As Schroedinger was an Irish citizen - that would work.
However better to be brave and stay in the EU!
Staying in the EU would be the ultimate act of running away. It would only be "brave" in a Brave Sir Robin kind of way....
And it would give the current politicians in the UK hell to pay. And hand many of them their P45. In June, 80%+ voted for parties who were pledged to getting us out the EU. "We gave you one job to do....Just one."
Well over 50% of voters also backed parties that favour immediate confirmation that the rights of EU resident in the UK should be immediately and unconditionally confirmed. We're not doing that.
Have you seen why? Have you seee the way the EU negotiators have banked the PM's Florence speech and just flatly said "More...."? Yes, it would have been great to have sorted this issue out. The humane thing to do. But for that, there needs to be good faith by the EU. And that just isn't happening.
The UK does not take responsibility for this issue still causing huge worry to many people.
The rights and status of EU citizens in the UK is entirely the responsibility of the UK. Over 50% of voters backed parties that favour immediate and unconditional recognition of their existing rights. That's a majority, just like the 80% voting for parties that back Brexit is a majority. Or maybe it's a bit more complicated than that.
Their rights and status being guaranteed unconditionally by... what? Isn't that the fundamental point at dispute?
It can be done under UK law. Give EU citizens resident here on a specific date the rights they enjoy now. That would apply in the absence of a final deal.
Yes it could. But that would be unacceptable to the EU, so whilst it might be the right thing to do to ease concerns for non UK EU citizens in the country, it wouldn't actually resolve anything as regards the negotiations.
If we had done it unilaterally at the outset the EU would hardly be asking us to revoke the offer would they?
As Schroedinger was an Irish citizen - that would work.
However better to be brave and stay in the EU!
Staying in the EU would be the ultimate act of running away. It would only be "brave" in a Brave Sir Robin kind of way....
And it would give the current politicians in the UK hell to pay. And hand many of them their P45. In June, 80%+ voted for parties who were pledged to getting us out the EU. "We gave you one job to do....Just one."
Well over 50% of voters also backed parties that favour immediate confirmation that the rights of EU resident in the UK should be immediately and unconditionally confirmed. We're not doing that.
Have you seen why? Have you seee the way the EU negotiators have banked the PM's Florence speech and just flatly said "More...."? Yes, it would have been great to have sorted this issue out. The humane thing to do. But for that, there needs to be good faith by the EU. And that just isn't happening.
The UK does not take responsibility for this issue still causing huge worry to many people.
The rights and status of EU citizens in the UK is entirely the responsibility of the UK. Over 50% of voters backed parties that favour immediate and unconditional recognition of their existing rights. That's a majority, just like the 80% voting for parties that back Brexit is a majority. Or maybe it's a bit more complicated than that.
Their rights and status being guaranteed unconditionally by... what? Isn't that the fundamental point at dispute?
It can be done under UK law. Give EU citizens resident here on a specific date the rights they enjoy now. That would apply in the absence of a final deal.
So they should have superior rights to UK citizens?
I don't think Brexit and the 26-6 partition of Ireland can simultaneously exist. One of them is going to have to give.
The obvious interim solution is to move the controlled border (for people and goods) between the EU and the UK to the Irish Sea, as a prelude to Irish re-unification. In the EU referendum, there was a 56-44 majority in favour of remaining in the EU in the 6 counties.
The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom.
The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain a part of the EU.
Try squaring that circle.
I'd imagine the margin is stronger for staying in the UK, and the issue is much more salient. It's not like Gibraltar is going to be delivered into the hands of Spain, despite the Remoaner wet dreams. Same with NI.
"That’s far from certain as the two sides continue to talk at cross purposes, becoming irritated with each other in the process as neither understands why the other won’t be reasonable. It’s a microcosm of why the difference in philosophical understanding of what the EU is propelled Britain to leave in the first place."
Precisely, David. This is what I've been saying for months.
I see the point, but there is another angle to it. My parents, WWC in their seventies, were definitely drawn to the Brexit line. If I hadn't put the case for staying in to them they might well have voted out. My children on the other hand simply couldn't understand why anyone would want to leave the EU. This is quite literal. I couldn't explain to them what the arguments on either side of the debate were. Had I wanted to persuade them to vote leave I would have not had any idea of how to even start persuading them.
