Leave it open on the Uk side - let the EU police the other side.
If they want to crucify ROI by closing it or inspecting every lorry then meh it's an EU issue.
Simples.
Under WTO rules (without a FTA with the EU) we could not just have an open border with one customs area, we would have to have no checks elsewhere.
Dan Hannan may be happy, but few others methinks.
Yep, it's WTO rule number one - no discriminatory behaviour in the absence of an agreement. If the EU did not police the Irish border it would have to do the same with all its external borders. I suppose it could just shepherd all the resulting migrants to Ireland and let them cross into the UK!
Exactly, if the EU do not have a customs arrangement with NI, then it could not have one with Ukraine, Belarus, Serbia, Moldova....
The Brexiters should have thought about this earlier or a simple solution: stay in the single market and customs union.
We could still abide by the referendum [ unless overturned by another referendum ] by being outside the EU.
But they are generally less keen on unknown migrants from failed or violent or very different states, especially at a time when terrorism is a threat.
But this acceptance (of free movement within the EU) was crucially dependant on being confident that other EU states would comply with the rules on migration into the EU.
Errr... surely these people were Asylum Seekers / Refugees and not migrants since they were fleeing violent conflict and persecution? In which case we should have been refusing them entry to the UK on the basis that asylum must be applied for in the first safe country and they had already crossed through Europe.
How many, really, were refugees or asylum seekers? ... Sentimentality has no place in politics. Ruthless self-interest does. We should be inviting into the country those who are an asset. We should give refuge to the most vulnerable who need it not those with the sharpest elbows. We should not be inviting in unknown strangers because we’re on some guilt trip or because we want to look good.
I am confused by your reply. I was saying that we could have turned many "migrants" back because they were not migrants. We can refuse asylum seekers trying to enter from safe countries such as France, Italy, Germany, Holland, etc. They are not EU citizens and we could have refused non-EU migrants as well.
As far as I am aware the convention that applies is a UN one, not an EU one. After Brexit nothing will change. Do you think that after Brexit the UK will suddenly "grow a pair"?
I wasn’t disagreeing with you. Just putting down some thoughts in response to yours.
Leave it open on the Uk side - let the EU police the other side.
If they want to crucify ROI by closing it or inspecting every lorry then meh it's an EU issue.
Simples.
Under WTO rules (without a FTA with the EU) we could not just have an open border with one customs area, we would have to have no checks elsewhere.
Dan Hannan may be happy, but few others methinks.
But Dan Hannan was pushing the EEA solution. He has gone quiet on that now. Hannan basically wanted to be just out of the UK - that's about it.
I am sure Dan did not just want to be out of the UK. The EU perhaps.
And he has not gone silent. Like me he is still pushing the EEA as the best solution.
In that case, I withdraw. Even now at this late hour, the EEA solution is the only sensible one on the table. For a fee , of course. Shall we say, £350m per week ?
Cyclefree's article is the classic Brit Brexit opinion. We will leave the EU and the terms on which we will leave will also be decided by us.
"A wiser EU would understand that a Britain leaving in chaos will do nothing for the EU’s image or claim that it is a force for stability."
It seems that it is for a Briton to decide what is wise for the EU. Apparently, they are not capable of taking that decision themselves. If Britain does not get what it wants, as it will not, it will blame the EU for not getting what it wanted.
We forget Britain was already having the cake and eating it. It had the rebate, it had the opt-outs. No other country had those privileges as extensively as we did. We were never really a member of the EU. All we wanted was tariff free access. Now we will soon get upset if it is not served on a plate.
Maybe, we have not grown out of our post-imperial attitude. The world owes us our privileges.
The rebate was not having its cake and eating it. The rebate was making sure we weren't providing all the cake for everyone else to eat. When you consider that even with the rebate we are net contributors to the tune of almost £9 billion a year that is a hell of a lot of free cake we are giving to the rest of the EU.
Nor were we the only country with opt outs - Denmark, Poland and Ireland all had formal opt outs from sections of the treaties. In addition 6 countries in addition to Poland have chosen to ignore their commitments for joining the Eurozoone and have made it clear they will not join at any time in the foreseeable future. The idea that the UK is the only one wanting exceptions from EU rules is misleading rubbish.
Germany must have a terrible deal. No opt outs and the biggest contributor. Or is it not that simple?
Leave it open on the Uk side - let the EU police the other side.
If they want to crucify ROI by closing it or inspecting every lorry then meh it's an EU issue.
Simples.
Under WTO rules (without a FTA with the EU) we could not just have an open border with one customs area, we would have to have no checks elsewhere.
Dan Hannan may be happy, but few others methinks.
Yep, it's WTO rule number one - no discriminatory behaviour in the absence of an agreement. If the EU did not police the Irish border it would have to do the same with all its external borders. I suppose it could just shepherd all the resulting migrants to Ireland and let them cross into the UK!
WTO rules apply to goods rather than people, the CTA would apply to the latter.
Leave it open on the Uk side - let the EU police the other side.
If they want to crucify ROI by closing it or inspecting every lorry then meh it's an EU issue.
Simples.
Forgive me, I have't attempted to get my head around the border issue, but....
Are you suggesting no UK border control at all?
Anyone in the EU/Ireland can walk/drive/import anything they want into NI - and then into GB?
Can't they do that now?
But we are in the EU. Isn't the whole idea of Brexit is that we are leaving the EU. Remember, you guys wanted it. So did the DUP.
Classic deflection technique there Surbiton.
The point you are wilfully ignoring is that we have an open border with Ireland now and are happy with it. Why should we be any less happy with it because we have left the EU? Absolutely nothing will have changed on the Irish side but for some reason you seem to think they will suddenly become awash with drugs, immigrants and contraband that we have to keep out. Given that Ireland is not in Schengen people cannot just walk or drive in there now, from the EU or anywhere else. Again nothing will change.
The reason that we can no longer have an open border is fairly obvious. We voted to leave the EU, and to this government has decided that means leaving the Single Market and Customs Union.
If we choose to end a happy arrangement, it is not the EU's fault.
+1
We are the ones that are leaving and for some reason the Brexit lunatics on here seem to think everyone needs to be prostrating in front of us. Why?
Leave it open on the Uk side - let the EU police the other side.
If they want to crucify ROI by closing it or inspecting every lorry then meh it's an EU issue.
Simples.
Under WTO rules (without a FTA with the EU) we could not just have an open border with one customs area, we would have to have no checks elsewhere.
Dan Hannan may be happy, but few others methinks.
Yep, it's WTO rule number one - no discriminatory behaviour in the absence of an agreement. If the EU did not police the Irish border it would have to do the same with all its external borders. I suppose it could just shepherd all the resulting migrants to Ireland and let them cross into the UK!
WTO rules apply to goods rather than people, the CTA would apply to the latter.
Under Most Favoured Nation rules they are obliged to apply the same border rules to all countries, unless there is a specific FTA.
You put it very succinctly.
Isn’t that what the British government has proposed? But the EU won’t address that until we’ve sorted the Irish border, which requires addressing terms of trade....
Cyclefree's article is the classic Brit Brexit opinion. We will leave the EU and the terms on which we will leave will also be decided by us.
"A wiser EU would understand that a Britain leaving in chaos will do nothing for the EU’s image or claim that it is a force for stability."
It seems that it is for a Briton to decide what is wise for the EU. Apparently, they are not capable of taking that decision themselves. If Britain does not get what it wants, as it will not, it will blame the EU for not getting what it wanted.
We forget Britain was already having the cake and eating it. It had the rebate, it had the opt-outs. No other country had those privileges as extensively as we did. We were never really a member of the EU. All we wanted was tariff free access. Now we will soon get upset if it is not served on a plate.
Maybe, we have not grown out of our post-imperial attitude. The world owes us our privileges.
The rebate was not having its cake and eating it. The rebate was making sure we weren't providing all the cake for everyone else to eat. When you consider that even with the rebate we are net contributors to the tune of almost £9 billion a year that is a hell of a lot of free cake we are giving to the rest of the EU.
Nor were we the only country with opt outs - Denmark, Poland and Ireland all had formal opt outs from sections of the treaties. In addition 6 countries in addition to Poland have chosen to ignore their commitments for joining the Eurozoone and have made it clear they will not join at any time in the foreseeable future. The idea that the UK is the only one wanting exceptions from EU rules is misleading rubbish.
Germany must have a terrible deal. No opt outs and the biggest contributor. Or is it not that simple?
They’ve got an artificially low currency.....
When all else fails they come up with that one. Does California have an artificially low currency ? What about Manchester or Bristol ?
Catalonian banks will emerge. There will be disruption , for sure. This is not Brexit as Catalonia can have tariff free trade with the EU just like before. It won't insist on doing their own trade deals.
Catalonia has its industries. It should leave the country run by fascists.
Mrs Stodge told me when we were last in Spain a lot of the Spanish banks were basically local co-operatives and credit unions so it seems likely an independent Catalonia will have a banking system and it's a significant contributor to Spanish GDP.
I do think the actions of the Spanish Government, courts and the King have inflamed and polarised attitudes but are, if you like, the traditional response of a centralised political culture to separatist regional noises.
Earlier in the week, however, the EU made it clear an independent Catalonia would be outside the Union - perhaps we can conclude our first FTA with Barcelona.
But I don't think Barcelona will do a deal with us. As I said, they could do a Norway or a Switzerland, or an Iceland, Turkey. They would not want to leave the single market and customs union.
