-
@baron-silas-greenback 100% and the absolute cancer of British media won't show that.
-
The PM/Cabinet totally deserves to be humiliated by parliament for their gormless performance on this.
Post vote, whilst acknowledging that the majority wanted to take back control of immigration and law, the PMC determined that it wanted, in effect, to remain in the single market.
The EU made it clear at the beginning that single market access required signing up for EU immigration and law, so the only options for the UK were the Norway or Canada models. They have not wavered from this.
Nonetheless, the PMC has spent the best part of two years pursuing a pipe dream instead of choosing one of the two possible ways forward, or a no trade deal exit and working to get it done.
Without having read the dox I'm only basing my views on the media, but it appears that the deal being presented amounts to a stand still on trade, for which the bill is E20bn. To my mind almost nothing worthwhile will come into effect before 31 December 2020.
That wouldn't have been so bad, if the parties had agreed that, the can having been kicked down the road, the next 24 months would be spent finalising a trade deal to come into effect 1 Jan 2021 OR reaching the conclusion that a no trade deal exit was unavoidable and making the necessary arrangements.
Instead, what is proposed is a backstop on a backstop. There seems to be absolutely no merit in this, and it is in fact an incentive for the EU not to get serious in negotiations in the next 2 years.
Moreover, no democratic government can properly enter with a foreign party into a trade treaty where the foreign power makes all the rules AND has a veto on the country ever leaving.
All this is put down to the need to avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland. Talk about the tail wagging the dog!
It ought to be entirely feasible for the UK to run Northern Ireland trade in a fashion whereby the UK does not need to erect a hard border. In which case if the EU doesn't want a hard border then the simple answer is for it not to erect one. It's not beyond the wit of man.
In fact, what the EU is actually saying is that it refuses to accept that Northern Ireland can ever leave the EU, even if the rest of the UK does.
I call bullshit.
It appears plenty of MPs are doing so too.
-
I think the reality is many put in charge of this are remainers regardless, by offering up a terrible deal they are hoping to go against the democratic will of the people and put remain back on the table.
Just tell the EU to go &%&^ themselves, I mean they are now calling for a European army and have successfully outsourced their anti-semitism needs via mass migration. Uncle Adolf would be proud.
-
@rembrandt said in Brexit:
The remainer in the background shouting out his key arguments particularly hilarious
The offspring of Himmler and Postman Pat
-
@mikethesnow said in Brexit:
@rembrandt said in Brexit:
The remainer in the background shouting out his key arguments particularly hilarious
The offspring of Himmler and Postman Pat
A proud British icon with German efficiency, he's got my vote!
-
It ought to be entirely feasible for the UK to run Northern Ireland trade in a fashion whereby the UK does not need to erect a hard border. In which case if the EU doesn't want a hard border then the simple answer is for it not to erect one. It's not beyond the wit of man.
In fact, what the EU is actually saying is that it refuses to accept that Northern Ireland can ever leave the EU, even if the rest of the UK does.
Is that true? If the referendum did one thing it showed that the UK public had lost patience with uncontrolled immigration, where in effect anyone from the EU could travel without hindrance across the soft UK border. A Brexit without a hard border will simply not deliver what most leavers (and frankly many remainers too) wanted.
But maintaining a soft border between the Republic and Northern Ireland will still allow anybody to walk from the EU into the UK, albeit with one additional step of going to Ireland first. How does that deliver the immigration controls that people expect?
Or are you suggesting that a hard border between the Republic and NI is the way forward? Maybe I'll let someone like @Derm-McCrum comment on that from an Irish POV, but I was in the UK before and after the Good Friday agreement and IMO it was one of the best things to have happened in the mainland. I was at work in Bishopsgate on the Saturday morning when the bomb went off. Nobody should have to live under the threat of that and I'd hate to see a return. Irish troubles are hardly the EU's fault.