I am beginning to doubt whether the collective efforts of the supporters of Brexit are even up to the task of actually getting us out. But let's assume they manage it. Support for Brexit only just made it to a majority last year. Real life usually disappoints expectations. And as the older voters drop off the register support for the EU will grow. We'll be back in soon enough.
I don't think Brexit and the 26-6 partition of Ireland can simultaneously exist. One of them is going to have to give.
The obvious interim solution is to move the controlled border (for people and goods) between the EU and the UK to the Irish Sea, as a prelude to Irish re-unification. In the EU referendum, there was a 56-44 majority in favour of remaining in the EU in the 6 counties.
The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom.
Easy. The majority of their MPs in Westminster wish to Brexit.
Good point. So presumably since the majority of UK MPS wish to remain in the EU, we should do so?
As Schroedinger was an Irish citizen - that would work.
However better to be brave and stay in the EU!
Staying in the EU would be the ultimate act of running away. It would only be "brave" in a Brave Sir Robin kind of way....
And it would give the current politicians in the UK hell to pay. And hand many of them their P45. In June, 80%+ voted for parties who were pledged to getting us out the EU. "We gave you one job to do....Just one."
Well over 50% of voters also backed parties that favour immediate confirmation that the rights of EU resident in the UK should be immediately and unconditionally confirmed. We're not doing that.
Have you seen why? Have you seee the way the EU negotiators have banked the PM's Florence speech and just flatly said "More...."? Yes, it would have been great to have sorted this issue out. The humane thing to do. But for that, there needs to be good faith by the EU. And that just isn't happening.
The UK does not take responsibility for this issue still causing huge worry to many people.
The rights and status of EU citizens in the UK is entirely the responsibility of the UK. Over 50% of voters backed parties that favour immediate and unconditional recognition of their existing rights. That's a majority, just like the 80% voting for parties that back Brexit is a majority. Or maybe it's a bit more complicated than that.
From what I've read of the UK's negotiating position, the rights and status of existing EU citizens in the UK isn't a problem.
It's future rights post-Brexit and the role of the ECJ in any dispute that's the problem, where the EU has an unreasonable position that the ECJ should police both sides of the agreement.
I don't think Brexit and the 26-6 partition of Ireland can simultaneously exist. One of them is going to have to give.
The obvious interim solution is to move the controlled border (for people and goods) between the EU and the UK to the Irish Sea, as a prelude to Irish re-unification. In the EU referendum, there was a 56-44 majority in favour of remaining in the EU in the 6 counties.
The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom.
The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain a part of the EU.
Try squaring that circle.
Easy - the majority of the NI MP's in Westminster want Brexit...
As Schroedinger was an Irish citizen - that would work.
However better to be brave and stay in the EU!
Staying in the EU would be the ultimate act of running away. It would only be "brave" in a Brave Sir Robin kind of way....
And it would give the current politicians in the UK hell to pay. And hand many of them their P45. In June, 80%+ voted for parties who were pledged to getting us out the EU. "We gave you one job to do....Just one."
Well over 50% of voters also backed parties that favour immediate confirmation that the rights of EU resident in the UK should be immediately and unconditionally confirmed. We're not doing that.
Have you seen why? Have you seee the way the EU negotiators have banked the PM's Florence speech and just flatly said "More...."? Yes, it would have been great to have sorted this issue out. The humane thing to do. But for that, there needs to be good faith by the EU. And that just isn't happening.
The UK does not take responsibility for this issue still causing huge worry to many people.
The rights and status of EU citizens in the UK is entirely the responsibility of the UK. Over 50% of voters backed parties that favour immediate and unconditional recognition of their existing rights. That's a majority, just like the 80% voting for parties that back Brexit is a majority. Or maybe it's a bit more complicated than that.
Their rights and status being guaranteed unconditionally by... what? Isn't that the fundamental point at dispute?
It can be done under UK law. Give EU citizens resident here on a specific date the rights they enjoy now. That would apply in the absence of a final deal.
Yes it could. But that would be unacceptable to the EU, so whilst it might be the right thing to do to ease concerns for non UK EU citizens in the country, it wouldn't actually resolve anything as regards the negotiations.
