard border then they need to get spades in the ground now....
And we need to get the concrete pouring in Kent...
At a series of meetings in 17–26 June 1940, during and after the Battle of France, British envoy Malcolm MacDonald brought a proposal to end the partition of Ireland and offered a solemn undertaking to accept "the principle of a United Ireland" if Ireland would abandon its neutrality and immediately join the war against Germany and Italy.
See Britain is prepared to sacrifice Northern Ireland for the greater good, we can do it again.
I can't remember the details, but wasn't Churchill going to renege on that?
He put in a very fatal poison poll, the governments of Eire and Norn Ireland would have to agree on the practicalities of unification.
You can see why the Irish are wary of perfidious Albion, and want things codified into treaty now.
Churchill also postulated political union with France.
So let me get this right. We can't start to talk about a free trade deal until we agree on no hard border, but we can't agree on no hard border until we have a free trade deal.
And any border on the Irish side is the fault of the British.
It's depressing how people on both sides of the EU debate, in EIRE, the UK, and the EU, are so willing to play politics with such a delicate issue that has a 100-year+ history of causing civil disorder and insurrection.
Both sides should really be tearing up the rulebooks, and thinking creatively, and not trying to score or make points.
I love the way that hardline remainers refer to "Brexiteers" as if they were a tiny minority of villainous plotters, and not 52% of the voters, the majority of the British people.
It is all part of their objective to destroy Brexit but sadly for them it is going to fail.
I am not a Brexiteer having voted remain but now want out otherwise there is no point in democracy.
Furthermore the behaviour of the EU has shown them to be spiteful and petty and an organisation I do not want to be part of
A perceptive article on one of the key issues regarding Brexit. Something will have to give to square the circle. The only realistic options are a soft Brexit or a hard border along the Irish Sea. A hard border across Ulster would be very problematic; County Donegal in particular requires easy access to the city of Derry.
If the Mayfly, supported by the 3 Brexiteer clowns and others, insists on a hard Brexit outside the CU/FM, a plebiscite in the 6 counties on Irish re-unification might clarify the preference of the population most affected between a hard border across Ulster and one along the Irish Sea.
I have come to an unfortunate conclusion: You'se ain't too bright. Saddly , trot-on lad: trot-on....
On paper, the Irish issue looks unsolvable. "Solutions" like carving out NI as a chunk from the UK, or EIRE joining the UK, or NI joining EIRE, as politically impossible as they are silly.
Both the EU and the UK are going to have to agree a constructive ambiguity regarding the NI land border, and agree to turn a blind eye to several things, if it is going to work.
That will require maturity, foresight and intelligence on both sides.
If the ROI (funded by the EU) are going to build a hard border - they’d better get on with it. Would cost a fortune for the Garda to police this new “Berlin’s Wall”.
Any plans in place for this ? Tells you all you need to know...
It only needs to be a hard border for goods, because of the CTA.
A retrograde move of course, but not that difficult.
As I said - if the ROI are serious about a hard border then they need to get spades in the ground now....
All that’s needed in the first instance are people standing at the border checking vehicles and documentation. It’ll be chaos, of course.
This is a very (early-mid) 20th Century view of policing borders, relying entirely on the physical.
You can enforce and manage a hard border for both people and goods on either side of it, before and after the journeys, as well. (Non-Irish) people via work visas, and benefit entitlements. And goods electronically at the point of dispatch, and intelligence-led spot-checks on arrival.
So let me get this right. We can't start to talk about a free trade deal until we agree on no hard border, but we can't agree on no hard border until we have a free trade deal.
And any border on the Irish side is the fault of the British.
It's depressing how people on both sides of the EU debate, in EIRE, the UK, and the EU, are so willing to play politics with such a delicate issue that has a 100-year+ history of causing civil disorder and insurrection.
Both sides should really be tearing up the rulebooks, and thinking creatively, and not trying to score or make points.
Well said. I’d like to think that common sense will prevail in the end.
At a series of meetings in 17–26 June 1940, during and after the Battle of France, British envoy Malcolm MacDonald brought a proposal to end the partition of Ireland and offered a solemn undertaking to accept "the principle of a United Ireland" if Ireland would abandon its neutrality and immediately join the war against Germany and Italy.
See Britain is prepared to sacrifice Northern Ireland for the greater good, we can do it again.
I can't remember the details, but wasn't Churchill going to renege on that?
He put in a very fatal poison poll, the governments of Eire and Norn Ireland would have to agree on the practicalities of unification.
You can see why the Irish are wary of perfidious Albion, and want things codified into treaty now.
Churchill also postulated political union with France.
And a United States of Europe.
Man of the moment in 1940, but known for his quixiotic ideas for most of his career.
I see the Irish question has degenerated into Godwinism a bit quickly.
Hard border for WTO or Customs union? These are the only viable answers. Each has its price and downside, but that is the result of Brexit.
A perceptive article on one of the key issues regarding Brexit. Something will have to give to square the circle. The only realistic options are a soft Brexit or a hard border along the Irish Sea. A hard border across Ulster would be very problematic; County Donegal in particular requires easy access to the city of Derry.
If the Mayfly, supported by the 3 Brexiteer clowns and others, insists on a hard Brexit outside the CU/FM, a plebiscite in the 6 counties on Irish re-unification might clarify the preference of the population most affected between a hard border across Ulster and one along the Irish Sea.
A border poll would see the Unionists win. As it would in Scotland.
I don't understand why those who love the EU can't understand that people have more affiliation to the UK than their pet project.
I wouldn't be so sure about the result of such a plebiscite, if one of the options would result in a hard border across Ulster. In my opinion, based on recent election results and the EUref percentage vote shares in the 6 counties, the outcome would be too close to call.
We can all have an opinion.
But, a border poll on the new Irish status quo, that resulted in a victory for the Union in NI, would effectively supersede the EU referendum result.
At a series of meetings in 17–26 June 1940, during and after the Battle of France, British envoy Malcolm MacDonald brought a proposal to end the partition of Ireland and offered a solemn undertaking to accept "the principle of a United Ireland" if Ireland would abandon its neutrality and immediately join the war against Germany and Italy.
See Britain is prepared to sacrifice Northern Ireland for the greater good, we can do it again.
So let me get this right. We can't start to talk about a free trade deal until we agree on no hard border, but we can't agree on no hard border until we have a free trade deal.
And any border on the Irish side is the fault of the British.
ROI backing for Germany during WWII was the fault of the British too no doubt...
Fake history now..
De Valera even sent a notice of commiserations to the German ambassador when Hitler died.
Yeah, yeah, we've all heard that one a thousand times. Of course at that long Winnie & co would still have been arsecrawling Stalin.
At a series of meetings in 17–26 June 1940, during and after the Battle of France, British envoy Malcolm MacDonald brought a proposal to end the partition of Ireland and offered a solemn undertaking to accept "the principle of a United Ireland" if Ireland would abandon its neutrality and immediately join the war against Germany and Italy.
See Britain is prepared to sacrifice Northern Ireland for the greater good, we can do it again.
I can't remember the details, but wasn't Churchill going to renege on that?
He put in a very fatal poison poll, the governments of Eire and Norn Ireland would have to agree on the practicalities of unification.
You can see why the Irish are wary of perfidious Albion, and want things codified into treaty now.
Churchill also postulated political union with France.
And a United States of Europe.
Man of the moment in 1940, but known for his quixiotic ideas for most of his career.
I see the Irish question has degenerated into Godwinism a bit quickly.
Hard border for WTO or Customs union? These are the only viable answers. Each has its price and downside, but that is the result of Brexit.
We are now in the business of damage limitation.
I don't see any mention of Hitler. Godwinism refers to the - eventually inevitable - comparison of an opponent's argument to Hilter or the Nazis on the internet. It doesn't cover any mentioning of any political argument dating back to WWII from any of the protagonists.
Churchill was an idealistic and a romantic, and, occasionally, when brought back down to earth by cold, hard reality, prone to bouts of depression.
I see Brexit as an opportunity. I don't have the negative reaction of damage limitation that you seem to have. That doesn't mean it doesn't bring with it challenges.
So let me get this right. We can't start to talk about a free trade deal until we agree on no hard border, but we can't agree on no hard border until we have a free trade deal.
After many years this site has retuned to a nursery. I blame the sub-editors!
There is the obvious other solution. Rejoin EFTA. Champion free trade as part of the Free Trade Association we founded. Use it's now heavier weight to lobby the EU to do more trade and less fact with armies. Stay in the Single Market - the best free trade deal we can get with anyone. Impose restrictions on movement in line with our rights. And get on with our lives.