We have only talked about as if only Catalonia will suffer if Spanish banks leave. The Spanish banks will also suffer from lack of Catalonian business which local banks will take up. After all, Catalonia is the most industrialised part of Spain.
Catalonia is wealthy because it is a part of Spain and the EU. In and of itself it is a relatively small country, with a relatively small population. And the banks and companies moving their HQs were in many cases established by Catalans, which is why their HQs are in Catalonia.
As things stand, we have convinced our EU partners that a border in Ireland is unacceptable. The language from Barnier, Verhofstadt, Macron, and many others on the issue is exactly what we have been looking for. By signing on to a bad deal, we would be conceding the principle that a border is, in fact, acceptable. We would be saying to the EU26: “yes, we have been trying hard to convince you that a border is simply unthinkable and must never be allowed to happen, but actually, we didn’t really mean it. If push comes to shove, we’ll accept a border if that is the price that has to be paid for a deal with the UK.” If we were to take such an attitude, we could hardly expect our European partners to take the opposite one!
Once the point of principle regarding the border has been conceded, it becomes likely that the border will prove to be a permanent fixture on the island. The Brexiteers will be happy: they will be able to import as much chlorinated chicken as they want from wherever they want, and the Irish border issue will no longer be on the table to complicate matters for them. There will be no reason for the UK to ever get rid of the border, and we will have lost all leverage on the issue.
Leave it open on the Uk side - let the EU police the other side.
If they want to crucify ROI by closing it or inspecting every lorry then meh it's an EU issue.
Simples.
Forgive me, I have't attempted to get my head around the border issue, but....
Are you suggesting no UK border control at all?
Anyone in the EU/Ireland can walk/drive/import anything they want into NI - and then into GB?
Can't they do that now?
But we are in the EU. Isn't the whole idea of Brexit is that we are leaving the EU. Remember, you guys wanted it. So did the DUP.
Classic deflection technique there Surbiton.
The point you are wilfully ignoring is that we have an open border with Ireland now and are happy with it. Why should we be any less happy with it because we have left the EU? Absolutely nothing will have changed on the Irish side but for some reason you seem to think they will suddenly become awash with drugs, immigrants and contraband that we have to keep out. Given that Ireland is not in Schengen people cannot just walk or drive in there now, from the EU or anywhere else. Again nothing will change.
The reason that we can no longer have an open border is fairly obvious. We voted to leave the EU, and to this government has decided that means leaving the Single Market and Customs Union.
If we choose to end a happy arrangement, it is not the EU's fault.
+1
We are the ones that are leaving and for some reason the Brexit lunatics on here seem to think everyone needs to be prostrating in front of us. Why?
Leave it open on the Uk side - let the EU police the other side.
If they want to crucify ROI by closing it or inspecting every lorry then meh it's an EU issue.
Simples.
Forgive me, I have't attempted to get my head around the border issue, but....
Are you suggesting no UK border control at all?
Anyone in the EU/Ireland can walk/drive/import anything they want into NI - and then into GB?
Can't they do that now?
But we are in the EU. Isn't the whole idea of Brexit is that we are leaving the EU. Remember, you guys wanted it. So did the DUP.
Classic deflection technique there Surbiton.
The point you are wilfully ignoring is that we have an open border with Ireland now and are happy with it. Why should we be any less happy with it because we have left the EU? Absolutely nothing will have changed on the Irish side but for some reason you seem to think they will suddenly become awash with drugs, immigrants and contraband that we have to keep out. Given that Ireland is not in Schengen people cannot just walk or drive in there now, from the EU or anywhere else. Again nothing will change.
The reason that we can no longer have an open border is fairly obvious. We voted to leave the EU, and to this government has decided that means leaving the Single Market and Customs Union.
If we choose to end a happy arrangement, it is not the EU's fault.
+1
We are the ones that are leaving and for some reason the Brexit lunatics on here seem to think everyone needs to be prostrating in front of us. Why?
The EU want and need our "contributions"?
The cost of not paying the EU membership "contributions" will be much much higher...
We are totally and utterly screwed thanks to the Conservative party putting it's interests ahead of the national interest.
As things stand, we have convinced our EU partners that a border in Ireland is unacceptable. The language from Barnier, Verhofstadt, Macron, and many others on the issue is exactly what we have been looking for. By signing on to a bad deal, we would be conceding the principle that a border is, in fact, acceptable. We would be saying to the EU26: “yes, we have been trying hard to convince you that a border is simply unthinkable and must never be allowed to happen, but actually, we didn’t really mean it. If push comes to shove, we’ll accept a border if that is the price that has to be paid for a deal with the UK.” If we were to take such an attitude, we could hardly expect our European partners to take the opposite one!
Once the point of principle regarding the border has been conceded, it becomes likely that the border will prove to be a permanent fixture on the island. The Brexiteers will be happy: they will be able to import as much chlorinated chicken as they want from wherever they want, and the Irish border issue will no longer be on the table to complicate matters for them. There will be no reason for the UK to ever get rid of the border, and we will have lost all leverage on the issue.
Chlorinated chicken? That might be better than some of the stuff the Europeans have been selling us.
As things stand, we have convinced our EU partners that a border in Ireland is unacceptable. The language from Barnier, Verhofstadt, Macron, and many others on the issue is exactly what we have been looking for. By signing on to a bad deal, we would be conceding the principle that a border is, in fact, acceptable. We would be saying to the EU26: “yes, we have been trying hard to convince you that a border is simply unthinkable and must never be allowed to happen, but actually, we didn’t really mean it. If push comes to shove, we’ll accept a border if that is the price that has to be paid for a deal with the UK.” If we were to take such an attitude, we could hardly expect our European partners to take the opposite one!
Once the point of principle regarding the border has been conceded, it becomes likely that the border will prove to be a permanent fixture on the island. The Brexiteers will be happy: they will be able to import as much chlorinated chicken as they want from wherever they want, and the Irish border issue will no longer be on the table to complicate matters for them. There will be no reason for the UK to ever get rid of the border, and we will have lost all leverage on the issue.
Chlorinated chicken? That might be better than some of the stuff the Europeans have been selling us.
Well, it goes with our (currently) chlorinated water and chlorinated salads.....
Cyclefree's article is the classic Brit Brexit opinion. We will leave the EU and the terms on which we will leave will also be decided by us.
"A wiser EU would understand that a Britain leaving in chaos will do nothing for the EU’s image or claim that it is a force for stability."
It seems that it is for a Briton to decide what is wise for the EU. Apparently, they are not capable of taking that decision themselves. If Britain does not get what it wants, as it will not, it will blame the EU for not getting what it wanted.
We forget Britain was already having the cake and eating it. It had the rebate, it had the opt-outs. No other country had those privileges as extensively as we did. We were never really a member of the EU. All we wanted was tariff free access. Now we will soon get upset if it is not served on a plate.
Maybe, we have not grown out of our post-imperial attitude. The world owes us our privileges.
1. You don’t know how I voted so don’t make assumptions. 2. The EU is not beyond criticism. What I wrote there I have heard said by people in the EU who deplore Brexit. 3. I am an EU citizen - through my Irish citizenship - who, as I’ve said on this thread and the previous one, would rather Britain were a member of a better EU.
Do you really think that a Britain leaving in chaos would be a good thing for the EU? Or Europe as a whole? Humiliating a country - even when they may have been largely responsible for putting themselves into a position where they can be humiliated - is not sensible politics, especially when that country is a close neighbour.
You talk of not growing out of post-Imperial attitudes. A fair comment though I think you must mean Imperial. But much of the underlying rationale for the EU (wheeled out during last year’s referendum) was to prevent the murderous wars of the first half of the last century and that it was responsible for peace in Europe, blah, blah. All true (though it cannot claim all the credit for the latter point). But what is always conveniently forgotten when this argument is rolled out is that there was one Western European country above all which ensured that there was a Europe in which the EU could thrive. Britain really does not need lectures on being good Europeans: there are cemeteries all over Europe full of British soldiers and airmen who were good Europeans. That too is worth weighing in the balance when deciding on a future relationship.
Leave it open on the Uk side - let the EU police the other side.
If they want to crucify ROI by closing it or inspecting every lorry then meh it's an EU issue.
Simples.
Forgive me, I have't attempted to get my head around the border issue, but....
Are you suggesting no UK border control at all?
Anyone in the EU/Ireland can walk/drive/import anything they want into NI - and then into GB?
Can't they do that now?
But we are in the EU. Isn't the whole idea of Brexit is that we are leaving the EU. Remember, you guys wanted it. So did the DUP.
Classic deflection technique there Surbiton.
The point you are wilfully ignoring is that we have an open border with Ireland now and are happy with it. Why should we be any less happy with it because we have left the EU? Absolutely nothing will have changed on the Irish side but for some reason you seem to think they will suddenly become awash with drugs, immigrants and contraband that we have to keep out. Given that Ireland is not in Schengen people cannot just walk or drive in there now, from the EU or anywhere else. Again nothing will change.
The reason that we can no longer have an open border is fairly obvious. We voted to leave the EU, and to this government has decided that means leaving the Single Market and Customs Union.
If we choose to end a happy arrangement, it is not the EU's fault.
+1
We are the ones that are leaving and for some reason the Brexit lunatics on here seem to think everyone needs to be prostrating in front of us. Why?
The EU want and need our "contributions"?
The cost of not paying the EU membership "contributions" will be much much higher...
We are totally and utterly screwed thanks to the Conservative party putting it's interests ahead of the national interest.