-
It ought to be entirely feasible for the UK to run Northern Ireland trade in a fashion whereby the UK does not need to erect a hard border. In which case if the EU doesn't want a hard border then the simple answer is for it not to erect one. It's not beyond the wit of man.
In fact, what the EU is actually saying is that it refuses to accept that Northern Ireland can ever leave the EU, even if the rest of the UK does.
Is that true? If the referendum did one thing it showed that the UK public had lost patience with uncontrolled immigration, where in effect anyone from the EU could travel without hindrance across the soft UK border. A Brexit without a hard border will simply not deliver what most leavers (and frankly many remainers too) wanted.
But maintaining a soft border between the Republic and Northern Ireland will still allow anybody to walk from the EU into the UK, albeit with one additional step of going to Ireland first. How does that deliver the immigration controls that people expect?
Or are you suggesting that a hard border between the Republic and NI is the way forward? Maybe I'll let someone like @Derm-McCrum comment on that from an Irish POV, but I was in the UK before and after the Good Friday agreement and IMO it was one of the best things to have happened in the mainland. I was at work in Bishopsgate on the Saturday morning when the bomb went off. Nobody should have to live under the threat of that and I'd hate to see a return. Irish troubles are hardly the EU's fault.
Surely an immigrant / migrant would still be checked leaving NI and entering mainland UK?
-
@mikethesnow said in Brexit:
It ought to be entirely feasible for the UK to run Northern Ireland trade in a fashion whereby the UK does not need to erect a hard border. In which case if the EU doesn't want a hard border then the simple answer is for it not to erect one. It's not beyond the wit of man.
In fact, what the EU is actually saying is that it refuses to accept that Northern Ireland can ever leave the EU, even if the rest of the UK does.
Is that true? If the referendum did one thing it showed that the UK public had lost patience with uncontrolled immigration, where in effect anyone from the EU could travel without hindrance across the soft UK border. A Brexit without a hard border will simply not deliver what most leavers (and frankly many remainers too) wanted.
But maintaining a soft border between the Republic and Northern Ireland will still allow anybody to walk from the EU into the UK, albeit with one additional step of going to Ireland first. How does that deliver the immigration controls that people expect?
Or are you suggesting that a hard border between the Republic and NI is the way forward? Maybe I'll let someone like @Derm-McCrum comment on that from an Irish POV, but I was in the UK before and after the Good Friday agreement and IMO it was one of the best things to have happened in the mainland. I was at work in Bishopsgate on the Saturday morning when the bomb went off. Nobody should have to live under the threat of that and I'd hate to see a return. Irish troubles are hardly the EU's fault.
Surely an immigrant / migrant would still be checked leaving NI and entering mainland UK?
JC, First point is that EU doesn't care a rat's RRRs about the people border. It's concern is goods being imported into a future lax U.K. trade territory and being spirited across to Eire, thus representing a backdoor entry for noncompliant goods into EU.
I had the experience in the 90s of having an office we were about to sign a lease for being severely damaged by an IRA bomb which went of at Baltic Exchange, so take your point.
About to head for a flight to Dublin. Passport needed to enter and return. Flights from NI use separate area of airport and random checks made. Wouldn't take much beefing up to discourage illegal EU immigrants, who could be identified from the flight manifesto.
As for road entrance into a AI, presume it could operate like Geneva French border, again with random checks.
For me nothing for Brits to get too excited about.
-
@bones Gatwick. You are right: passport into Dublin, segregated area/no passport on return. Pretty much like NI.
That's pretty weird. I guess the Brits rely on Ireland doing checks on everyone entering their ports despite point of origin otherwise Ireland becomes an easy gateway.
-
@mikethesnow said in Brexit:
It ought to be entirely feasible for the UK to run Northern Ireland trade in a fashion whereby the UK does not need to erect a hard border. In which case if the EU doesn't want a hard border then the simple answer is for it not to erect one. It's not beyond the wit of man.