It's a literal description of what the Tory party used to stand for. Before it developed it's fetish for brutalising the poor and killing the disabled, and before it turned it's back on free trade and business and declared to the world 'we won't obey your rules but you will obey ours. What do you mean "no"?'
Any sane people left in the Tory party...? There's still time to save yourselves
A perceptive article on one of the key issues regarding Brexit. Something will have to give to square the circle. The only realistic options are a soft Brexit or a hard border along the Irish Sea. A hard border across Ulster would be very problematic; County Donegal in particular requires easy access to the city of Derry.
If the Mayfly, supported by the 3 Brexiteer clowns and others, insists on a hard Brexit outside the CU/FM, a plebiscite in the 6 counties on Irish re-unification might clarify the preference of the population most affected between a hard border across Ulster and one along the Irish Sea.
A border poll would see the Unionists win. As it would in Scotland.
I don't understand why those who love the EU can't understand that people have more affiliation to the UK than their pet project.
I wouldn't be so sure about the result of such a plebiscite, if one of the options would result in a hard border across Ulster. In my opinion, based on recent election results and the EUref percentage vote shares in the 6 counties, the outcome would be too close to call.
We can all have an opinion.
But, a border poll on the new Irish status quo, that resulted in a victory for the Union in NI, would effectively supersede the EU referendum result.
The Union exists because most people in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales strongly identify with it (though large numbers in Scotland and Northern Ireland do not). It's not about economics.
Mr. Max, didn't Wales win a couple of back-to-back Six Nations some time ago?
On-topic: whoever suggested 'a' rather than 'the' customs union is right that that's a sensible compromise. The EU wanting to sort the border without knowing the trade/customs arrangement is demented and irrational.
Mr. Max, didn't Wales win a couple of back-to-back Six Nations some time ago?
On-topic: whoever suggested 'a' rather than 'the' customs union is right that that's a sensible compromise. The EU wanting to sort the border without knowing the trade/customs arrangement is demented and irrational.
So why did David Davis agree to that sequencing of the talks ?
At a series of meetings in 17–26 June 1940, during and after the Battle of France, British envoy Malcolm MacDonald brought a proposal to end the partition of Ireland and offered a solemn undertaking to accept "the principle of a United Ireland" if Ireland would abandon its neutrality and immediately join the war against Germany and Italy.
See Britain is prepared to sacrifice Northern Ireland for the greater good, we can do it again.
I can't remember the details, but wasn't Churchill going to renege on that?
He put in a very fatal poison poll, the governments of Eire and Norn Ireland would have to agree on the practicalities of unification.
You can see why the Irish are wary of perfidious Albion, and want things codified into treaty now.
Churchill also postulated political union with France.
And a United States of Europe.
Man of the moment in 1940, but known for his quixiotic ideas for most of his career.
I see the Irish question has degenerated into Godwinism a bit quickly.
Hard border for WTO or Customs union? These are the only viable answers. Each has its price and downside, but that is the result of Brexit.
We are now in the business of damage limitation.
I don't see any mention of Hitler. Godwinism refers to the - eventually inevitable - comparison of an opponent's argument to Hilter or the Nazis on the internet. It doesn't cover any mentioning of any political argument dating back to WWII from any of the protagonists.
Churchill was an idealistic and a romantic, and, occasionally, when brought back down to earth by cold, hard reality, prone to bouts of depression.
I see Brexit as an opportunity. I don't have the negative reaction of damage limitation that you seem to have. That doesn't mean it doesn't bring with it challenges.
Brexit may well be an opportunity.
But only if we are realistic about the trade-offs it requires, hard-headed in our thinking, don’t simply imagine we can waive away the issues which need addressing and prepared to put in the hard work needed.
Unfortunately Britain is, at the moment, giving everyone precisely the opposite impression. And we are being dragged, kicking and screaming, to an outcome which seems likely to damage the country even if it can - temporarily - paper over the cracks in the Tory party.
Exactly. The whole issue is about keeping the Conservative Party together. National interest is well down the list of priorities.
But Mrs Soubry`s point is, surely, that the Conservative Party is going to be destroyed anyway, since Mrs May is quite incapable of thinking things through. So the whole Brexit stunt was a very pointless exercise indeed.
Bold of the Observer to say 'Irish' when it actually means 'EU Commissioner who is an Irishman'.
And if that Commissioner is urging continued UK single market membership, isn't he out of step with Tusk, who says the UK absolutely cannot remain in the single market.
And isn't that a Commissioner running a Brexit policy 100% opposed to that of the Council? In domestic politics, that would Priti much be the end of a minister
Ireland's main opposition party has vowed to stick to Varadkar's hardline Brexit stance. That indicates a) they're not going to move much and b) the Irish public are generally supportive. Ireland views Brexit for the stupidity it is, and at this point in negotiations, where they are intimately involved, they're going to ask the tough questions Brexit fans don't have any answers to.
As for Tusk, he's said he's open to us remaining in all those things, but on terms May has already explicitly rejected. It's not all that complicated - they have terms for an agreement, which already exist a la CU, EEA EFTA, Brexit fantasists are rejecting them in favour of abhorrent delusions.
I've talked about the perils of the intra-irish border since the idea of WTO started giving Tory ministers a massive erection. ROI will veto further negotiations if the UK head towards requiring a hard border. Arlene's DUKIP will veto any kind of special status for NornIron (we're special already so we are).And the UK economy will crash if talks stop forcing the hardest of no deal Brexits.
Someone needs to blink. No-one can afford to politically. So the talks next month will be brief, UK industry will pull it's war book off the shelves, and we'll see how opinion changes as industry starts to dismember the economy during 2018.
Our wazzock government and their supporters will insist it's everyone else's fault. But when Honda announce that the current Civic will be the last car built at Swindon, or BMW announce big investment over at the Nedcar factory to take work off Cowley they will spell out clearly and factually why TWO makes industry in this country economically uncompetitive. '52/48 for "leave the European Union" = 100% for leaving absolutely everything else that's not the EU won't survive. And as the Tories will have wedded themselves to it they won't survive either.
Hard Brexit is politically an Extinction Level Event for anyone who touches it. UKIP have already gone. The Tories are next.
How much would Labour give the EU of taxpayers money to stay in a single market when that isn't on offer?
I’ve got a post on Facebook... from Campaign to Remain, so could be a bit over the top..... to the effect that the final ‘divorce bill’ will not actually be revealed to the public. It’s source is, apparently, The Times.
I really, really wish we could get on with ‘real stuff’, about social care, improving productivity and so on.
Because only middle class liberal concerns matter, eh?
I suppose the government could offer free Union Jack tattoos
If people didn't sneer at the drawbacks of immigration then they might not have lost to a bus...
That's good to hear. I've never met a media planner who didn't feel undervalued
Quite an eye opener as to how protectionist the EU is - hard borders, fences, security guards, etc etc -all to keep cheaper goods out.
The EU view is that an example must be made out of the UK, so they are pedantically applying every single bureaucratic rule and order to the UK as if it will be a future "3rd" country, starting from year zero, to show everyone else exactly what leaving the EU means.
Of course, that's (rather beautifully, really) strictly speaking consistent with their rhetoric of "no punishment" for the UK, because they can credibly argue that is simply what leaving the EU means - i.e. it carries its own punishment - with the implied threat that, heaven forbid, if they wished to be actually punishing and vindictive they could do even worse.
The fact it's remarkably short-sighted, intransigent, is all about firming up problems, and not looking for solutions, and ignores the deep and special partnership that both sides have agreed they wish to establish post-Brexit, does not seem to have occurred to them.
Mr. Eagles, I agree, that was a mistake. However, he may have thought that 'sufficient progress' didn't involve Danegeld and Varadkar making the diplomatic equivalent of demanding sex or he'd castrate himself in protest.
At a series of meetings in 17–26 June 1940, during and after the Battle of France, British envoy Malcolm MacDonald brought a proposal to end the partition of Ireland and offered a solemn undertaking to accept "the principle of a United Ireland" if Ireland would abandon its neutrality and immediately join the war against Germany and Italy.
See Britain is prepared to sacrifice Northern Ireland for the greater good, we can do it again.
I can't remember the details, but wasn't Churchill going to renege on that?
He put in a very fatal poison poll, the governments of Eire and Norn Ireland would have to agree on the practicalities of unification.
You can see why the Irish are wary of perfidious Albion, and want things codified into treaty now.
Churchill also postulated political union with France.
And a United States of Europe.