I get that. But the rights of EU citizens should not be dependent on a final deal. They have made a huge commitment and contribution to the UK, and we should recognise that. They deserve certainty, not years of turmoil.
David's first paragraph sounds overly defensive. Why does an article about the Irish border need to start with a reassurance that Brexit really, really, really will happen?
I think you're reading too much into it. Why did Mr Meeks' piece on A50 open with it being unlikely it woukd end up being tested? Why is he so certain of that? It hardly matters.
In this case it sets the premise on which the hypothetical scenario shall be explored, since it's about solution to the problem assuming we leave, and for instance your solution to the problem woukd be 'lets not leave then'. Even if that's right, it's not the scenario being explored.
Mr. Mark, possibly. Still a credible route for the far right to rise, alas.
The failure to deliver Brexit would lead to a significant portion of the voters getting very, very peeved indeed. I'd hate to see it, but I suspect direct action would be vented in ways virtually all on here would be appalled about.
And if it turns out that Brexit is undeliverable?
Brexit is going to be delivered. And I have no doubt, some aspects will be painful. There will be losers, some of those will be people who voted for Leave with a greater sense of optimism that their life would be better.
But amidst all this uncertainty, there's one thing we can be sure of: those who tied us into the EU, often on the sly, with the intention of making sure that leaving was impossible or incredibly costly - without ever getting the blessing of the the people of the UK in this - will take no responsibility whatspever for their actions. It will all be down to those pesky kids who found them out and stopped them.
The 'kids' didn't, as a majority, vote to Leave.
The majority of "kids" didn't vote to Remain either.
A very interesting and witty thread-header Mr Herdson. Thank-you.
If only we didn't have people running the show who appear not to be able to negotiate their way out of a paper bag, I would have more confidence.
Nobody is covering themselves in glory but to be fair to Barnier his remit is insane from the 27. How do you know what controls, if any, are needed at the border unless and until you know what the overall trade and other relationships are going to be?
It’s impossible.
The UK government has still to decide what relationship it wants with the EU post-Brexit.
Any statement from the UK Government about what it 'wants'/would like are met by claims that they are being "unrealistic" and wanting to have their cake and eat it. We know what they want. As free a trading agreement as possible, for a not unreasonable price, with no implicit constraint to arranging separate trade agreements with the wider world, and ultimate control over temporary or permanent immigration.
The only real disagreement within the UK Government/Conservative Party is whether the EU will accept the latter two within the context of ANY trading agreement, and so whether it is even worth exploring what "as possible" and "reasonable price" might mean.
I don't think Brexit and the 26-6 partition of Ireland can simultaneously exist. One of them is going to have to give.
The obvious interim solution is to move the controlled border (for people and goods) between the EU and the UK to the Irish Sea, as a prelude to Irish re-unification. In the EU referendum, there was a 56-44 majority in favour of remaining in the EU in the 6 counties.
The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom.
The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain a part of the EU.
Try squaring that circle.
Easy - the majority of the NI MP's in Westminster want Brexit...
So you're saying MPs should ignore their voters, and vote how they'd like when it comes to Brexit.
That's an interesting precedent you've just set for the other 632 mainland MPs.
"That’s far from certain as the two sides continue to talk at cross purposes, becoming irritated with each other in the process as neither understands why the other won’t be reasonable. It’s a microcosm of why the difference in philosophical understanding of what the EU is propelled Britain to leave in the first place."
Precisely, David. This is what I've been saying for months.
I see the point, but there is another angle to it. My parents, WWC in their seventies, were definitely drawn to the Brexit line. If I hadn't put the case for staying in to them they might well have voted out. My children on the other hand simply couldn't understand why anyone would want to leave the EU. This is quite literal. I couldn't explain to them what the arguments on either side of the debate were. Had I wanted to persuade them to vote leave I would have not had any idea of how to even start persuading them.
I am beginning to doubt whether the collective efforts of the supporters of Brexit are even up to the task of actually getting us out. But let's assume they manage it. Support for Brexit only just made it to a majority last year. Real life usually disappoints expectations. And as the older voters drop off the register support for the EU will grow. We'll be back in soon enough.