In fact, what the EU is actually saying is that it refuses to accept that Northern Ireland can ever leave the EU, even if the rest of the UK does.
Is that true? If the referendum did one thing it showed that the UK public had lost patience with uncontrolled immigration, where in effect anyone from the EU could travel without hindrance across the soft UK border. A Brexit without a hard border will simply not deliver what most leavers (and frankly many remainers too) wanted.
But maintaining a soft border between the Republic and Northern Ireland will still allow anybody to walk from the EU into the UK, albeit with one additional step of going to Ireland first. How does that deliver the immigration controls that people expect?
Or are you suggesting that a hard border between the Republic and NI is the way forward? Maybe I'll let someone like @Derm-McCrum comment on that from an Irish POV, but I was in the UK before and after the Good Friday agreement and IMO it was one of the best things to have happened in the mainland. I was at work in Bishopsgate on the Saturday morning when the bomb went off. Nobody should have to live under the threat of that and I'd hate to see a return. Irish troubles are hardly the EU's fault.
Surely an immigrant / migrant would still be checked leaving NI and entering mainland UK?
JC, First point is that EU doesn't care a rat's RRRs about the people border. It's concern is goods being imported into a future lax U.K. trade territory and being spirited across to Eire, thus representing a backdoor entry for noncompliant goods into EU.
I had the experience in the 90s of having an office we were about to sign a lease for being severely damaged by an IRA bomb which went of at Baltic Exchange, so take your point.
About to head for a flight to Dublin. Passport needed to enter and return. Flights from NI use separate area of airport and random checks made. Wouldn't take much beefing up to discourage illegal EU immigrants, who could be identified from the flight manifesto.
As for road entrance into a AI, presume it could operate like Geneva French border, again with random checks.
For me nothing for Brits to get too excited about.
-
@mikethesnow said in Brexit:
It ought to be entirely feasible for the UK to run Northern Ireland trade in a fashion whereby the UK does not need to erect a hard border. In which case if the EU doesn't want a hard border then the simple answer is for it not to erect one. It's not beyond the wit of man.
In fact, what the EU is actually saying is that it refuses to accept that Northern Ireland can ever leave the EU, even if the rest of the UK does.
Is that true? If the referendum did one thing it showed that the UK public had lost patience with uncontrolled immigration, where in effect anyone from the EU could travel without hindrance across the soft UK border. A Brexit without a hard border will simply not deliver what most leavers (and frankly many remainers too) wanted.
But maintaining a soft border between the Republic and Northern Ireland will still allow anybody to walk from the EU into the UK, albeit with one additional step of going to Ireland first. How does that deliver the immigration controls that people expect?
Or are you suggesting that a hard border between the Republic and NI is the way forward? Maybe I'll let someone like @Derm-McCrum comment on that from an Irish POV, but I was in the UK before and after the Good Friday agreement and IMO it was one of the best things to have happened in the mainland. I was at work in Bishopsgate on the Saturday morning when the bomb went off. Nobody should have to live under the threat of that and I'd hate to see a return. Irish troubles are hardly the EU's fault.
Surely an immigrant / migrant would still be checked leaving NI and entering mainland UK?
JC, First point is that EU doesn't care a rat's RRRs about the people border. It's concern is goods being imported into a future lax U.K. trade territory and being spirited across to Eire, thus representing a backdoor entry for noncompliant goods into EU.
I had the experience in the 90s of having an office we were about to sign a lease for being severely damaged by an IRA bomb which went of at Baltic Exchange, so take your point.
About to head for a flight to Dublin. Passport needed to enter and return. Flights from NI use separate area of airport and random checks made. Wouldn't take much beefing up to discourage illegal EU immigrants, who could be identified from the flight manifesto.
As for road entrance into a AI, presume it could operate like Geneva French border, again with random checks.
For me nothing for Brits to get too excited about.
Joke
Brexit