Man of the moment in 1940, but known for his quixiotic ideas for most of his career.
I see the Irish question has degenerated into Godwinism a bit quickly.
Hard border for WTO or Customs union? These are the only viable answers. Each has its price and downside, but that is the result of Brexit.
We are now in the business of damage limitation.
I don't see any mention of Hitler. Godwinism refers to the - eventually inevitable - comparison of an opponent's argument to Hilter or the Nazis on the internet. It doesn't cover any mentioning of any political argument dating back to WWII from any of the protagonists.
Churchill was an idealistic and a romantic, and, occasionally, when brought back down to earth by cold, hard reality, prone to bouts of depression.
I see Brexit as an opportunity. I don't have the negative reaction of damage limitation that you seem to have. That doesn't mean it doesn't bring with it challenges.
Brexit may well be an opportunity.
But only if we are realistic about the trade-offs it requires, hard-headed in our thinking, don’t simply imagine we can waive away the issues which need addressing and prepared to put in the hard work needed.
Unfortunately Britain is, at the moment, giving everyone precisely the opposite impression. And we are being dragged, kicking and screaming, to an outcome which seems likely to damage the country even if it can - temporarily - paper over the cracks in the Tory party.
I cannot understand what all the debate is about. Given the UK's current approach of doing nothing substantive, it will be WTO and a hard border with the EU.
Any other outcome requires effort, thought and planning
So let me get this right. We can't start to talk about a free trade deal until we agree on no hard border, but we can't agree on no hard border until we have a free trade deal.
And any border on the Irish side is the fault of the British.
Of course - we are the ones changing the status quo.
The EU are planning to change the Treaty of Utrecht (c.f. Gibraltar). Next time you speak think about this.
Evidence?
OKC:
Are you serious? Spain has a veto on Brexit conditions regarding Gib. It is in the EU initial negotiation paper.
There is the obvious other solution. Rejoin EFTA. Champion free trade as part of the Free Trade Association we founded. Use it's now heavier weight to lobby the EU to do more trade and less fact with armies. Stay in the Single Market - the best free trade deal we can get with anyone. Impose restrictions on movement in line with our rights. And get on with our lives.
It's a literal description of what the Tory party used to stand for. Before it developed it's fetish for brutalising the poor and killing the disabled, and before it turned it's back on free trade and business and declared to the world 'we won't obey your rules but you will obey ours. What do you mean "no"?'
Any sane people left in the Tory party...? There's still time to save yourselves
We cannot stay in the single market without leaving free movement in place and betraying the millions of working class Leavers who voted Leave to reduce EU immigration especially from Eastern Europe (a desire exacerbated by Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004).
In a decade or so once we have brought EU immigration under control rejoining EFTA is probably the best option but not now.
A perceptive article on one of the key issues regarding Brexit. Something will have to give to square the circle. The only realistic options are a soft Brexit or a hard border along the Irish Sea. A hard border across Ulster would be very problematic; County Donegal in particular requires easy access to the city of Derry.
If the Mayfly, supported by the 3 Brexiteer clowns and others, insists on a hard Brexit outside the CU/FM, a plebiscite in the 6 counties on Irish re-unification might clarify the preference of the population most affected between a hard border across Ulster and one along the Irish Sea.
A border poll would see the Unionists win. As it would in Scotland.
I don't understand why those who love the EU can't understand that people have more affiliation to the UK than their pet project.
I wouldn't be so sure about the result of such a plebiscite, if one of the options would result in a hard border across Ulster. In my opinion, based on recent election results and the EUref percentage vote shares in the 6 counties, the outcome would be too close to call.
We can all have an opinion.
But, a border poll on the new Irish status quo, that resulted in a victory for the Union in NI, would effectively supersede the EU referendum result.
I agree - and would provide clarity about the preferred view of the population of the 6 counties. I would personally hope for the opposite result.
This fascination with WW2, the misunderstanding that neutrality does not equate to actively supporting one side, and the myths around WW2 generally is, I always feel, of the key reasons we’re wholly in the shit now.
Another reason is that we don’t study recent history and think of the ROI as some sort of friendly half in half out of the Uk country that isn’t invariably antagonistic towards the Uk deserves our support in World Cups etc.
They are just as much a foreign country now as France or Belgium.
Yes the ROI no longer shares a monarch with us and is not even in the Commonwealth
The question that Tory cheerleaders for lunacy refuse to answer - why have you turned your backs on free trade? Why are you trying to impose massive costs on British business? Why are you tell I g industry that it doesn't know what it's talking about when talking about the impacts of hard Brexit on their own industry?
As I said, political ELE. Once the Tories stop representing business and free trade, all they are left with is representing the interests of big capital - the bankers and hedge fund managers who own the party via their donations. Once the pretence of backing work has gone how will the party win the votes of working people which it needs for government? Hard to say "don't vote Labour they will bring about economic ruin" when you yourselves have just brought about economic ruin.
Small business is far keener on Brecit than big business and the City and small business represents the largest sector of workers involved in business in the UK
Quite an eye opener as to how protectionist the EU is - hard borders, fences, security guards, etc etc -all to keep cheaper goods out.
The EU view is that an example must be made out of the UK, so they are pedantically applying every single bureaucratic rule and order to the UK as if it will be a future "3rd" country, starting from year zero, to show everyone else exactly what leaving the EU means.
Of course, that's (rather beautifully, really) strictly speaking consistent with their rhetoric of "no punishment" for the UK, because they can credibly argue that is simply what leaving the EU means - i.e. it carries its own punishment - with the implied threat that, heaven forbid, if they wished to be actually punishing and vindictive they could do even worse.
The fact it's remarkably short-sighted, intransigent, is all about firming up problems, and not looking for solutions, and ignores the deep and special partnership that both sides have agreed they wish to establish post-Brexit, does not seem to have occurred to them.
It has to be so, if the UK wishes to leave the SM/CU. The relationship between the UK and the EU post a hard Brexit will be similar to that between Russia and the EU.
At a series of meetings in 17–26 June 1940, during and after the Battle of France, British envoy Malcolm MacDonald brought a proposal to end the partition of Ireland and offered a solemn undertaking to accept "the principle of a United Ireland" if Ireland would abandon its neutrality and immediately join the war against Germany and Italy.
See Britain is prepared to sacrifice Northern Ireland for the greater good, we can do it again.
It was the threat if a civil war in Ireland from Unionists if there was no Northern Ireland which ultimately led to the British government opposing a United Ireland.
If Northern Ireland was returned to the Republic without a clear majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting for nationalist parties and endorsing a United Ireland in a referendum (maybe even then too) then unionist terrorist paramilitaries would certainly resume violence both in Belfast and also targeting Dublin too.
The GFA must remain the basis for peace in Ireland.
A well informed and elegantly written article from an Irish perspective by Fintan O'Toole on how badly the British have screwed the pooch on the border question. Well worth the read , along with this header:
Isn't it funny when you think back to the time when no one could ask any questions about Britain's Brexit position without being accused of being a traitor in giving away our negotiating position.
A perceptive article on one of the key issues regarding Brexit. Something will have to give to square the circle. The only realistic options are a soft Brexit or a hard border along the Irish Sea. A hard border across Ulster would be very problematic; County Donegal in particular requires easy access to the city of Derry.
If the Mayfly, supported by the 3 Brexiteer clowns and others, insists on a hard Brexit outside the CU/FM, a plebiscite in the 6 counties on Irish re-unification might clarify the preference of the population most affected between a hard border across Ulster and one along the Irish Sea.
A border poll would see the Unionists win. As it would in Scotland.
I don't understand why those who love the EU can't understand that people have more affiliation to the UK than their pet project.
I wouldn't be so sure about the result of such a plebiscite, if one of the options would result in a hard border across Ulster. In my opinion, based on recent election results and the EUref percentage vote shares in the 6 counties, the outcome would be too close to call.
The DUP has won most votes and seats in both post Brexit elections in Northern Ireland
Come on everyone. This Irish question is just the EU playing a game - they have told the Irish to bring this up. It is all part of their scheme to try to lock the UK into following EU regulations after Brexit, which will obviously be the first issue in trade talks.
The EU have said that we either accept Norway or CETA - fine, we will take CETA. But the problem is that the CETA FTA (like all FTAs) is not built on following someone else's regulations, it is built on mutual acceptance of each others regulations.
The EU are terrified (quite rightly) that the UK will diverge and become more competitive and want to find some excuse to insist on the UK using the EU's regulatory regime after Brexit.