Honestly, I'm amazed that any country can survive outside of the EU.
surbiton - surely, after almost one hundred years, the British can be allowed to forget the Irish problem. What the Irish Republic wishes or does is completely unimportant to us. The Imperial attitude is pretending that we need to care.
But they are generally less keen on unknown migrants from failed or violent or very different states, especially at a time when terrorism is a threat.
But this acceptance (of free movement within the EU) was crucially dependant on being confident that other EU states would comply with the rules on migration into the EU.
Errr... surely these people were Asylum Seekers / Refugees and not migrants since they were fleeing violent conflict and persecution? In which case we should have been refusing them entry to the UK on the basis that asylum must be applied for in the first safe country and they had already crossed through Europe.
How many, really, were refugees or asylum seekers? ... Sentimentality has no place in politics. Ruthless self-interest does. We should be inviting into the country those who are an asset. We should give refuge to the most vulnerable who need it not those with the sharpest elbows. We should not be inviting in unknown strangers because we’re on some guilt trip or because we want to look good.
I am confused by your reply. I was saying that we could have turned many "migrants" back because they were not migrants. We can refuse asylum seekers trying to enter from safe countries such as France, Italy, Germany, Holland, etc. They are not EU citizens and we could have refused non-EU migrants as well.
As far as I am aware the convention that applies is a UN one, not an EU one. After Brexit nothing will change. Do you think that after Brexit the UK will suddenly "grow a pair"?
I wasn’t disagreeing with you. Just putting down some thoughts in response to yours.
What is crazy about this whole debate is how each side has so many hardliners that can't step out of their blinkers. The rabid sceptics claim the EU is the rebuilt USSR and the rabid Remainers claim any attempt to form a compromise is delusions of imperialism. They are as bad as each other.
As things stand, we have convinced our EU partners that a border in Ireland is unacceptable. The language from Barnier, Verhofstadt, Macron, and many others on the issue is exactly what we have been looking for. By signing on to a bad deal, we would be conceding the principle that a border is, in fact, acceptable. We would be saying to the EU26: “yes, we have been trying hard to convince you that a border is simply unthinkable and must never be allowed to happen, but actually, we didn’t really mean it. If push comes to shove, we’ll accept a border if that is the price that has to be paid for a deal with the UK.” If we were to take such an attitude, we could hardly expect our European partners to take the opposite one!
Once the point of principle regarding the border has been conceded, it becomes likely that the border will prove to be a permanent fixture on the island. The Brexiteers will be happy: they will be able to import as much chlorinated chicken as they want from wherever they want, and the Irish border issue will no longer be on the table to complicate matters for them. There will be no reason for the UK to ever get rid of the border, and we will have lost all leverage on the issue.
Chlorinated chicken? That might be better than some of the stuff the Europeans have been selling us.
I thought chlorinated chicken was perfectly safe according to the science.
Cyclefree's article is the classic Brit Brexit opinion. We will leave the EU and the terms on which we will leave will also be decided by us.
"A wiser EU would understand that a Britain leaving in chaos will do nothing for the EU’s image or claim that it is a force for stability."
It seems that it is for a Briton to decide what is wise for the EU. Apparently, they are not capable of taking that decision themselves. If Britain does not get what it wants, as it will not, it will blame the EU for not getting what it wanted.
We forget Britain was already having the cake and eating it. It had the rebate, it had the opt-outs. No other country had those privileges as extensively as we did. We were never really a member of the EU. All we wanted was tariff free access. Now we will soon get upset if it is not served on a plate.
Maybe, we have not grown out of our post-imperial attitude. The world owes us our privileges.
The rebate was not having its cake and eating it. The rebate was making sure we weren't providing all the cake for everyone else to eat. When you consider that even with the rebate we are net contributors to the tune of almost £9 billion a year that is a hell of a lot of free cake we are giving to the rest of the EU.
Nor were we the only country with opt outs - Denmark, Poland and Ireland all had formal opt outs from sections of the treaties. In addition 6 countries in addition to Poland have chosen to ignore their commitments for joining the Eurozoone and have made it clear they will not join at any time in the foreseeable future. The idea that the UK is the only one wanting exceptions from EU rules is misleading rubbish.
Germany must have a terrible deal. No opt outs and the biggest contributor. Or is it not that simple?
Given they have the advantage of having the Euro basically run to benefit their economy and that of their northern neighbours and to the detriment of the southern half of the EU, you are right it is not that simple.
As things stand, we have convinced our EU partners that a border in Ireland is unacceptable. The language from Barnier, Verhofstadt, Macron, and many others on the issue is exactly what we have been looking for. By signing on to a bad deal, we would be conceding the principle that a border is, in fact, acceptable. We would be saying to the EU26: “yes, we have been trying hard to convince you that a border is simply unthinkable and must never be allowed to happen, but actually, we didn’t really mean it. If push comes to shove, we’ll accept a border if that is the price that has to be paid for a deal with the UK.” If we were to take such an attitude, we could hardly expect our European partners to take the opposite one!
Once the point of principle regarding the border has been conceded, it becomes likely that the border will prove to be a permanent fixture on the island. The Brexiteers will be happy: they will be able to import as much chlorinated chicken as they want from wherever they want, and the Irish border issue will no longer be on the table to complicate matters for them. There will be no reason for the UK to ever get rid of the border, and we will have lost all leverage on the issue.
Chlorinated chicken? That might be better than some of the stuff the Europeans have been selling us.
I thought chlorinated chicken was perfectly safe according to the science.
It is.
Just as safe as the chlorinated water you get from your tap.
Leave it open on the Uk side - let the EU police the other side.
If they want to crucify ROI by closing it or inspecting every lorry then meh it's an EU issue.
Simples.
Under WTO rules (without a FTA with the EU) we could not just have an open border with one customs area, we would have to have no checks elsewhere.
Dan Hannan may be happy, but few others methinks.
But Dan Hannan was pushing the EEA solution. He has gone quiet on that now. Hannan basically wanted to be just out of the UK - that's about it.
I am sure Dan did not just want to be out of the UK. The EU perhaps.
And he has not gone silent. Like me he is still pushing the EEA as the best solution.
In that case, I withdraw. Even now at this late hour, the EEA solution is the only sensible one on the table. For a fee , of course. Shall we say, £350m per week ?
For that amount is certainly not the most sensible solution. Besides the EEA solution is simple. One joins EFTA. The fee that Robert Smithson and I both calculated last year would be applicable based on the other EFTA countries is about £2.2 billion a year. Rather less than the £19 billion you are suggesting and certainly less than the £15.5 billion we currently pay.
Leave it open on the Uk side - let the EU police the other side.
If they want to crucify ROI by closing it or inspecting every lorry then meh it's an EU issue.
Simples.
Forgive me, I have't attempted to get my head around the border issue, but....
Are you suggesting no UK border control at all?
Anyone in the EU/Ireland can walk/drive/import anything they want into NI - and then into GB?
Can't they do that now?
But we are in the EU. Isn't the whole idea of Brexit is that we are leaving the EU. Remember, you guys wanted it. So did the DUP.
Classic deflection technique there Surbiton.
The point you are wilfully ignoring is that we have an open border with Ireland now and are happy with it. Why should we be any less happy with it because we have left the EU? Absolutely nothing will have changed on the Irish side but for some reason you seem to om the EU or anywhere else. Again nothing will change.
The reason that we can no longer have an open border is fairly obvious. We voted to leave the EU, and to this government has decided that means leaving the Single Market and Customs Union.
If we choose to end a happy arrangement, it is not the EU's fault.
+1
We are the ones that are leaving and for some reason the Brexit lunatics on here seem to think everyone needs to be prostrating in front of us. Why?
The EU want and need our "contributions"?
The cost of not paying the EU membership "contributions" will be much much higher...
We are totally and utterly screwed thanks to the Conservative party putting it's interests ahead of the national interest.
We are not completely screwed. We are in a difficult situation that we will middle through, as this country has done plenty of times in the past and will do plenty of times in the future.
And it's a bit rich blaming this all on the Tories. A big majority of the public supported having a referendum and the majority voted to Leave, including many Labour voters like myself. And the current Labour Party, for all it's flaws, also supports a Hard Brexit.
What we need is to set partisanship to one side and actually work together for a change. I imagine some of you, when stranded on a boat at sea would not bother to paddle because you're too focused on arguing about who forgot the map.
As things stand, we have convinced our EU partners that a border in Ireland is unacceptable. The language from Barnier, Verhofstadt, Macron, and many others on the issue is exactly what we have been looking for. By signing on to a bad deal, we would be conceding the principle that a border is, in fact, acceptable. We would be saying to the EU26: “yes, we have been trying hard to convince you that a border is simply unthinkable and must never be allowed to happen, but actually, we didn’t really mean it. If push comes to shove, we’ll accept a border if that is the price that has to be paid for a deal with the UK.” If we were to take such an attitude, we could hardly expect our European partners to take the opposite one!
Once the point of principle regarding the border has been conceded, it becomes likely that the border will prove to be a permanent fixture on the island. The Brexiteers will be happy: they will be able to import as much chlorinated chicken as they want from wherever they want, and the Irish border issue will no longer be on the table to complicate matters for them. There will be no reason for the UK to ever get rid of the border, and we will have lost all leverage on the issue.
Chlorinated chicken? That might be better than some of the stuff the Europeans have been selling us.
I thought chlorinated chicken was perfectly safe according to the science.