Leave won 40 to 50 year olds and 50 to 60 year olds, not just pensioners. Only under 40s had a majority for Remain.
Plus there is no guarantee the EU would let the UK back in without also demanding membership of the Euro and Schengen as well of course as free movement so in those circumstances we would definitely still vote Leave.
Returning to the single market and joining EFTA again may be possibilities longer term but not rejoining the EU unless they also give unlikely concessions to the UK
As Schroedinger was an Irish citizen - that would work.
However better to be brave and stay in the EU!
Staying in the EU would be the ultimate act of running away. It would only be "brave" in a Brave Sir Robin kind of way....
And it would give the current politicians in the UK hell to pay. And hand many of them their P45. In June, 80%+ voted for parties who were pledged to getting us out the EU. "We gave you one job to do....Just one."
Well over 50% of voters also backed parties that favour immediate confirmation that the rights of EU resident in the UK should be immediately and unconditionally confirmed. We're not doing that.
Have you seen why? Have you seee the way the EU negotiators have banked the PM's Florence speech and just flatly said "More...."? Yes, it would have been great to have sorted this issue out. The humane thing to do. But for that, there needs to be good faith by the EU. And that just isn't happening.
The UK does not take responsibility for this issue still causing huge worry to many people.
The rights and status of EU citizens in the UK is entirely the responsibility of the UK. Over 50% of voters backed parties that favour immediate and unconditional recognition of their existing rights. That's a majority, just like the 80% voting for parties that back Brexit is a majority. Or maybe it's a bit more complicated than that.
Their rights and status being guaranteed unconditionally by... what? Isn't that the fundamental point at dispute?
It can be done under UK law. Give EU citizens resident here on a specific date the rights they enjoy now. That would apply in the absence of a final deal.
So they should have superior rights to UK citizens?
The simple answer is to give our citizens the same rights, not to reduce the rights of the EU citizens.
I don't think Brexit and the 26-6 partition of Ireland can simultaneously exist. One of them is going to have to give.
The obvious interim solution is to move the controlled border (for people and goods) between the EU and the UK to the Irish Sea, as a prelude to Irish re-unification. In the EU referendum, there was a 56-44 majority in favour of remaining in the EU in the 6 counties.
The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom.
The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain a part of the EU.
Try squaring that circle.
There is the difficulty, but that isn't resolved by handing them over, even if that were easy. Trading a contradictory mess for another one is not a solution, it's trolling.
"That’s far from certain as the two sides continue to talk at cross purposes, becoming irritated with each other in the process as neither understands why the other won’t be reasonable. It’s a microcosm of why the difference in philosophical understanding of what the EU is propelled Britain to leave in the first place."
Precisely, David. This is what I've been saying for months.
I see the point, but there is another angle to it. My parents, WWC in their seventies, were definitely drawn to the Brexit line. If I hadn't put the case for staying in to them they might well have voted out. My children on the other hand simply couldn't understand why anyone would want to leave the EU. This is quite literal. I couldn't explain to them what the arguments on either side of the debate were. Had I wanted to persuade them to vote leave I would have not had any idea of how to even start persuading them.
I am beginning to doubt whether the collective efforts of the supporters of Brexit are even up to the task of actually getting us out. But let's assume they manage it. Support for Brexit only just made it to a majority last year. Real life usually disappoints expectations. And as the older voters drop off the register support for the EU will grow. We'll be back in soon enough.
This is a very telling point. Brexit will be increasingly blamed for a whole series of woes, including some for which it is not really responible (see Monarch), just as the EU has for many years. The long term result of the Brexiteers' efforts will be UK fully in the EU - Euro , Schengen and all.
Of course, quite a few leave voters will have shuffled off this mortal coil by then, so maybe they'll not live to see it.
David's first paragraph sounds overly defensive. Why does an article about the Irish border need to start with a reassurance that Brexit really, really, really will happen?
Because far too many don't recognise that truth and are more interested in dreaming up impractical and ineffective efforts to stop it than they are in dealing with the consequences of it.
It's rather like trying to work out how to get back into the plane rather than how to open the parachute.