All this Irish stuff is their way of getting there. They want to bully the UK into accepting EU regulations so that we can't really leave the CU and SM even though we won't get the benefits.
The Irish need to be told very bluntly to get stuffed. There is going to be a border between NI and ROI whatever they do. They need to focus on how to make that border as unobtrusive as possible, but it is going to exist. Norway and Sweden manage it, the Irish need to start proper discussions rather than just acting as the EU Commissions little bitch.
Never attribute to malice, that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
There is a solution - broadly what was proposed by the UK although I am sure that there are technical improvements that can be made.
If Ireland want to be disruptive so be it.
The British "solution" is essentially, deal with it, Ireland. It's long on "imaginative ways" Needless to say, the British expect the other side to be imaginative, not them.
As I mention below, I think a way out of the impasse is for the Irish to call the UK's bluff. Demonstrate how every item crossing the unmanned border will be EU compliant. You have the transition period to to come up with a solution and demonstrate that it works. This would take the sting out of the tail.
I think it's likely we'll stay in the Customs Union, but we're not in the place yet where everyone realises Brexit will entirely be an exercise in damage limitation. The Irish should give it time.
You have a system of trusted travelers (like Nexus between Canada and the US). You back that up with self-certification and deceleration. This is policed by spot checks and generous allowances did individuals.
You won't be able to guarantee 100% but there is already some leakage.
Quite an eye opener as to how protectionist the EU is - hard borders, fences, security guards, etc etc -all to keep cheaper goods out.
The EU view is that an example must be made out of the UK, so they are pedantically applying every single bureaucratic rule and order to the UK as if it will be a future "3rd" country, starting from year zero, to show everyone else exactly what leaving the EU means.
Of course, that's (rather beautifully, really) strictly speaking consistent with their rhetoric of "no punishment" for the UK, because they can credibly argue that is simply what leaving the EU means - i.e. it carries its own punishment - with the implied threat that, heaven forbid, if they wished to be actually punishing and vindictive they could do even worse.
The fact it's remarkably short-sighted, intransigent, is all about firming up problems, and not looking for solutions, and ignores the deep and special partnership that both sides have agreed they wish to establish post-Brexit, does not seem to have occurred to them.
We chose to be a 3rd country in relationship to the EU. Brexit means Brexit.
It is not the EU "punishing" us. We chose to end the relationship. Everything above WTO requires negotiation and compromise of our sovereignty. Brexiteers should remember the difference between compromise, and getting our own way.
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim is and isn't "real Brexit" - they've been insisting the country respects the democratic mandate, so they can also respect the democratic mandate. It says "leave the EU" and being outside the EU yet inside the EEA is leaving the EU. Just ask Norway - they seem to accept that EEA membership is not identical to EU membership. They've had two referendums on whether to change their status and insisted both times that they like it as-is just fine. EEA is NOT equivalent to EU.
If Leavers want a full-on hard/chaotic/crash Brexit (delete word as applicable), they can get a democratic mandate for it. Let them push for a further referendum on the destination, if they choose. We've chosen to leave the EU. Fine. Let's leave it for the most straightforward destination. One where we won't reignite the Troubles, or collapse supply-chains, or rip up and have to painstakingly redo hundreds on individual treaties ranging from airline airworthiness and landing rights to zoological cruelty standards. If we want to go further, we can do it from that position.
If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
The solution to the Irish border problem is obvious.
We give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
Solves so many other problems too.
Should we be giving back Gibraltar to Spain and the Falklands to Argentina too? How about Sheffield to Lancashire while we’re trolling these things?
Not trolling. Mrs May and Boris support taking people away from their homes, this is just a logical extension of that.
As for Gibraltar, maybe inevitable now thanks to Brexit.
Spain believes Gibraltar will now fall out of the single market on 29 March 2019. Gibraltar’s prime minister, Fabian Picardo, has previously suggested that a hard Brexit would pose an “existential threat”
The question that Tory cheerleaders for lunacy refuse to answer - why have you turned your backs on free trade? Why are you trying to impose massive costs on British business? Why are you tell I g industry that it doesn't know what it's talking about when talking about the impacts of hard Brexit on their own industry?
As I said, political ELE. Once the Tories stop representing business and free trade, all they are left with is representing the interests of big capital - the bankers and hedge fund managers who own the party via their donations. Once the pretence of backing work has gone how will the party win the votes of working people which it needs for government? Hard to say "don't vote Labour they will bring about economic ruin" when you yourselves have just brought about economic ruin.
Small business is far keener on Brecit than big business and the City and small business represents the largest sector of workers involved in business in the UK
Only 21% of SMEs export so it can't be FTAs that attract them to Brexit.
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim is and isn't "real Brexit" - they've been insisting the country respects the democratic mandate, so they can also respect the democratic mandate. It says "leave the EU" and being outside the EU yet inside the EEA is leaving the EU. Just ask Norway - they seem to accept that EEA membership is not identical to EU membership. They've had two referendums on whether to change their status and insisted both times that they like it as-is just fine. EEA is NOT equivalent to EU.
If Leavers want a full-on hard/chaotic/crash Brexit (delete word as applicable), they can get a democratic mandate for it. Let them push for a further referendum on the destination, if they choose. We've chosen to leave the EU. Fine. Let's leave it for the most straightforward destination. One where we won't reignite the Troubles, or collapse supply-chains, or rip up and have to painstakingly redo hundreds on individual treaties ranging from airline airworthiness and landing rights to zoological cruelty standards. If we want to go further, we can do it from that position.
If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
A majority of seats in in England, Scotland and Wales were won by the Tories in June and thus voters backed the Tory plan to leave the single market to end free movement on the mainland UK.
A majority of seats across the UK were won by the Tories and DUP and the DUP back Brexit and Northern Ireland having the same Brexit terms as the rest of the UK.
In fact given Corbyn Labour backs leaving the single market ultimately too over 80% of UK voters voted for parties that supported leaving the single market and ending free movement.
Only LD, SNP, Plaid, SF and Green Party voters clearly voted for parties which want to permanently stay in the EEA and single market.
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim is and isn't "real Brexit" - they've been insisting the country respects the democratic mandate, so they can also respect the democratic mandate. It says "leave the EU" and being outside the EU yet inside the EEA is leaving the EU. Just ask Norway - they seem to accept that EEA membership is not identical to EU membership. They've had two referendums on whether to change their status and insisted both times that they like it as-is just fine. EEA is NOT equivalent to EU.
If Leavers want a full-on hard/chaotic/crash Brexit (delete word as applicable), they can get a democratic mandate for it. Let them push for a further referendum on the destination, if they choose. We've chosen to leave the EU. Fine. Let's leave it for the most straightforward destination. One where we won't reignite the Troubles, or collapse supply-chains, or rip up and have to painstakingly redo hundreds on individual treaties ranging from airline airworthiness and landing rights to zoological cruelty standards. If we want to go further, we can do it from that position.
If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
A majority of seats in in England, Scotland and Wales were won by the Tories n June and thus voters backed the Tory plan to leave the single market to end free movement.
A majority of seats across the UK were won by the Tories and DUP and the DUP back Brexit and Northern Ireland having the same Brexit terms as the rest of the UK.
Isn't the electoral system wonderful? The same vote can be variously explained away as: - A vote for the full Conservative manifesto - A vote to exclude Corbyn and socialism - A vote for the hardest of Brexits - A vote against Tim Farron - Probably a vote for whoever is on Strictly Come Dancing at the moment as well.
It's bollocks, of course, as you and I both well know. If you want an exit from the EEA, let's have an explicit vote on it. If you're so confident, you're certain to win.
So let me get this right. We can't start to talk about a free trade deal until we agree on no hard border, but we can't agree on no hard border until we have a free trade deal.
And any border on the Irish side is the fault of the British.
Of course - we are the ones changing the status quo.
The EU are planning to change the Treaty of Utrecht (c.f. Gibraltar). Next time you speak think about this.
Evidence?
OKC:
Are you serious? Spain has a veto on Brexit conditions regarding Gib. It is in the EU initial negotiation paper.
:pfft:
Spain has a veto on the whole thing if it comes to that.
Come on everyone. This Irish question is just the EU playing a game - they have told the Irish to bring this up. It is all part of their scheme to try to lock the UK into following EU regulations after Brexit, which will obviously be the first issue in trade talks.
The EU have said that we either accept Norway or CETA - fine, we will take CETA. But the problem is that the CETA FTA (like all FTAs) is not built on following someone else's regulations, it is built on mutual acceptance of each others regulations.