Chlorinated chicken is perfectly safe.
The issue is this. In general US animal welfare standards are significantly lower than our own (or Australia/NZ/EU). There will be no free trade deal with the US that does not include agricultural products.
The result of this will be that British (and Australian/NZ/EU) food will be undercut. This is clearly good for consumers. However, British farmers will (quite rightly) complain that it they are unable to compete with American food because they are legally required to treat their animals better than American farmers.
But what is always conveniently forgotten when this argument is rolled out is that there was one Western European country above all which ensured that there was a Europe in which the EU could thrive. Britain really does not need lectures on being good Europeans: there are cemeteries all over Europe full of British soldiers and airmen who were good Europeans. That too is worth weighing in the balance when deciding on a future relationship.
I am not disagreeing with your point (above), but the War is almost passing out of living memory - anyone who was old enough to join up would be nearly 90 by now. Whilst we need to remember the causes, outcomes and sacrifices we do need to lose the "Us vs them" attitude and what Basil Fawlty once eloquently expressed as "Who won the bl**dy war anyway?". It would be better if many of us Brits could see ourselves as Europeans, because a lot seem resistant to the concept.
These days, the threats to all of Europe largely come from further to the east.
As things stand, we have convinced our EU partners that a border in Ireland is unacceptable. The language from Barnier, Verhofstadt, Macron, and many others on the issue is exactly what we have been looking for. By signing on to a bad deal, we would be conceding the principle that a border is, in fact, acceptable. We would be saying to the EU26: “yes, we have been trying hard to convince you that a border is simply unthinkable and must never be allowed to happen, but actually, we didn’t really mean it. If push comes to shove, we’ll accept a border if that is the price that has to be paid for a deal with the UK.” If we were to take such an attitude, we could hardly expect our European partners to take the opposite one!
Once the point of principle regarding the border has been conceded, it becomes likely that the border will prove to be a permanent fixture on the island. The Brexiteers will be happy: they will be able to import as much chlorinated chicken as they want from wherever they want, and the Irish border issue will no longer be on the table to complicate matters for them. There will be no reason for the UK to ever get rid of the border, and we will have lost all leverage on the issue.
Chlorinated chicken? That might be better than some of the stuff the Europeans have been selling us.
I thought chlorinated chicken was perfectly safe according to the science.
Chlorinated chicken is perfectly safe.
The issue is this. In general US animal welfare standards are significantly lower than our own (or Australia/NZ/EU). There will be no free trade deal with the US that does not include agricultural products.
The result of this will be that British (and Australian/NZ/EU) food will be undercut. This is clearly good for consumers. However, British farmers will (quite rightly) complain that it they are unable to compete with American food because they are legally required to treat their animals better than American farmers.
I struggle to believe American animal treatment standards are worse than French or Romanian.
As things stand, we have convinced our EU partners that a border in Ireland is unacceptable. The language from Barnier, Verhofstadt, Macron, and many others on the issue is exactly what we have been looking for. By signing on to a bad deal, we would be conceding the principle that a border is, in fact, acceptable. We would be saying to the EU26: “yes, we have been trying hard to convince you that a border is simply unthinkable and must never be allowed to happen, but actually, we didn’t really mean it. If push comes to shove, we’ll accept a border if that is the price that has to be paid for a deal with the UK.” If we were to take such an attitude, we could hardly expect our European partners to take the opposite one!
Once the point of principle regarding the border has been conceded, it becomes likely that the border will prove to be a permanent fixture on the island. The Brexiteers will be happy: they will be able to import as much chlorinated chicken as they want from wherever they want, and the Irish border issue will no longer be on the table to complicate matters for them. There will be no reason for the UK to ever get rid of the border, and we will have lost all leverage on the issue.
Chlorinated chicken? That might be better than some of the stuff the Europeans have been selling us.
I thought chlorinated chicken was perfectly safe according to the science.
Chlorinated chicken is perfectly safe.
The issue is this. In general US animal welfare standards are significantly lower than our own (or Australia/NZ/EU). There will be no free trade deal with the US that does not include agricultural products.
The result of this will be that British (and Australian/NZ/EU) food will be undercut. This is clearly good for consumers. However, British farmers will (quite rightly) complain that it they are unable to compete with American food because they are legally required to treat their animals better than American farmers.
They can compete on nationalism grounds. Stick a Red Tractor on your meat packaging and sell to those who want to buy British.
Next Tory leader market.Trends analysis-eliminate first 2 in the betting.In the strange world of the Tories,eliminate Remainers.Assume the Tory party will go into a full-blown,florid psychosis,so my money is going on Jacob Rees-Mogg-best priced 9-1.In an age of contrarian politics,he represents contrarianism.Johnson,Rudd and Hammond are all lays.Davis is quite happy in his current role and PM would be a step down for him.I doubt he wants it enough. Andrea Leadsom is appearing on r4 tonight and has form from the previous non-election where she gained considerable support amongst the Tory membership.She's has put her hat in the ring before and could well do so again,She is best priced at 33-1. With a couple of small punts on outsiders that completes my ante-post portfolio.
It is a very tricky,volatile market and reflects the current existential crisis the Tory party is in so small stakes only advised.
The only other approach is Mr Micawber's.Something or someone might turn up.
I can't believe you used so many words to say so little. A bullet point precis for those worried about getting on with their work
1. Don't they understand the British?
2. Do they REALLY expect us to follow procedures designed for ordinary countries?
3. Wouldn't a sensible EU have asked US to write the rules?
3. Never trust a European. (They're sleazy cheating bastards)
4. Would we be called GREAT BRITAIN if we were just ANY country?.
Finally a vaguely appropriate song.....
PROFESSOR HIGGINS: Why can't a woman be more like a man? Men are so decent, such regular chaps; Ready to help you through any mishaps; Ready to buck you up whenever you're glum. Why can't a woman be a chum?
Why is thinking something women never do? And why is logic never even tried? Straightening up their hair is all they ever do. Why don't they straighten up the mess that's inside?
Why can't a woman behave like a man? If I was a woman who'd been to a ball, Been hailed as a princess by one and by all; Would I start weeping like a bathtub overflowing, Or carry on as if my home were in a tree? Would I run off and never tell me where I'm going? Why can't a woman be like me?
I do love you Roger. But you do misread an awful lot. I would like it to be possible to find a way for Britain to stay in a better EU.
Anyway, thanks for the chat. Off to do some gardening now.
Why does talking to Roger make you think of vegetables?
But what is always conveniently forgotten when this argument is rolled out is that there was one Western European country above all which ensured that there was a Europe in which the EU could thrive. Britain really does not need lectures on being good Europeans: there are cemeteries all over Europe full of British soldiers and airmen who were good Europeans. That too is worth weighing in the balance when deciding on a future relationship.
I am not disagreeing with your point (above), but the War is almost passing out of living memory - anyone who was old enough to join up would be nearly 90 by now. Whilst we need to remember the causes, outcomes and sacrifices we do need to lose the "Us vs them" attitude and what Basil Fawlty once eloquently expressed as "Who won the bl**dy war anyway?". It would be better if many of us Brits could see ourselves as Europeans, because a lot seem resistant to the concept.
These days, the threats to all of Europe largely come from further to the east.
But what is always conveniently forgotten when this argument is rolled out is that there was one Western European country above all which ensured that there was a Europe in which the EU could thrive. Britain really does not need lectures on being good Europeans: there are cemeteries all over Europe full of British soldiers and airmen who were good Europeans. That too is worth weighing in the balance when deciding on a future relationship.
I am not disagreeing with your point (above), but the War is almost passing out of living memory - anyone who was old enough to join up would be nearly 90 by now. Whilst we need to remember the causes, outcomes and sacrifices we do need to lose the "Us vs them" attitude and what Basil Fawlty once eloquently expressed as "Who won the bl**dy war anyway?". It would be better if many of us Brits could see ourselves as Europeans, because a lot seem resistant to the concept.
These days, the threats to all of Europe largely come from further to the east.
Agree. But WW2 was used by some on the Remain side and, even, I seem to recall Donald Tusk at one point, almost as if Britain were dishonouring its memory by daring to leave. That approach rather forgets Britain’s important contribution.
I think the war is still important in one respect: as a result of it and the years preceding the war for most of Continental Europe the nation state and nationalism are seen as bad things. So giving up or significantly changing the nation state are generally seen as desirable improvements. Britain did not see the nation state fail in the 1930’s and 1940’s (quite the opposite in many ways) so has never quite understood or accepted in its bones why it should move on from the nation state.
Both sides are insensitive to each others’ almost visceral perspective on this.
Personally, I am both British and Irish, my mother tongue is Italian and I shall continue to feel European, regardless of whether Britain is in or out of the EU.
Europe is bigger than the EU and is not the same as it. Europe will last. The EU - much like many political constructs - may or may not.
I can't believe you used so many words to say so little. A bullet point precis for those worried about getting on with their work
1. Don't they understand the British?
2. Do they REALLY expect us to follow procedures designed for ordinary countries?
3. Wouldn't a sensible EU have asked US to write the rules?
3. Never trust a European. (They're sleazy cheating bastards)
4. Would we be called GREAT BRITAIN if we were just ANY country?.
Finally a vaguely appropriate song.....
PROFESSOR HIGGINS: Why can't a woman be more like a man? Men are so decent, such regular chaps; Ready to help you through any mishaps; Ready to buck you up whenever you're glum. Why can't a woman be a chum?