I don't think Brexit and the 26-6 partition of Ireland can simultaneously exist. One of them is going to have to give.
The obvious interim solution is to move the controlled border (for people and goods) between the EU and the UK to the Irish Sea, as a prelude to Irish re-unification. In the EU referendum, there was a 56-44 majority in favour of remaining in the EU in the 6 counties.
The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom.
Easy. The majority of their MPs in Westminster wish to Brexit.
Good point. So presumably since the majority of UK MPS wish to remain in the EU, we should do so?
Erm....where does this "majority" of MPs come from? Other than plucked out your arse. Remind me - how many MPs voted to approve the PM serving the Article 50 notice?
Mr. Mark, possibly. Still a credible route for the far right to rise, alas.
The failure to deliver Brexit would lead to a significant portion of the voters getting very, very peeved indeed. I'd hate to see it, but I suspect direct action would be vented in ways virtually all on here would be appalled about.
And if it turns out that Brexit is undeliverable?
Brexit is going to be delivered. And I have no doubt, some aspects will be painful. There will be losers, some of those will be people who voted for Leave with a greater sense of optimism that their life would be better.
But amidst all this uncertainty, there's one thing we can be sure of: those who tied us into the EU, often on the sly, with the intention of making sure that leaving was impossible or incredibly costly - without ever getting the blessing of the the people of the UK in this - will take no responsibility whatspever for their actions. It will all be down to those pesky kids who found them out and stopped them.
The 'kids' didn't, as a majority, vote to Leave.
The majority of "kids" didn't vote to Remain either.
A very interesting and witty thread-header Mr Herdson. Thank-you.
If only we didn't have people running the show who appear not to be able to negotiate their way out of a paper bag, I would have more confidence.
Nobody is covering themselves in glory but to be fair to Barnier his remit is insane from the 27. How do you know what controls, if any, are needed at the border unless and until you know what the overall trade and other relationships are going to be?
It’s impossible.
The UK government has still to decide what relationship it wants with the EU post-Brexit.
Any statement from the UK Government about what it 'wants'/would like are met by claims that they are being "unrealistic" and wanting to have their cake and eat it. We know what they want. As free a trading agreement as possible, for a not unreasonable price, with no implicit constraint to arranging separate trade agreements with the wider world, and ultimate control over temporary or permanent immigration.
The only real disagreement within the UK Government/Conservative Party is whether the EU will accept the latter two within the context of ANY trading agreement, and so whether it is even worth exploring what "as possible" and "reasonable price" might mean.
Wanting the closest possible relationship with the EU is entirely contingent on what is regarded as "possible". This is what the government is still debating. Until it resolves what it is prepared to concede on issues such as regulation and free movement we are stuck. Triggering Article 50 without having sorted these issues internally is looking more stupid by the day.
I don't think Brexit and the 26-6 partition of Ireland can simultaneously exist. One of them is going to have to give.
The obvious interim solution is to move the controlled border (for people and goods) between the EU and the UK to the Irish Sea, as a prelude to Irish re-unification. In the EU referendum, there was a 56-44 majority in favour of remaining in the EU in the 6 counties.
The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom.
The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain a part of the EU.
Try squaring that circle.
Easy - the majority of the NI MP's in Westminster want Brexit...
So you're saying MPs should ignore their voters, and vote how they'd like when it comes to Brexit.
That's an interesting precedent you've just set for the other 632 mainland MPs.
I'm rather more saying that Sinn Fein doesn't take its seats, thereby robbing those in NI who voted Remain from having that view expressed in Westminster....
David's first paragraph sounds overly defensive. Why does an article about the Irish border need to start with a reassurance that Brexit really, really, really will happen?
Because far too many don't recognise that truth and are more interested in dreaming up impractical and ineffective efforts to stop it than they are in dealing with the consequences of it.
It's rather like trying to work out how to get back into the plane rather than how to open the parachute.
You're in complete denial. Brexit is not a law of physics. It is the weakest link in this chain and it can and will break first.
As Schroedinger was an Irish citizen - that would work.
However better to be brave and stay in the EU!
Staying in the EU would be the ultimate act of running away. It would only be "brave" in a Brave Sir Robin kind of way....