The EU are terrified (quite rightly) that the UK will diverge and become more competitive and want to find some excuse to insist on the UK using the EU's regulatory regime after Brexit.
All this Irish stuff is their way of getting there. They want to bully the UK into accepting EU regulations so that we can't really leave the CU and SM even though we won't get the benefits.
The Irish need to be told very bluntly to get stuffed. There is going to be a border between NI and ROI whatever they do. They need to focus on how to make that border as unobtrusive as possible, but it is going to exist. Norway and Sweden manage it, the Irish need to start proper discussions rather than just acting as the EU Commissions little bitch.
Never attribute to malice, that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
I don't see how that maxim is useful. Almost all malicious acts could be adequately explained by incompetence. Hitler (hehe) could have invafed Poland because his pen slipped.
Article waffling on the history of how awful the Uk has behaved surprisingly doesn’t mention Dublin’s overt support for the Germans during WWII. Their behaviour during the 70s and 80s towards the terrorist gangster mobs should be to their eternal shame too.
Strong sense of deja vu for this latest tiff. The ROI are not a home nation and aren’t our friends.
Well, I could have mentioned all those Irishmen (like my own father and great-uncle) who fought for the Allies in both world wars and British support for various unionist terror organizations and the army shooting dead 13 innocent civilians for demanding the rights that British citizens on the mainland took for granted.
But that would have made the header too long.
And the point is that it is precisely because Ireland remembers that it does not want changes which risk the peace which has been hard-won.
It has often been said that the Irish remember too much. But the Enhlish should I think remember a little more.
I hope that Ireland also remembers that 5000 who left the Irish armed forces to fight Nazism in WW2 were subjected to Courts Martial for desertion by Ireland, and then blacklisted from employment by the Irish Government, and refused their military pensions. That was nastily vindictive. It cuts both ways.
For me, Varadkar's stance seems bizarre. In order to get things he already has commitments to, he is threatening to wreck the process and make sure something he doesn't want is what actually happens.
The question that Tory cheerleaders for lunacy refuse to answer - why have you turned your backs on free trade? Why are you trying to impose massive costs on British business? Why are you tell I g industry that it doesn't know what it's talking about when talking about the impacts of hard Brexit on their own industry?
As I said, political ELE. Once the Tories stop representing business and free trade, all they are left with is representing the interests of big capital - the bankers and hedge fund managers who own the party via their donations. Once the pretence of backing work has gone how will the party win the votes of working people which it needs for government? Hard to say "don't vote Labour they will bring about economic ruin" when you yourselves have just brought about economic ruin.
Small business is far keener on Brecit than big business and the City and small business represents the largest sector of workers involved in business in the UK
Only 21% of SMEs export so it can't be FTAs that attract them to Brexit.
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim is and isn't "real Brexit" - they've been insisting the country respects the democratic mandate, so they can also respect the democratic mandate. [snip for size] EEA is NOT equivalent to EU.
If Leavers want a full-on hard/chaotic/crash Brexit (delete word as applicable), they can get a democratic mandate for it. Let them push for a further referendum on the destination, if they choose. We've chosen to leave the EU. Fine. Let's leave it for the most straightforward destination. One where we won't reignite the Troubles, or collapse supply-chains, or rip up and have to painstakingly redo hundreds on individual treaties ranging from airline airworthiness and landing rights to zoological cruelty standards. If we want to go further, we can do it from that position.
If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
A majority of seats in in England, Scotland and Wales were won by the Tories n June and thus voters backed the Tory plan to leave the single market to end free movement.
A majority of seats across the UK were won by the Tories and DUP and the DUP back Brexit and Northern Ireland having the same Brexit terms as the rest of the UK.
Isn't the electoral system wonderful? The same vote can be variously explained away as: - A vote for the full Conservative manifesto - A vote to exclude Corbyn and socialism - A vote for the hardest of Brexits - A vote against Tim Farron - Probably a vote for whoever is on Strictly Come Dancing at the moment as well.
It's bollocks, of course, as you and I both well know. If you want an exit from the EEA, let's have an explicit vote on it. If you're so confident, you're certain to win.
To expand on that, only about one in five of those who voted Conservative voted that way with Brexit uppermost in mind (and some of those will have been worried that without the Tories, they'd not get any Brexit: hard, soft, flaccid, or whatever:
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim is and isn't "real Brexit" - they've been insisting the country respects the democratic mandate, so they can also respect the democratic mandate. It says "leave the EU" and being outside the EU yet inside the EEA is leaving the EU. Just ask Norway - they seem to accept that EEA membership is not identical to EU membership. They've had two referendums on whether to change their status and insisted both times that they like it as-is just fine. EEA is NOT equivalent to EU.
If Leavers want a full-on hard/chaotic/crash Brexit (delete word as applicable), they can get a democratic mandate for it. Let them push for a further referendum on the destination, if they choose. We've chosen to leave the EU. Fine. Let's leave it for the most straightforward destination. One where we won't reignite the Troubles, or collapse supply-chains, or rip up and have to painstakingly redo hundreds on individual treaties ranging from airline airworthiness and landing rights to zoological cruelty standards. If we want to go further, we can do it from that position.
If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
A majority of seats in in England, Scotland and Wales were won by the Tories in June and thus voters backed the Tory plan to leave the single market to end free movement.
A majority of seats across the UK were won by the Tories and DUP and the DUP back Brexit and Northern Ireland having the same Brexit terms as the rest of the UK.
In fact given Corbyn Labour backs leaving the single market ultimately too over 80% of UK voters voted for parties that supported leaving the single market and ending free movement.
Only LD, SNP, Plaid, SF and Green Party voters clearly voted for parties which want to permanently stay in the EEA and single market.
You're clutching at straws! The "in or out of the EEA" discussion hardly featured in the GE. Compared with Andy's argument, your point is uncharacteristically weak.
Surely you can come up with a better argument than that?
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
A majority of seats in in England, Scotland and Wales were won by the Tories n June and thus voters backed the Tory plan to leave the single market to end free movement.
A majority of seats across the UK were won by the Tories and DUP and the DUP back Brexit and Northern Ireland having the same Brexit terms as the rest of the UK.
Isn't the electoral system wonderful? The same vote can be variously explained away as: - A vote for the full Conservative manifesto - A vote to exclude Corbyn and socialism - A vote for the hardest of Brexits - A vote against Tim Farron - Probably a vote for whoever is on Strictly Come Dancing at the moment as well.
It's bollocks, of course, as you and I both well know. If you want an exit from the EEA, let's have an explicit vote on it. If you're so confident, you're certain to win.
We only had a referendum on leaving the EU in the first place because the Tories won an overall majority in 2015 with that commitment in their manifesto.
If you want to stay permanently in the single market and leave free movement permanently in place then elect a LD government at the next general election or get the Labour Party to put a commitment to stay permanently in the EEA in its manifesto and win the next general election on that platform.
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
A majority of seats in in England, Scotland and Wales were won by the Tories n June and thus voters backed the Tory plan to leave the single market to end free movement.
A majority of seats across the UK were won by the Tories and DUP and the DUP back Brexit and Northern Ireland having the same Brexit terms as the rest of the UK.
Isn't the electoral system wonderful? The same vote can be variously explained away as: - A vote for the full Conservative manifesto - A vote to exclude Corbyn and socialism - A vote for the hardest of Brexits - A vote against Tim Farron - Probably a vote for whoever is on Strictly Come Dancing at the moment as well.
It's bollocks, of course, as you and I both well know. If you want an exit from the EEA, let's have an explicit vote on it. If you're so confident, you're certain to win.
We only had a referendum on leaving the EU in the first place because the Tories won an overall majority in 2015 with that commitment in their manifesto.
If you want to stay permanently in the single market and leave free movement permanently in place then elect a LD government at the next general election or get the Labour Party to put a commitment to stay permanently in the EEA in its manifesto and win the next general election on that platform.
Alternatively, we could have a Conservative government that isn’t in thrall to fools.
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim is and isn't "real Brexit" - they've been insisting the country respects the democratic mandate, so they can also respect the democratic mandate. It says "leave the EU" and being outside the EU yet inside the EEA is leaving the EU. Just ask Norway - they seem to accept that EEA membership is not identical to EU membership. They've had two referendums on whether to change their status and insisted both times that they like it as-is just fine. EEA is NOT equivalent to EU.
If Leavers want a full-on hard/chaotic/crash Brexit (delete word as applicable), they can get a democratic mandate for it. Let them push for a further referendum on the destination, if they choose. We've chosen to leave the EU. Fine. Let's leave it for the most straightforward destination. One where we won't reignite the Troubles, or collapse supply-chains, or rip up and have to painstakingly redo hundreds on individual treaties ranging from airline airworthiness and landing rights to zoological cruelty standards. If we want to go further, we can do it from that position.