Why is thinking something women never do? And why is logic never even tried? Straightening up their hair is all they ever do. Why don't they straighten up the mess that's inside?
Why can't a woman behave like a man? If I was a woman who'd been to a ball, Been hailed as a princess by one and by all; Would I start weeping like a bathtub overflowing, Or carry on as if my home were in a tree? Would I run off and never tell me where I'm going? Why can't a woman be like me?
I do love you Roger. But you do misread an awful lot. I would like it to be possible to find a way for Britain to stay in a better EU.
Anyway, thanks for the chat. Off to do some gardening now.
Why does talking to Roger make you think of vegetables?
Catalonian banks will emerge. There will be disruption , for sure. This is not Brexit as Catalonia can have tariff free trade with the EU just like before. It won't insist on doing their own trade deals.
Catalonia has its industries. It should leave the country run by fascists.
Hmm... I think you're getting a bit ahead of the actualité there. The EU countries are not going to recognise the legitimacy of the Catalonia as an independent state anytime soon. Even if some of them wanted to, Spain would veto any deal at all between the EU and Catalonia. Banks which don't have a legitimate, internationally recognised central bank behind them are not going to be able to operate. The only way there can be trade between the EU and Catalonia is under the Spanish national jurisdiction, with VAT paid to the Spanish government. And so on and so on - this is Brexit and Scottish independence on steroids with a blanket of illegality as well.
UDI cannot work.
The Catalan rebels are on a hiding to nothing. The Spanish government holds all the cards.
The devolved Catalan administration can be suspended and direct rule imposed from Madrid. If needs must, they can use the methods employed by the Generalissimo some years ago, but the less overt force required the better.
At some point in the future, as in Northern Ireland after the troubles, a devolved civil administration with local autonomy, but clearly accountable to Madrid, can be re-instated.
The issue is this. In general US animal welfare standards are significantly lower than our own (or Australia/NZ/EU). There will be no free trade deal with the US that does not include agricultural products.
The result of this will be that British (and Australian/NZ/EU) food will be undercut. This is clearly good for consumers. However, British farmers will (quite rightly) complain that it they are unable to compete with American food because they are legally required to treat their animals better than American farmers.
I struggle to believe American animal treatment standards are worse than French or Romanian.
Struggle away, but they are, except where the law is being broken - which happens in Britain too, though I can believe it happens more in Romania. For significant parts of the process from birth to slaughter, there are no US federal laws at all, whereas European law has minimum standards which are not wonderful but not nearly as bad as they could be.
The chicken issue is that caged chickens tend to be particularly liable to infection and other problems of extreme stocking density. The solution is either to lower the permitted stocking density (the European approach) or dose the chickens in chlorine before slaughter (the US approach) to try to kill the infection. The objection is not that the chlorine is dangerous per se but that it's masking a serious welfare problem which may also have health implications.
What is crazy about this whole debate is how each side has so many hardliners that can't step out of their blinkers. The rabid sceptics claim the EU is the rebuilt USSR and the rabid Remainers claim any attempt to form a compromise is delusions of imperialism. They are as bad as each other.
And more importantly, you have found a way of feeling superior to both of them.
Leave it open on the Uk side - let the EU police the other side.
If they want to crucify ROI by closing it or inspecting every lorry then meh it's an EU issue.
Simples.
Forgive me, I have't attempted to get my head around the border issue, but....
Are you suggesting no UK border control at all?
Anyone in the EU/Ireland can walk/drive/import anything they want into NI - and then into GB?
Can't they do that now?
But we are in the EU. Isn't the whole idea of Brexit is that we are leaving the EU. Remember, you guys wanted it. So did the DUP.
Classic deflection technique there Surbiton.
The point you are wilfully ignoring is that we have an open border with Ireland now and are happy with it. Why should we be any less happy with it because we have left the EU? Absolutely nothing will have changed on the Irish side but for some reason you seem to think they will suddenly become awash with drugs, immigrants and contraband that we have to keep out. Given that Ireland is not in Schengen people cannot just walk or drive in there now, from the EU or anywhere else. Again nothing will change.
The reason that we can no longer have an open border is fairly obvious. We voted to leave the EU, and to this government has decided that means leaving the Single Market and Customs Union.
If we choose to end a happy arrangement, it is not the EU's fault.
+1
We are the ones that are leaving and for some reason the Brexit lunatics on here seem to think everyone needs to be prostrating in front of us. Why?
What is crazy about this whole debate is how each side has so many hardliners that can't step out of their blinkers. The rabid sceptics claim the EU is the rebuilt USSR and the rabid Remainers claim any attempt to form a compromise is delusions of imperialism. They are as bad as each other.
And more importantly, you have found a way of feeling superior to both of them.
As things stand, we have convinced our EU partners that a border in Ireland is unacceptable. The language from Barnier, Verhofstadt, Macron, and many others on the issue is exactly what we have been looking for. By signing on to a bad deal, we would be conceding the principle that a border is, in fact, acceptable. We would be saying to the EU26: “yes, we have been trying hard to convince you that a border is simply unthinkable and must never be allowed to happen, but actually, we didn’t really mean it. If push comes to shove, we’ll accept a border if that is the price that has to be paid for a deal with the UK.” If we were to take such an attitude, we could hardly expect our European partners to take the opposite one!
Once the point of principle regarding the border has been conceded, it becomes likely that the border will prove to be a permanent fixture on the island. The Brexiteers will be happy: they will be able to import as much chlorinated chicken as they want from wherever they want, and the Irish border issue will no longer be on the table to complicate matters for them. There will be no reason for the UK to ever get rid of the border, and we will have lost all leverage on the issue.
Chlorinated chicken? That might be better than some of the stuff the Europeans have been selling us.
I thought chlorinated chicken was perfectly safe according to the science.
Chlorinated chicken is perfectly safe.
The issue is this. In general US animal welfare standards are significantly lower than our own (or Australia/NZ/EU). There will be no free trade deal with the US that does not include agricultural products.
The result of this will be that British (and Australian/NZ/EU) food will be undercut. This is clearly good for consumers. However, British farmers will (quite rightly) complain that it they are unable to compete with American food because they are legally required to treat their animals better than American farmers.
They can compete on nationalism grounds. Stick a Red Tractor on your meat packaging and sell to those who want to buy British.
Or compete on animal welfare grounds.
Free range eggs are more expensive than factory-hen eggs, but now massively dominate the market due to welfare concerns.
As things stand, we have convinced our EU partners that a border in Ireland is unacceptable. The language from Barnier, Verhofstadt, Macron, and many others on the issue is exactly what we have been looking for. By signing on to a bad deal, we would be conceding the principle that a border is, in fact, acceptable. We would be saying to the EU26: “yes, we have been trying hard to convince you that a border is simply unthinkable and must never be allowed to happen, but actually, we didn’t really mean it. If push comes to shove, we’ll accept a border if that is the price that has to be paid for a deal with the UK.” If we were to take such an attitude, we could hardly expect our European partners to take the opposite one!
Once the point of principle regarding the border has been conceded, it becomes likely that the border will prove to be a permanent fixture on the island. The Brexiteers will be happy: they will be able to import as much chlorinated chicken as they want from wherever they want, and the Irish border issue will no longer be on the table to complicate matters for them. There will be no reason for the UK to ever get rid of the border, and we will have lost all leverage on the issue.
Chlorinated chicken? That might be better than some of the stuff the Europeans have been selling us.
It's a storm in a teacup, if you ask me.
We had horsemeat in most of our lasagnes in the EU.
The issue is this. In general US animal welfare standards are significantly lower than our own (or Australia/NZ/EU). There will be no free trade deal with the US that does not include agricultural products.
The result of this will be that British (and Australian/NZ/EU) food will be undercut. This is clearly good for consumers. However, British farmers will (quite rightly) complain that it they are unable to compete with American food because they are legally required to treat their animals better than American farmers.
I struggle to believe American animal treatment standards are worse than French or Romanian.
Struggle away, but they are, except where the law is being broken - which happens in Britain too, though I can believe it happens more in Romania. For significant parts of the process from birth to slaughter, there are no US federal laws at all, whereas European law has minimum standards which are not wonderful but not nearly as bad as they could be.
The chicken issue is that caged chickens tend to be particularly liable to infection and other problems of extreme stocking density. The solution is either to lower the permitted stocking density (the European approach) or dose the chickens in chlorine before slaughter (the US approach) to try to kill the infection. The objection is not that the chlorine is dangerous per se but that it's masking a serious welfare problem which may also have health implications.
IIRC the use of beef growth hormone is another are where US standards are lower than EU standards.
As things stand, we have convinced our EU partners that a border in Ireland is unacceptable. The language from Barnier, Verhofstadt, Macron, and many others on the issue is exactly what we have been looking for. By signing on to a bad deal, we would be conceding the principle that a border is, in fact, acceptable. We would be saying to the EU26: “yes, we have been trying hard to convince you that a border is simply unthinkable and must never be allowed to happen, but actually, we didn’t really mean it. If push comes to shove, we’ll accept a border if that is the price that has to be paid for a deal with the UK.” If we were to take such an attitude, we could hardly expect our European partners to take the opposite one!
Once the point of principle regarding the border has been conceded, it becomes likely that the border will prove to be a permanent fixture on the island. The Brexiteers will be happy: they will be able to import as much chlorinated chicken as they want from wherever they want, and the Irish border issue will no longer be on the table to complicate matters for them. There will be no reason for the UK to ever get rid of the border, and we will have lost all leverage on the issue.