And it would give the current politicians in the UK hell to pay. And hand many of them their P45. In June, 80%+ voted for parties who were pledged to getting us out the EU. "We gave you one job to do....Just one."
Well over 50% of voters also backed parties that favour immediate confirmation that the rights of EU resident in the UK should be immediately and unconditionally confirmed. We're not doing that.
Have you seen why? Have you seee the way the EU negotiators have banked the PM's Florence speech and just flatly said "More...."? Yes, it would have been great to have sorted this issue out. The humane thing to do. But for that, there needs to be good faith by the EU. And that just isn't happening.
The UK does not take responsibility for this issue still causing huge worry to many people.
The rights and status of EU citizens in the UK is entirely the responsibility of the UK. Over 50% of voters backed parties that favour immediate and unconditional recognition of their existing rights. That's a majority, just like the 80% voting for parties that back Brexit is a majority. Or maybe it's a bit more complicated than that.
From what I've read of the UK's negotiating position, the rights and status of existing EU citizens in the UK isn't a problem.
It's future rights post-Brexit and the role of the ECJ in any dispute that's the problem, where the EU has an unreasonable position that the ECJ should police both sides of the agreement.
And the EU is insisting that UK citizens resident in the EU should only have residency rights in that state, not the EU as a whole and if they leave for 2 years lose residency (and we can't deport criminals):
"That’s far from certain as the two sides continue to talk at cross purposes, becoming irritated with each other in the process as neither understands why the other won’t be reasonable. It’s a microcosm of why the difference in philosophical understanding of what the EU is propelled Britain to leave in the first place."
Precisely, David. This is what I've been saying for months.
I see the point, but there is another angle to it. My parents, WWC in their seventies, were definitely drawn to the Brexit line. If I hadn't put the case for staying in to them they might well have voted out. My children on the other hand simply couldn't understand why anyone would want to leave the EU. This is quite literal. I couldn't explain to them what the arguments on either side of the debate were. Had I wanted to persuade them to vote leave I would have not had any idea of how to even start persuading them.
I am beginning to doubt whether the collective efforts of the supporters of Brexit are even up to the task of actually getting us out. But let's assume they manage it. Support for Brexit only just made it to a majority last year. Real life usually disappoints expectations. And as the older voters drop off the register support for the EU will grow. We'll be back in soon enough.
Well, I managed to persuade my wife and several of my friends to vote Leave, so we all had our part to play in having those conversations during the campaign.
On your second, more substantive point, I hear this an awful lot from Remainers. You are assuming no new Leave supporters will arise, whilst all the existing ones will die off, to be replaced wholly by "new" Rejoiners, you are assuming that the electorate will be willing to revisit the whole constitutional issue all over again, and you are assuming that the terms of re-joining will be attractive.
On the other hand, once Brexit has been completed, some current Remainers may decide it's actually ok, and new opportunities may open up, whilst, if we take Verhofstadht at his word, rejoining would involve signing up to the Euro, and Schengen, which would be something of a blocker, and certainly require another referendum. So it's by no means a certainty.
The evidence from the 1975 European Community referendum (where we voted over 67% to Remain at the time) is that the movement was in the other direction as the EEC/EC/EU developed, and voters aged.
"That’s far from certain as the two sides continue to talk at cross purposes, becoming irritated with each other in the process as neither understands why the other won’t be reasonable. It’s a microcosm of why the difference in philosophical understanding of what the EU is propelled Britain to leave in the first place."
Precisely, David. This is what I've been saying for months.
I see the point, but there is another angle to it. My parents, WWC in their seventies, were definitely drawn to the Brexit line. If I hadn't put the case for staying in to them they might well have voted out. My children on the other hand simply couldn't understand why anyone would want to leave the EU. This is quite literal. I couldn't explain to them what the arguments on either side of the debate were. Had I wanted to persuade them to vote leave I would have not had any idea of how to even start persuading them.
I am beginning to doubt whether the collective efforts of the supporters of Brexit are even up to the task of actually getting us out. But let's assume they manage it. Support for Brexit only just made it to a majority last year. Real life usually disappoints expectations. And as the older voters drop off the register support for the EU will grow. We'll be back in soon enough.