If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
A majority of seats in in England, Scotland and Wales were won by the Tories in June and thus voters backed the Tory plan to leave the single market to end free movement.
A majority of seats across the UK were won by the Tories and DUP and the DUP back Brexit and Northern Ireland having the same Brexit terms as the rest of the UK.
In fact given Corbyn Labour backs leaving the single market ultimately too over 80% of UK voters voted for parties that supported leaving the single market and ending free movement.
Only LD, SNP, Plaid, SF and Green Party voters clearly voted for parties which want to permanently stay in the EEA and single market.
You're clutching at straws! The "in or out of the EEA" discussion hardly featured in the GE. Compared with Andy's argument, your point is uncharacteristically weak.
Surely you can come up with a better argument than that?
It hardly featured because Corbyn backed leaving the EEA too!
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
A majority of seats in in England, Scotland and Wales were won by the Tories n June and thus voters backed the Tory plan to leave the single market to end free movement.
A majority of seats across the UK were won by the Tories and DUP and the DUP back Brexit and Northern Ireland having the same Brexit terms as the rest of the UK.
Isn't the electoral system wonderful? The same vote can be variously explained away as: - A vote for the full Conservative manifesto - A vote to exclude Corbyn and socialism - A vote for the hardest of Brexits - A vote against Tim Farron - Probably a vote for whoever is on Strictly Come Dancing at the moment as well.
It's bollocks, of course, as you and I both well know. If you want an exit from the EEA, let's have an explicit vote on it. If you're so confident, you're certain to win.
We only had a referendum on leaving the EU in the first place because the Tories won an overall majority in 2015 with that commitment in their manifesto.
If you want to stay permanently in the single market and leave free movement permanently in place then elect a LD government at the next general election or get the Labour Party to put a commitment to stay permanently in the EEA in its manifesto and win the next general election on that platform.
Alternatively, we could have a Conservative government that isn’t in thrall to fools.
Most Tory voters back leaving the single market to end free movement, thus the Tories will take us out of the EEA given they have a majority with the DUP
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
A majority of seats in in England, Scotland and Wales were won by the Tories n June and thus voters backed the Tory plan to leave the single market to end free movement.
A majority of seats across the UK were won by the Tories and DUP and the DUP back Brexit and Northern Ireland having the same Brexit terms as the rest of the UK.
Isn't the electoral system wonderful? The same vote can be variously explained away as: - A vote for the full Conservative manifesto - A vote to exclude Corbyn and socialism - A vote for the hardest of Brexits - A vote against Tim Farron - Probably a vote for whoever is on Strictly Come Dancing at the moment as well.
It's bollocks, of course, as you and I both well know. If you want an exit from the EEA, let's have an explicit vote on it. If you're so confident, you're certain to win.
We only had a referendum on leaving the EU in the first place because the Tories won an overall majority in 2015 with that commitment in their manifesto.
If you want to stay permanently in the single market and leave free movement permanently in place then elect a LD government at the next general election or get the Labour Party to put a commitment to stay permanently in the EEA in its manifesto and win the next general election on that platform.
And the referendum was carried out and actioned. It said nothing about the EEA on the ballot paper.
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
A majority of seats in in England, Scotland and Wales were won by the Tories n June and thus voters backed the Tory plan to leave the single market to end free movement.
A majority of seats across the UK were won by the Tories and DUP and the DUP back Brexit and Northern Ireland having the same Brexit terms as the rest of the UK.
Isn't the electoral system wonderful? The same vote can be variously explained away as: - A vote for the full Conservative manifesto - A vote to exclude Corbyn and socialism - A vote for the hardest of Brexits - A vote against Tim Farron - Probably a vote for whoever is on Strictly Come Dancing at the moment as well.
It's bollocks, of course, as you and I both well know. If you want an exit from the EEA, let's have an explicit vote on it. If you're so confident, you're certain to win.
We only had a referendum on leaving the EU in the first place because the Tories won an overall majority in 2015 with that commitment in their manifesto.
If you want to stay permanently in the single market and leave free movement permanently in place then elect a LD government at the next general election or get the Labour Party to put a commitment to stay permanently in the EEA in its manifesto and win the next general election on that platform.
Alternatively, we could have a Conservative government that isn’t in thrall to fools.
Most Tory voters back leaving the single market to end free movement, thus the Tories will take us out of the EEA given they have a majority with the DUP
Odd, considering how long most of them spent telling us what they really wanted from 1973 onwards was a common market without all the political stuff.
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
A majority of seats in in England, Scotland and Wales were won by the Tories n June and thus voters backed the Tory plan to leave the single market to end free movement.
A majority of seats across the UK were won by the Tories and DUP and the DUP back Brexit and Northern Ireland having the same Brexit terms as the rest of the UK.
Isn't the electoral system wonderful? The same vote can be variously explained away as: - A vote for the full Conservative manifesto - A vote to exclude Corbyn and socialism - A vote for the hardest of Brexits - A vote against Tim Farron - Probably a vote for whoever is on Strictly Come Dancing at the moment as well.
It's bollocks, of course, as you and I both well know. If you want an exit from the EEA, let's have an explicit vote on it. If you're so confident, you're certain to win.
We only had a referendum on leaving the EU in the first place because the Tories won an overall majority in 2015 with that commitment in their manifesto.
If you want to stay permanently in the single market and leave free movement permanently in place then elect a LD government at the next general election or get the Labour Party to put a commitment to stay permanently in the EEA in its manifesto and win the next general election on that platform.
And the referendum was carried out and actioned. It said nothing about the EEA on the ballot paper.
Which was why May called the general election and also got a mandate to leave the EEA and end free movement in June too given the Tory+DUP majority.
The solution to the Irish border problem is obvious.
We give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
Solves so many other problems too.
The DUP may not be enthusiastic about this, so do we reckon Sinn Fein would prepared to show up in parliament for long enough to keep the Tories in power while they got this done?
Article waffling on the history of how awful the Uk has behaved surprisingly doesn’t mention Dublin’s overt support for the Germans during WWII. Their behaviour during the 70s and 80s towards the terrorist gangster mobs should be to their eternal shame too.
Strong sense of deja vu for this latest tiff. The ROI are not a home nation and aren’t our friends.
Well, I could have mentioned all those Irishmen (like my own father and great-uncle) who fought for the Allies in both world wars and British support for various unionist terror organizations and the army shooting dead 13 innocent civilians for demanding the rights that British citizens on the mainland took for granted.
But that would have made the header too long.
And the point is that it is precisely because Ireland remembers that it does not want changes which risk the peace which has been hard-won.
It has often been said that the Irish remember too much. But the Enhlish should I think remember a little more.
what rubbish
the current spat is becasue we have a 38 year old PM in Ireland who takes the peace for granted and is prepared to play politics with the north to shore up his government
normally FG is the sensible party re Irish UK relations.
Varadkar however has deicded to play dice
this is not the UK stirring things up on Brexit but a weak taoiseach playing foreign adventures to make himself look tough
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim is and isn't "real Brexit" - they've been insisting the country respects the democratic mandate, so they can also respect the democratic mandate. It says "leave the EU" and being outside the EU yet inside the EEA is leaving the EU. Just ask Norway - they seem to accept that EEA membership is not identical to EU membership. They've had two referendums on whether to change their status and insisted both times that they like it as-is just fine. EEA is NOT equivalent to EU.
If Leavers want a full-on hard/chaotic/crash Brexit (delete word as applicable), they can get a democratic mandate for it. Let them push for a further referendum on the destination, if they choose. We've chosen to leave the EU. Fine. Let's leave it for the most straightforward destination. One where we won't reignite the Troubles, or collapse supply-chains, or rip up and have to painstakingly redo hundreds on individual treaties ranging from airline airworthiness and landing rights to zoological cruelty standards. If we want to go further, we can do it from that position.
If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
It's a question what you think voters want from Brexit (they focus on substance not form). EEA preserves some of the economic benefits of EU membership but doesn't change things like FoM and ECJ.
Fundamentally if the EU were to agree to free movement of labour (i.e. No work permit) rather than free movement of people (right to move look for a job) it could all be solved. I know this is big ask for the Eurocrats (turning back the ratchet( but it is essentially a shift back to pre Maastricht
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim is and isn't "real Brexit" - they've been insisting the country respects the democratic mandate, so they can also respect the democratic mandate. It says "leave the EU" and being outside the EU yet inside the EEA is leaving the EU. Just ask Norway - they seem to accept that EEA membership is not identical to EU membership. They've had two referendums on whether to change their status and insisted both times that they like it as-is just fine. EEA is NOT equivalent to EU.