Chlorinated chicken? That might be better than some of the stuff the Europeans have been selling us.
I thought chlorinated chicken was perfectly safe according to the science.
Chlorinated chicken is perfectly safe.
The issue is this. In general US animal welfare standards are significantly lower than our own (or Australia/NZ/EU). There will be no free trade deal with the US that does not include agricultural products.
The result of this will be that British (and Australian/NZ/EU) food will be undercut. This is clearly good for consumers. However, British farmers will (quite rightly) complain that it they are unable to compete with American food because they are legally required to treat their animals better than American farmers.
But not good for all consumers. I place a value on animal welfare, and am prepared to pay a slightly higher price as a result. I have little faith in clear labelling allowing me to distinguish high welfare products from lower ones.
Is there any point analysing the defects in the EU's position? Thanks to the offensive charm employed by the British government, it's not as though Britain is going to be able to influence them very much to move from their present approach. Britain should concentrate on addressing its own flaws. Goodness knows there are enough of them.
As things stand, we have convinced our EU partners that a border in Ireland is unacceptable. The language from Barnier, Verhofstadt, Macron, and many others on the issue is exactly what we have been looking for. By signing on to a bad deal, we would be conceding the principle that a border is, in fact, acceptable. We would be saying to the EU26: “yes, we have been trying hard to convince you that a border is simply unthinkable and must never be allowed to happen, but actually, we didn’t really mean it. If push comes to shove, we’ll accept a border if that is the price that has to be paid for a deal with the UK.” If we were to take such an attitude, we could hardly expect our European partners to take the opposite one!
Once the point of principle regarding the border has been conceded, it becomes likely that the border will prove to be a permanent fixture on the island. The Brexiteers will be happy: they will be able to import as much chlorinated chicken as they want from wherever they want, and the Irish border issue will no longer be on the table to complicate matters for them. There will be no reason for the UK to ever get rid of the border, and we will have lost all leverage on the issue.
Chlorinated chicken? That might be better than some of the stuff the Europeans have been selling us.
It's a storm in a teacup, if you ask me.
We had horsemeat in most of our lasagnes in the EU.
You're exaggerating and comparing criminal non-adherence to standards (which can and does happen anywhere) with lower standards (in the US).
If the EU wanted to resolve the Irish border that necessitates an agreement on trade, which they refuse to have.
Yeah, it seems absurd to want a solution to it without knowing what the future arrangement will be.
It's a way of taking the A50 negotiations and the UK to the wire, to maximise economic disruption and business relocation from the UK to the EU's benefit.
Is there any point analysing the defects in the EU's position? Thanks to the offensive charm employed by the British government, it's not as though Britain is going to be able to influence them very much to move from their present approach. Britain should concentrate on addressing its own flaws. Goodness knows there are enough of them.
I seem to recall a recent thread header of yours where you analysed the defects in the Remainers’ position.......
Is there any point analysing the defects in the EU's position? Thanks to the offensive charm employed by the British government, it's not as though Britain is going to be able to influence them very much to move from their present approach. Britain should concentrate on addressing its own flaws. Goodness knows there are enough of them.
I seem to recall a recent thread header of yours where you analysed the defects in the Remainers’ position.......
The British government is not made up of Remainers, is it?
Is there any point analysing the defects in the EU's position? Thanks to the offensive charm employed by the British government, it's not as though Britain is going to be able to influence them very much to move from their present approach. Britain should concentrate on addressing its own flaws. Goodness knows there are enough of them.
I seem to recall a recent thread header of yours where you analysed the defects in the Remainers’ position.......
I like to ring the changes. Consistency is the sign of a small mind.
I tend towards Roger's view. It's not really open to Leavers to critique the EU's negotiating position. It has to be dealt with as it stands. It might have been substantially different if Theresa May had made an early attempt to sketch out what a long term constructive relationship would look like. The EU can afford to wait for Britain to get over its collective insanity.
As things stand, we have convinced our EU partners that a border in Ireland is unacceptable. The language from Barnier, Verhofstadt, Macron, and many others on the issue is exactly what we have been looking for. By signing on to a bad deal, we would be conceding the principle that a border is, in fact, acceptable. We would be saying to the EU26: “yes, we have been trying hard to convince you that a border is simply unthinkable and must never be allowed to happen, but actually, we didn’t really mean it. If push comes to shove, we’ll accept a border if that is the price that has to be paid for a deal with the UK.” If we were to take such an attitude, we could hardly expect our European partners to take the opposite one!
Once the point of principle regarding the border has been conceded, it becomes likely that the border will prove to be a permanent fixture on the island. The Brexiteers will be happy: they will be able to import as much chlorinated chicken as they want from wherever they want, and the Irish border issue will no longer be on the table to complicate matters for them. There will be no reason for the UK to ever get rid of the border, and we will have lost all leverage on the issue.
Chlorinated chicken? That might be better than some of the stuff the Europeans have been selling us.
It's a storm in a teacup, if you ask me.
We had horsemeat in most of our lasagnes in the EU.
You're exaggerating and comparing criminal non-adherence to standards (which can and does happen anywhere) with lower standards (in the US).
I don't think I'm exaggerating at all.
That comes from the ultra-Remainers who have been employing so much hyberbole since before, during, and after, the vote it's destroyed any faith in the arguments for their case.
The Americans will export and sell very little of their crap-tasting, processed, low-quality food here even with a fully open free trade deal, except perhaps to the very poorest who could honestly do with a break, so I have no problem opening up to them.
As things stand, we have convinced our EU partners that a border in Ireland is unacceptable. The language from Barnier, Verhofstadt, Macron, and many others on the issue is exactly what we have been looking for. By signing on to a bad deal, we would be conceding the principle that a border is, in fact, acceptable. We would be saying to the EU26: “yes, we have been trying hard to convince you that a border is simply unthinkable and must never be allowed to happen, but actually, we didn’t really mean it. If push comes to shove, we’ll accept a border if that is the price that has to be paid for a deal with the UK.” If we were to take such an attitude, we could hardly expect our European partners to take the opposite one!
Once the point of principle regarding the border has been conceded, it becomes likely that the border will prove to be a permanent fixture on the island. The Brexiteers will be happy: they will be able to import as much chlorinated chicken as they want from wherever they want, and the Irish border issue will no longer be on the table to complicate matters for them. There will be no reason for the UK to ever get rid of the border, and we will have lost all leverage on the issue.
Chlorinated chicken? That might be better than some of the stuff the Europeans have been selling us.
It's a storm in a teacup, if you ask me.
We had horsemeat in most of our lasagnes in the EU.
You're exaggerating and comparing criminal non-adherence to standards (which can and does happen anywhere) with lower standards (in the US).
I don't think I'm exaggerating at all.
That comes from the ultra-Remainers who have been employing so much hyberbole since before, during, and after, the vote it's destroyed any faith in the arguments for their case.
The Americans will export and sell very little of their crap-tasting, processed, low-quality food here even with a fully open free trade deal, except perhaps to the very poorest who could honestly do with a break, so I have no problem opening up to them.
You were certainly exaggerating with: "We had horsemeat in most of our lasagnes in the EU."
Is there any point analysing the defects in the EU's position? Thanks to the offensive charm employed by the British government, it's not as though Britain is going to be able to influence them very much to move from their present approach. Britain should concentrate on addressing its own flaws. Goodness knows there are enough of them.
I seem to recall a recent thread header of yours where you analysed the defects in the Remainers’ position.......
The British government is not made up of Remainers, is it?
Well the Prime Minister was certainly a Remainer and like so many of her kind she has little idea of the Leaver mindset.
Is there any point analysing the defects in the EU's position? Thanks to the offensive charm employed by the British government, it's not as though Britain is going to be able to influence them very much to move from their present approach. Britain should concentrate on addressing its own flaws. Goodness knows there are enough of them.
I seem to recall a recent thread header of yours where you analysed the defects in the Remainers’ position.......
I like to ring the changes. Consistency is the sign of a small mind.
I tend towards Roger's view. It's not really open to Leavers to critique the EU's negotiating position. It has to be dealt with as it stands. It might have been substantially different if Theresa May had made an early attempt to sketch out what a long term constructive relationship would look like. The EU can afford to wait for Britain to get over its collective insanity.
Leave it open on the Uk side - let the EU police the other side.
If they want to crucify ROI by closing it or inspecting every lorry then meh it's an EU issue.
Simples.
Under WTO rules (without a FTA with the EU) we could not just have an open border with one customs area, we would have to have no checks elsewhere.
Dan Hannan may be happy, but few others methinks.
The irony with Hannan is that if an erstwhile Remainer advocated his position he or she would be lambasted for trying to 'reverse Brexit' and 'defy the will of the people'. Hannan is on the dark, remote fringes of the euro-sceptic movement to the extent that it's questionable whether he should be classed as a euro-sceptic at all. For this reason he must feel neglected and alone.
Does anyone have an explanation as to why the party conferences take place earlier than was formerly the case?In the past the Tory Conference tended to coincide with Mrs Thatcher's birthday - October 13th - and the Labour Conference was scheduled for the first week in October, but for several years now both appear to have been brought forward by a week to ten days.I am curious to why this has happened.
Is there any point analysing the defects in the EU's position?
Yes.
But not by a proven and unrepentant liar.
Good. You concede the point.
Btw, if that's a dig at me (and we both know it is) you and I can restart a civilised conservation just as soon as you stop being patronising and rude to anyone who voted Leave, and start addressing them as individuals rather than labelling and denigrating them.
Unfortunately, you've shown yourself to not a big enough man to admit that, and change your behaviour, despite me reaching out to you publicly and privately more than once over the last 16 months, so I suspect we'll remain in our quandary.
Does anyone have an explanation as to why the party conferences take place earlier than was formerly the case?In the past the Tory Conference tended to coincide with Mrs Thatcher's birthday - October 13th - and the Labour Conference was scheduled for the first week in October, but for several years now both appear to have been brought forward by a week to ten days.I am curious to why this has happened.
No, they're happening at the same time, but due to EU regulations we've had to move the calendar forward a few days.
Is there any point analysing the defects in the EU's position?
Yes.
But not by a proven and unrepentant liar.
Good. You concede the point.
Btw, if that's a dig at me (and we both know it is) you and I can restart a civilised conservation just as soon as you stop being patronising and rude to anyone who voted Leave, and start addressing them as individuals rather than labelling and denigrating them.
Unfortunately, you've shown yourself to not a big enough man to admit that, and change your behaviour, despite me reaching out to you publicly and privately more than once over the last 16 months, so I suspect we'll remain in our quandary.
Until you stop telling lies about me and apologise, you are not worth the effort.
I don't normally offer advice to people on what they should or shouldn't say on a forum like this. I do however suggest that if someone writes something you take exception to, state your objection once and leave it there.
And the EU needed this too. Easy for their politicians to look on in wonder, bewilderment and contempt. But let’s poke fun at them for a bit: a big, serious, important country in which many EU citizens work and live decided after 43 years of the EU experience to reject it. This is on any reading a failure for – and by – the EU, however much they may choose to view it insouciantly as British eccentricity
Free range eggs are more expensive than factory-hen eggs, but now massively dominate the market due to welfare concerns.
Yes - the organisation that I work for argues that at the least there should be compulsory labelling of means of production/slaughter so that consumers can make an informed choice (as they can with eggs, but can't at present so easily with a hunk of meat).
Gove seems pretty good so far on these issues, incidentally.
Leave it open on the Uk side - let the EU police the other side.
If they want to crucify ROI by closing it or inspecting every lorry then meh it's an EU issue.
Simples.
Under WTO rules (without a FTA with the EU) we could not just have an open border with one customs area, we would have to have no checks elsewhere.
Dan Hannan may be happy, but few others methinks.
The irony with Hannan is that if an erstwhile Remainer advocated his position he or she would be lambasted for trying to 'reverse Brexit' and 'defy the will of the people'. Hannan is on the dark, remote fringes of the euro-sceptic movement to the extent that it's questionable whether he should be classed as a euro-sceptic at all. For this reason he must feel neglected and alone.
And you are another one who singularly fails to understand the Leave movement because you are both too arrogant and too dumb to understand the nuances.
Germany and France have dashed British hopes of fast-tracking talks on a two-year post-Brexit transition deal, insisting that the UK’s EU divorce bill be resolved first.
Cyclefree's article is the classic Brit Brexit opinion. We will leave the EU and the terms on which we will leave will also be decided by us.
"A wiser EU would understand that a Britain leaving in chaos will do nothing for the EU’s image or claim that it is a force for stability."
It seems that it is for a Briton to decide what is wise for the EU. Apparently, they are not capable of taking that decision themselves. If Britain does not get what it wants, as it will not, it will blame the EU for not getting what it wanted.
We forget Britain was already having the cake and eating it. It had the rebate, it had the opt-outs. No other country had those privileges as extensively as we did. We were never really a member of the EU. All we wanted was tariff free access. Now we will soon get upset if it is not served on a plate.
Maybe, we have not grown out of our post-imperial attitude. The world owes us our privileges.
1. You don’t know how I voted so don’t make assumptions. 2. The EU is not beyond criticism. What I wrote there I have heard said by people in the EU who deplore Brexit. 3. I am an EU citizen - through my Irish citizenship - who, as I’ve said on this thread and the previous one, would rather Britain were a member of a better EU.
Do you really think that a Britain leaving in chaos would be a good thing for the EU? Or Europe as a whole? Humiliating a country - even when they may have been largely responsible for putting themselves into a position where they can be humiliated - is not sensible politics, especially when that country is a close neighbour.
You talk of not growing out of post-Imperial attitudes. A fair comment though I think you must mean Imperial. But much of the underlying rationale for the EU (wheeled out during last year’s referendum) was to prevent the murderous wars of the first half of the last century and that it was responsible for peace in Europe, blah, blah. All true (though it cannot claim all the credit for the latter point). But what is always conveniently forgotten when this argument is rolled out is that there was one Western European country above all which ensured that there was a Europe in which the EU could thrive. Britain really does not need lectures on being good Europeans: there are cemeteries all over Europe full of British soldiers and airmen who were good Europeans. That too is worth weighing in the balance when deciding on a future relationship.
That's the point. We haven't seen our political institutions fail, to be replaced by dictatorships, and/or foreign occupation.
Therefore, arguments that EU is needed to preserve democracy and the rule of law leave us cold, indeed, seem self-serving.
May has much more in common with Jezza than meets the eye. After all he faced a mass walkout by his shadow cabinet, a vote of no confidence, a leadership contest and came out stronger through it.
May is confronted by the supercilious Grant Schapps......and erghhh anyone out there...perhaps TSE and OGH combined.....
I think she'll survive somehow to leave on her terms
Is there any point analysing the defects in the EU's position? Thanks to the offensive charm employed by the British government, it's not as though Britain is going to be able to influence them very much to move from their present approach. Britain should concentrate on addressing its own flaws. Goodness knows there are enough of them.
I seem to recall a recent thread header of yours where you analysed the defects in the Remainers’ position.......
I like to ring the changes. Consistency is the sign of a small mind.
I tend towards Roger's view. It's not really open to Leavers to critique the EU's negotiating position. It has to be dealt with as it stands. It might have been substantially different if Theresa May had made an early attempt to sketch out what a long term constructive relationship would look like. The EU can afford to wait for Britain to get over its collective insanity.
Germany and France have dashed British hopes of fast-tracking talks on a two-year post-Brexit transition deal, insisting that the UK’s EU divorce bill be resolved first.
Interestingly Michel Barnier argued for opening up talks on the transition deal now, according to the article, but was knocked back by Merkel and Macron. So much for the idea, much aired here, of bypassing Barnier and going straight to Merkel.
Is there any point analysing the defects in the EU's position? Thanks to the offensive charm employed by the British government, it's not as though Britain is going to be able to influence them very much to move from their present approach. Britain should concentrate on addressing its own flaws. Goodness knows there are enough of them.
Britain's biggest flaw by a long way is the failure to raise its low level of productivity in the last decade.
At the risk of sounding like the TV programme W1A, overall wealth and standard of living can only be achieved by producing more from less.
As things stand, we have convinced our EU partners that a border in Ireland is unacceptable. The language from Barnier, Verhofstadt, Macron, and many others on the issue is exactly what we have been looking for. By signing on to a bad deal, we would be conceding the principle that a border is, in fact, acceptable. We would be saying to the EU26: “yes, we have been trying hard to convince you that a border is simply unthinkable and must never be allowed to happen, but actually, we didn’t really mean it. If push comes to shove, we’ll accept a border if that is the price that has to be paid for a deal with the UK.” If we were to take such an attitude, we could hardly expect our European partners to take the opposite one!
Once the point of principle regarding the border has been conceded, it becomes likely that the border will prove to be a permanent fixture on the island. The Brexiteers will be happy: they will be able to import as much chlorinated chicken as they want from wherever they want, and the Irish border issue will no longer be on the table to complicate matters for them. There will be no reason for the UK to ever get rid of the border, and we will have lost all leverage on the issue.
Chlorinated chicken? That might be better than some of the stuff the Europeans have been selling us.
I thought chlorinated chicken was perfectly safe according to the science.
Chlorinated chicken is perfectly safe.
The issue is this. In general US animal welfare standards are significantly lower than our own (or Australia/NZ/EU). There will be no free trade deal with the US that does not include agricultural products.
The result of this will be that British (and Australian/NZ/EU) food will be undercut. This is clearly good for consumers. However, British farmers will (quite rightly) complain that it they are unable to compete with American food because they are legally required to treat their animals better than American farmers.
They can compete on nationalism grounds. Stick a Red Tractor on your meat packaging and sell to those who want to buy British.
Or compete on animal welfare grounds.
Free range eggs are more expensive than factory-hen eggs, but now massively dominate the market due to welfare concerns.
Or more accurately, eggs labelled free range eggs dominate the market.
"Describing as “unbelievable arrogance” British offers to pay just 20 billion euros (£17.96 billion) of a “Brexit bill” which the EU estimates at perhaps 60 billion euros, a senior diplomat from a country Britain generally views as an ally in EU affairs said Mrs May would have to face down hardliners who reject such payments." - just say no.
Is there any point analysing the defects in the EU's position? Thanks to the offensive charm employed by the British government, it's not as though Britain is going to be able to influence them very much to move from their present approach. Britain should concentrate on addressing its own flaws. Goodness knows there are enough of them.
Britain's biggest flaw by a long way is the failure to raise its low level of productivity in the last decade.
At the risk of sounding like the TV programme W1A, overall wealth and standard of living can only be achieved by producing more from less.
It's an oddity that the impact of economic growth since 2010 has shown up in employment, rather than productivity.