If Leavers want a full-on hard/chaotic/crash Brexit (delete word as applicable), they can get a democratic mandate for it. Let them push for a further referendum on the destination, if they choose. We've chosen to leave the EU. Fine. Let's leave it for the most straightforward destination. One where we won't reignite the Troubles, or collapse supply-chains, or rip up and have to painstakingly redo hundreds on individual treaties ranging from airline airworthiness and landing rights to zoological cruelty standards. If we want to go further, we can do it from that position.
If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
Both the then-government (Cameron, Osborne etc) and the Leave Campaign (Vote Leave with Boris, Gove etc) let alone the other leave campaigns like Leave.EU were all completely explicit that voting to leave the EU meant leaving the Single Market. It was in the referendum materials.
Name any Remain organisation that said pre-referendum that voting to Leave would still mean staying in the Single Market.
And, as I said earlier, the best way to follow the democratic mandate of the referendum while avoiding the potential disasters such as reviving the Troubles, screwing over Gibraltar, ending up with hundreds of involved and often highly technical agreements abandoned and unreplaced, is simply to transition into the EEA. There is no democratic mandate from the referendum to action any particular flavour of Brexit, and the Leavers are the first to cite the democratic mandate. Do they not like democracy?
I am more than willing to - after we trial EEA membership (with maximum constraints on migration consonant with the pillar of free movement, and potentially with the Article 112-113 Emergency Brake) - have a subsequent referendum to see if the people decide this isn't exactly what they wanted. After all, it would give us more time to actually sort out these seemingly intractable issue.
The question that Tory cheerleaders for lunacy refuse to answer - why have you turned your backs on free trade? Why are you trying to impose massive costs on British business? Why are you tell I g industry that it doesn't know what it's talking about when talking about the impacts of hard Brexit on their own industry?
As I said, political ELE. Once the Tories stop representing business and free trade, all they are left with is representing the interests of big capital - the bankers and hedge fund managers who own the party via their donations. Once the pretence of backing work has gone how will the party win the votes of working people which it needs for government? Hard to say "don't vote Labour they will bring about economic ruin" when you yourselves have just brought about economic ruin.
Small business is far keener on Brecit than big business and the City and small business represents the largest sector of workers involved in business in the UK
Only 21% of SMEs export so it can't be FTAs that attract them to Brexit.
More freedom from EU regulations and directives
Doesn’t the official definition of SME include small shops?
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim is and isn't "real Brexit" - they've been insisting the country respects the democratic mandate, so they can also respect the democratic mandate. It says "leave the EU" and being outside the EU yet inside the EEA is leaving the EU. Just ask Norway - they seem to accept that EEA membership is not identical to EU membership. They've had two referendums on whether to change their status and insisted both times that they like it as-is just fine. EEA is NOT equivalent to EU.
If Leavers want a full-on hard/chaotic/crash Brexit (delete word as applicable), they can get a democratic mandate for it. Let them push for a further referendum on the destination, if they choose. We've chosen to leave the EU. Fine. Let's leave it for the most straightforward destination. snip
If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
A majority of seats in in England, Scotland and Wales were won by the Tories in June and thus voters backed the Tory plan to leave the single market to end free movement.
A majority of seats across the UK were won by the Tories and DUP and the DUP back Brexit and Northern Ireland having the same Brexit terms as the rest of the UK.
In fact given Corbyn Labour backs leaving the single market ultimately too over 80% of UK voters voted for parties that supported leaving the single market and ending free movement.
Only LD, SNP, Plaid, SF and Green Party voters clearly voted for parties which want to permanently stay in the EEA and single market.
You're clutching at straws! The "in or out of the EEA" discussion hardly featured in the GE. Compared with Andy's argument, your point is uncharacteristically weak.
Surely you can come up with a better argument than that?
It hardly featured because Corbyn backed leaving the EEA too!
So voters weren't voting on that issue but on other issues. The fact they voted Tory or Labour doesn't mean they favoured leaving the EEA or even the EU. Most Labour voters are Remainers. Your argument just doesn't stack up and Andy's does.
The question that Tory cheerleaders for lunacy refuse to answer - why have you turned your backs on free trade? Why are you trying to impose massive costs on British business? Why are you tell I g industry that it doesn't know what it's talking about when talking about the impacts of hard Brexit on their own industry?
As I said, political ELE. Once the Tories stop representing business and free trade, all they are left with is representing the interests of big capital - the bankers and hedge fund managers who own the party via their donations. Once the pretence of backing work has gone how will the party win the votes of working people which it needs for government? Hard to say "don't vote Labour they will bring about economic ruin" when you yourselves have just brought about economic ruin.
Small business is far keener on Brecit than big business and the City and small business represents the largest sector of workers involved in business in the UK
Only 21% of SMEs export so it can't be FTAs that attract them to Brexit.
More freedom from EU regulations and directives
Doesn’t the official definition of SME include small shops?
They are small businesses too and many small shop owners are Tories
The question that Tory cheerleaders for lunacy refuse to answer - why have you turned your backs on free trade? Why are you trying to impose massive costs on British business? Why are you tell I g industry that it doesn't know what it's talking about when talking about the impacts of hard Brexit on their own industry?
As I said, political ELE. Once the Tories stop representing business and free trade, all they are left with is representing the interests of big capital - the bankers and hedge fund managers who own the party via their donations. Once the pretence of backing work has gone how will the party win the votes of working people which it needs for government? Hard to say "don't vote Labour they will bring about economic ruin" when you yourselves have just brought about economic ruin.
Small business is far keener on Brecit than big business and the City and small business represents the largest sector of workers involved in business in the UK
Only 21% of SMEs export so it can't be FTAs that attract them to Brexit.
More freedom from EU regulations and directives
Surely even you at your Tory bot best must appreciate the irony of Theresa losing her majority and becoming dependant on the votes of votes of the DUP and then being held to ransom by Ireland? I mean what were the chances? Paisley and McGuinness must be laughing their socks off
The question that Tory cheerleaders for lunacy refuse to answer - why have you turned your backs on free trade? Why are you trying to impose massive costs on British business? Why are you tell I g industry that it doesn't know what it's talking about when talking about the impacts of hard Brexit on their own industry?
As I said, political ELE. Once the Tories stop representing business and free trade, all they are left with is representing the interests of big capital - the bankers and hedge fund managers who own the party via their donations. Once the pretence of backing work has gone how will the party win the votes of working people which it needs for government? Hard to say "don't vote Labour they will bring about economic ruin" when you yourselves have just brought about economic ruin.
Small business is far keener on Brecit than big business and the City and small business represents the largest sector of workers involved in business in the UK
Only 21% of SMEs export so it can't be FTAs that attract them to Brexit.
More freedom from EU regulations and directives
Doesn’t the official definition of SME include small shops?
Tgey are small businesses too and many small shop owners are Tories
Indeed; I was a bit on my own when I ran my pharmacy.
The solution to the Irish border problem is obvious.
We give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
Solves so many other problems too.
The DUP may not be enthusiastic about this, so do we reckon Sinn Fein would prepared to show up in parliament for long enough to keep the Tories in power while they got this done?
The Conservative and Unionist Party would of course never even countenance it even if the Liberal TSE thinks it is an option.
Comments
The people of Ireland are not going to revert to a state of civil war because of a border.
They are going to do what they have always done - ignore the damn thing. Any one who argues elsewise - including Varakhar - is playing politics with peace
It does not.
Brexit turns the clock back not to better times, but to worse ones. The sick man of Europe, redux.
The first secretary of state accused Bob Quick, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police, of circulating “false” information when the pornography claims were first reported three weeks ago in The Sunday Times. Green described Quick as “tainted”, “discredited” and “untrustworthy”.
The reports of pornography being found on a computer — which Green suggested had not been published by any other newspaper because they were “false” — were subsequently confirmed by Sir Paul Stephenson, the former Metropolitan police commissioner.
Green then appeared to drop his claim that reports of pornography being found were false and completely untrue. This weekend, a spokesman said Green had never “watched or put pornography on the computer taken from his office”.
It is understood Quick has instructed a London legal firm about a statement issued by Green on Twitter on Saturday November 4 in response to the claims. Quick intends to seek an apology and a retraction for the attack on his career and reputation. If the apology and retraction are not forthcoming, he is likely to seek redress in the courts.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/ex-police-chief-may-sue-deputy-pm-over-porn-row-qcz6llcrd
They are just as much a foreign country now as France or Belgium.
But that would have made the header too long.
And the point is that it is precisely because Ireland remembers that it does not want changes which risk the peace which has been hard-won.
It has often been said that the Irish remember too much. But the Enhlish should I think remember a little more.
As I mention below, I think a way out of the impasse is for the Irish to call the UK's bluff. Demonstrate how every item crossing the unmanned border will be EU compliant. You have the transition period to to come up with a solution and demonstrate that it works. This would take the sting out of the tail.
I think it's likely we'll stay in the Customs Union, but we're not in the place yet where everyone realises Brexit will entirely be an exercise in damage limitation. The Irish should give it time.
Both sides should really be tearing up the rulebooks, and thinking creatively, and not trying to score or make points.
I am not a Brexiteer having voted remain but now want out otherwise there is no point in democracy.
Furthermore the behaviour of the EU has shown them to be spiteful and petty and an organisation I do not want to be part of
You can enforce and manage a hard border for both people and goods on either side of it, before and after the journeys, as well. (Non-Irish) people via work visas, and benefit entitlements. And goods electronically at the point of dispatch, and intelligence-led spot-checks on arrival.
Man of the moment in 1940, but known for his quixiotic ideas for most of his career.
I see the Irish question has degenerated into Godwinism a bit quickly.
Hard border for WTO or Customs union? These are the only viable answers. Each has its price and downside, but that is the result of Brexit.
We are now in the business of damage limitation.
But, a border poll on the new Irish status quo, that resulted in a victory for the Union in NI, would effectively supersede the EU referendum result.
Of course at that long Winnie & co would still have been arsecrawling Stalin.
Churchill was an idealistic and a romantic, and, occasionally, when brought back down to earth by cold, hard reality, prone to bouts of depression.
I see Brexit as an opportunity. I don't have the negative reaction of damage limitation that you seem to have. That doesn't mean it doesn't bring with it challenges.
It's a literal description of what the Tory party used to stand for. Before it developed it's fetish for brutalising the poor and killing the disabled, and before it turned it's back on free trade and business and declared to the world 'we won't obey your rules but you will obey ours. What do you mean "no"?'
Any sane people left in the Tory party...? There's still time to save yourselves
On-topic: whoever suggested 'a' rather than 'the' customs union is right that that's a sensible compromise. The EU wanting to sort the border without knowing the trade/customs arrangement is demented and irrational.
He promised us the row of the summer over it.
But only if we are realistic about the trade-offs it requires, hard-headed in our thinking, don’t simply imagine we can waive away the issues which need addressing and prepared to put in the hard work needed.
Unfortunately Britain is, at the moment, giving everyone precisely the opposite impression. And we are being dragged, kicking and screaming, to an outcome which seems likely to damage the country even if it can - temporarily - paper over the cracks in the Tory party.
As for Tusk, he's said he's open to us remaining in all those things, but on terms May has already explicitly rejected. It's not all that complicated - they have terms for an agreement, which already exist a la CU, EEA EFTA, Brexit fantasists are rejecting them in favour of abhorrent delusions.
Of course, that's (rather beautifully, really) strictly speaking consistent with their rhetoric of "no punishment" for the UK, because they can credibly argue that is simply what leaving the EU means - i.e. it carries its own punishment - with the implied threat that, heaven forbid, if they wished to be actually punishing and vindictive they could do even worse.
The fact it's remarkably short-sighted, intransigent, is all about firming up problems, and not looking for solutions, and ignores the deep and special partnership that both sides have agreed they wish to establish post-Brexit, does not seem to have occurred to them.
Ireland is therefore a nation more suited to being at the heart of the EU while longer term the UK is best suited to returning to EFTA.
Any other outcome requires effort, thought and planning
Are you serious? Spain has a veto on Brexit conditions regarding Gib. It is in the EU initial negotiation paper.
:pfft:
In a decade or so once we have brought EU immigration under control rejoining EFTA is probably the best option but not now.
If Northern Ireland was returned to the Republic without a clear majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting for nationalist parties and endorsing a United Ireland in a referendum (maybe even then too) then unionist terrorist paramilitaries would certainly resume violence both in Belfast and also targeting Dublin too.
The GFA must remain the basis for peace in Ireland.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/26/hard-won-kinship-between-britain-and-ireland-brexit-idiocy
..when all the time we never had one
You won't be able to guarantee 100% but there is already some leakage.
It is not the EU "punishing" us. We chose to end the relationship. Everything above WTO requires negotiation and compromise of our sovereignty. Brexiteers should remember the difference between compromise, and getting our own way.
It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim is and isn't "real Brexit" - they've been insisting the country respects the democratic mandate, so they can also respect the democratic mandate. It says "leave the EU" and being outside the EU yet inside the EEA is leaving the EU. Just ask Norway - they seem to accept that EEA membership is not identical to EU membership. They've had two referendums on whether to change their status and insisted both times that they like it as-is just fine. EEA is NOT equivalent to EU.
If Leavers want a full-on hard/chaotic/crash Brexit (delete word as applicable), they can get a democratic mandate for it. Let them push for a further referendum on the destination, if they choose. We've chosen to leave the EU. Fine. Let's leave it for the most straightforward destination. One where we won't reignite the Troubles, or collapse supply-chains, or rip up and have to painstakingly redo hundreds on individual treaties ranging from airline airworthiness and landing rights to zoological cruelty standards. If we want to go further, we can do it from that position.
If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
I suggest it tries and resolves that problem first before trying to take over Gibraltar where well over 90% want to stay British.
A majority of seats across the UK were won by the Tories and DUP and the DUP back Brexit and Northern Ireland having the same Brexit terms as the rest of the UK.
In fact given Corbyn Labour backs leaving the single market ultimately too over 80% of UK voters voted for parties that supported leaving the single market and ending free movement.
Only LD, SNP, Plaid, SF and Green Party voters clearly voted for parties which want to permanently stay in the EEA and single market.
The same vote can be variously explained away as:
- A vote for the full Conservative manifesto
- A vote to exclude Corbyn and socialism
- A vote for the hardest of Brexits
- A vote against Tim Farron
- Probably a vote for whoever is on Strictly Come Dancing at the moment as well.
It's bollocks, of course, as you and I both well know. If you want an exit from the EEA, let's have an explicit vote on it. If you're so confident, you're certain to win.
I hope that Ireland also remembers that 5000 who left the Irish armed forces to fight Nazism in WW2 were subjected to Courts Martial for desertion by Ireland, and then blacklisted from employment by the Irish Government, and refused their military pensions. That was nastily vindictive. It cuts both ways.
And that the Irish Government did not officially resile from its position until 2013.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10041215/Ireland-pardons-Second-World-War-soldiers-who-left-to-fight-Nazis.html
For me, Varadkar's stance seems bizarre. In order to get things he already has commitments to, he is threatening to wreck the process and make sure something he doesn't want is what actually happens.
Surely you can come up with a better argument than that?
If you want to stay permanently in the single market and leave free movement permanently in place then elect a LD government at the next general election or get the Labour Party to put a commitment to stay permanently in the EEA in its manifesto and win the next general election on that platform.
It said nothing about the EEA on the ballot paper.
the current spat is becasue we have a 38 year old PM in Ireland who takes the peace for granted and is prepared to play politics with the north to shore up his government
normally FG is the sensible party re Irish UK relations.
Varadkar however has deicded to play dice
this is not the UK stirring things up on Brexit but a weak taoiseach playing foreign adventures to make himself look tough
it can only end in tears
Fundamentally if the EU were to agree to free movement of labour (i.e. No work permit) rather than free movement of people (right to move look for a job) it could all be solved. I know this is big ask for the Eurocrats (turning back the ratchet( but it is essentially a shift back to pre Maastricht
Name any Remain organisation that said pre-referendum that voting to Leave would still mean staying in the Single Market.
There is no democratic mandate from the referendum to action any particular flavour of Brexit, and the Leavers are the first to cite the democratic mandate. Do they not like democracy?
I am more than willing to - after we trial EEA membership (with maximum constraints on migration consonant with the pillar of free movement, and potentially with the Article 112-113 Emergency Brake) - have a subsequent referendum to see if the people decide this isn't exactly what they wanted. After all, it would give us more time to actually sort out these seemingly intractable issue.
Anyone know what's happened to Malc?
I used to enjoy coming on here on a Sunday morning and reading his lovely witticisms...