"Describing as “unbelievable arrogance” British offers to pay just 20 billion euros (£17.96 billion) of a “Brexit bill” which the EU estimates at perhaps 60 billion euros, a senior diplomat from a country Britain generally views as an ally in EU affairs said Mrs May would have to face down hardliners who reject such payments." - just say no.
Germany and France have dashed British hopes of fast-tracking talks on a two-year post-Brexit transition deal, insisting that the UK’s EU divorce bill be resolved first.
The FT is a tool in the hands of the EU negotiators.
Is there any point analysing the defects in the EU's position? Thanks to the offensive charm employed by the British government, it's not as though Britain is going to be able to influence them very much to move from their present approach. Britain should concentrate on addressing its own flaws. Goodness knows there are enough of them.
Britain's biggest flaw by a long way is the failure to raise its low level of productivity in the last decade.
At the risk of sounding like the TV programme W1A, overall wealth and standard of living can only be achieved by producing more from less.
It's an oddity that the impact of economic growth since 2010 has shown up in employment, rather than productivity.
We've started replacing machines with the unskilled.
"Describing as “unbelievable arrogance” British offers to pay just 20 billion euros (£17.96 billion) of a “Brexit bill” which the EU estimates at perhaps 60 billion euros, a senior diplomat from a country Britain generally views as an ally in EU affairs said Mrs May would have to face down hardliners who reject such payments." - just say no.
That implies a massive sense of entitlement.
Agree. If you are going to dictate terms - and let's face it, we have put ourselves into a take it or leave it position - it helps to be a little tactful.
Comments
The Brexiters should have thought about this earlier or a simple solution: stay in the single market and customs union.
We could still abide by the referendum [ unless overturned by another referendum ] by being outside the EU.
http://news.sky.com/story/only-three-mps-call-for-theresa-may-to-resign-imminently-sky-poll-finds-11069763
I work on quality not quantity however.
As things stand, we have convinced our EU partners that a border in Ireland is unacceptable. The language from Barnier, Verhofstadt, Macron, and many others on the issue is exactly what we have been looking for. By signing on to a bad deal, we would be conceding the principle that a border is, in fact, acceptable. We would be saying to the EU26: “yes, we have been trying hard to convince you that a border is simply unthinkable and must never be allowed to happen, but actually, we didn’t really mean it. If push comes to shove, we’ll accept a border if that is the price that has to be paid for a deal with the UK.” If we were to take such an attitude, we could hardly expect our European partners to take the opposite one!
Once the point of principle regarding the border has been conceded, it becomes likely that the border will prove to be a permanent fixture on the island. The Brexiteers will be happy: they will be able to import as much chlorinated chicken as they want from wherever they want, and the Irish border issue will no longer be on the table to complicate matters for them. There will be no reason for the UK to ever get rid of the border, and we will have lost all leverage on the issue.
We are totally and utterly screwed thanks to the Conservative party putting it's interests ahead of the national interest.
2. The EU is not beyond criticism. What I wrote there I have heard said by people in the EU who deplore Brexit.
3. I am an EU citizen - through my Irish citizenship - who, as I’ve said on this thread and the previous one, would rather Britain were a member of a better EU.
Do you really think that a Britain leaving in chaos would be a good thing for the EU? Or Europe as a whole? Humiliating a country - even when they may have been largely responsible for putting themselves into a position where they can be humiliated - is not sensible politics, especially when that country is a close neighbour.
You talk of not growing out of post-Imperial attitudes. A fair comment though I think you must mean Imperial. But much of the underlying rationale for the EU (wheeled out during last year’s referendum) was to prevent the murderous wars of the first half of the last century and that it was responsible for peace in Europe, blah, blah. All true (though it cannot claim all the credit for the latter point). But what is always conveniently forgotten when this argument is rolled out is that there was one Western European country above all which ensured that there was a Europe in which the EU could thrive. Britain really does not need lectures on being good Europeans: there are cemeteries all over Europe full of British soldiers and airmen who were good Europeans. That too is worth weighing in the balance when deciding on a future relationship.
PS Good thread header
Just as safe as the chlorinated water you get from your tap.
And it's a bit rich blaming this all on the Tories. A big majority of the public supported having a referendum and the majority voted to Leave, including many Labour voters like myself. And the current Labour Party, for all it's flaws, also supports a Hard Brexit.
What we need is to set partisanship to one side and actually work together for a change. I imagine some of you, when stranded on a boat at sea would not bother to paddle because you're too focused on arguing about who forgot the map.
The issue is this. In general US animal welfare standards are significantly lower than our own (or Australia/NZ/EU). There will be no free trade deal with the US that does not include agricultural products.
The result of this will be that British (and Australian/NZ/EU) food will be undercut. This is clearly good for consumers. However, British farmers will (quite rightly) complain that it they are unable to compete with American food because they are legally required to treat their animals better than American farmers.
These days, the threats to all of Europe largely come from further to the east.
Andrea Leadsom is appearing on r4 tonight and has form from the previous non-election where she gained considerable support amongst the Tory membership.She's has put her hat in the ring before and could well do so again,She is best priced at 33-1.
With a couple of small punts on outsiders that completes my ante-post portfolio.
It is a very tricky,volatile market and reflects the current existential crisis the Tory party is in so small stakes only advised.
The only other approach is Mr Micawber's.Something or someone might turn up.
I think the war is still important in one respect: as a result of it and the years preceding the war for most of Continental Europe the nation state and nationalism are seen as bad things. So giving up or significantly changing the nation state are generally seen as desirable improvements. Britain did not see the nation state fail in the 1930’s and 1940’s (quite the opposite in many ways) so has never quite understood or accepted in its bones why it should move on from the nation state.
Both sides are insensitive to each others’ almost visceral perspective on this.
Personally, I am both British and Irish, my mother tongue is Italian and I shall continue to feel European, regardless of whether Britain is in or out of the EU.
Europe is bigger than the EU and is not the same as it. Europe will last. The EU - much like many political constructs - may or may not.
Sky News contacted 285 Con MPs re Con leadership.
103 replied:
100 want May to stay
3 want May to go
No, that's not a typo, THREE want May to go.
http://news.sky.com/story/only-three-mps-call-for-theresa-may-to-resign-imminently-sky-poll-finds-11069763
The devolved Catalan administration can be suspended and direct rule imposed from Madrid. If needs must, they can use the methods employed by the Generalissimo some years ago, but the less overt force required the better.
At some point in the future, as in Northern Ireland after the troubles, a devolved civil administration with local autonomy, but clearly accountable to Madrid, can be re-instated.
The chicken issue is that caged chickens tend to be particularly liable to infection and other problems of extreme stocking density. The solution is either to lower the permitted stocking density (the European approach) or dose the chickens in chlorine before slaughter (the US approach) to try to kill the infection. The objection is not that the chlorine is dangerous per se but that it's masking a serious welfare problem which may also have health implications.
Free range eggs are more expensive than factory-hen eggs, but now massively dominate the market due to welfare concerns.
We had horsemeat in most of our lasagnes in the EU.
I tend towards Roger's view. It's not really open to Leavers to critique the EU's negotiating position. It has to be dealt with as it stands. It might have been substantially different if Theresa May had made an early attempt to sketch out what a long term constructive relationship would look like. The EU can afford to wait for Britain to get over its collective insanity.
That comes from the ultra-Remainers who have been employing so much hyberbole since before, during, and after, the vote it's destroyed any faith in the arguments for their case.
The Americans will export and sell very little of their crap-tasting, processed, low-quality food here even with a fully open free trade deal, except perhaps to the very poorest who could honestly do with a break, so I have no problem opening up to them.
Blogging, trolling
And now I'm all alone
In Brexit Land
My only home
Btw, if that's a dig at me (and we both know it is) you and I can restart a civilised conservation just as soon as you stop being patronising and rude to anyone who voted Leave, and start addressing them as individuals rather than labelling and denigrating them.
Unfortunately, you've shown yourself to not a big enough man to admit that, and change your behaviour, despite me reaching out to you publicly and privately more than once over the last 16 months, so I suspect we'll remain in our quandary.
No, they're happening at the same time, but due to EU regulations we've had to move the calendar forward a few days.
https://twitter.com/TheSportsman/status/915864925112868865
Harsh truths needed for both sides.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/06/robert-mugabe-claims-thaw-relations-britain-meeting-sir-nicholas/
It also unfortunately encapsulates why, in the end, the EU itself will fail. Blind arrogance is a malaise that grips all Eurofanatics.
Gove seems pretty good so far on these issues, incidentally.
Loads of cheap human statues.
BREXIT is brilliant
Germany and France have dashed British hopes of fast-tracking talks on a two-year post-Brexit transition deal, insisting that the UK’s EU divorce bill be resolved first.
Therefore, arguments that EU is needed to preserve democracy and the rule of law leave us cold, indeed, seem self-serving.
May is confronted by the supercilious Grant Schapps......and erghhh anyone out there...perhaps TSE and OGH combined.....
I think she'll survive somehow to leave on her terms
You're never alone with PoliticalBetting.com.
Britain's biggest flaw by a long way is the failure to raise its low level of productivity in the last decade.
At the risk of sounding like the TV programme W1A, overall wealth and standard of living can only be achieved by producing more from less.
Or more accurately, eggs labelled free range eggs dominate the market.
The FT is a tool in the hands of the EU negotiators.
Robert Plant and his band today at Maida Vale for 6 music providing one of the best live performances of recent memory. Whole lotta love.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPLanTT-2oc