This is a very telling point. Brexit will be increasingly blamed for a whole series of woes, including some for which it is not really responible (see Monarch), just as the EU has for many years. The long term result of the Brexiteers' efforts will be UK fully in the EU - Euro , Schengen and all.
Of course, quite a few leave voters will have shuffled off this mortal coil by then, so maybe they'll not live to see it.
The 'old people will die off and we can be happy' argument never seems to play out exactly as people hope, but of course it is certainly possible in the long term there will be a shift and we'll be back and fully integrated. What of it? Even if that is true the only hope of those wanting out was, well, to vote out. Barring a total collapse of the entire project they woukd not be another opportunity, so that eventually leaving and Brexit taking the blame for things leading to a return and full integration is not exactly a concern. The alternative woukd mean not even an attempt at leaving.
I don't think Brexit and the 26-6 partition of Ireland can simultaneously exist. One of them is going to have to give.
The obvious interim solution is to move the controlled border (for people and goods) between the EU and the UK to the Irish Sea, as a prelude to Irish re-unification. In the EU referendum, there was a 56-44 majority in favour of remaining in the EU in the 6 counties.
The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom.
Easy. The majority of their MPs in Westminster wish to Brexit.
Good point. So presumably since the majority of UK MPS wish to remain in the EU, we should do so?
Do you have any evidence for that assertion? How people voted in 2016 is no proof of how they'd vote now.
"That’s far from certain as the two sides continue to talk at cross purposes, becoming irritated with each other in the process as neither understands why the other won’t be reasonable. It’s a microcosm of why the difference in philosophical understanding of what the EU is propelled Britain to leave in the first place."
Precisely, David. This is what I've been saying for months.
I see the point, but there is another angle to it. My parents, WWC in their seventies, were definitely drawn to the Brexit line. If I hadn't put the case for staying in to them they might well have voted out. My children on the other hand simply couldn't understand why anyone would want to leave the EU. This is quite literal. I couldn't explain to them what the arguments on either side of the debate were. Had I wanted to persuade them to vote leave I would have not had any idea of how to even start persuading them.
I am beginning to doubt whether the collective efforts of the supporters of Brexit are even up to the task of actually getting us out. But let's assume they manage it. Support for Brexit only just made it to a majority last year. Real life usually disappoints expectations. And as the older voters drop off the register support for the EU will grow. We'll be back in soon enough.
This is a very telling point. Brexit will be increasingly blamed for a whole series of woes, including some for which it is not really responible (see Monarch), just as the EU has for many years. The long term result of the Brexiteers' efforts will be UK fully in the EU - Euro , Schengen and all.
Of course, quite a few leave voters will have shuffled off this mortal coil by then, so maybe they'll not live to see it.
I fear you guys are right. I'm a Remainer, who definitely doesn't want us in the Euro. Yet we may end up there in, say, twenty years time.
As Schroedinger was an Irish citizen - that would work.
However better to be brave and stay in the EU!
Staying in the EU would be the ultimate act of running away. It would only be "brave" in a Brave Sir Robin kind of way....
And it would give the current politicians in the UK hell to pay. And hand many of them their P45. In June, 80%+ voted for parties who were pledged to getting us out the EU. "We gave you one job to do....Just one."
Well over 50% of voters also backed parties that favour immediate confirmation that the rights of EU resident in the UK should be immediately and unconditionally confirmed. We're not doing that.
Have you seen why? Have you seee the way the EU negotiators have banked the PM's Florence speech and just flatly said "More...."? Yes, it would have been great to have sorted this issue out. The humane thing to do. But for that, there needs to be good faith by the EU. And that just isn't happening.
The UK does not take responsibility for this issue still causing huge worry to many people.
The rights and status of EU citizens in the UK is entirely the responsibility of the UK. Over 50% of voters backed parties that favour immediate and unconditional recognition of their existing rights. That's a majority, just like the 80% voting for parties that back Brexit is a majority. Or maybe it's a bit more complicated than that.
Their rights and status being guaranteed unconditionally by... what? Isn't that the fundamental point at dispute?
It can be done under UK law. Give EU citizens resident here on a specific date the rights they enjoy now. That would apply in the absence of a final deal.
So they should have superior rights to UK citizens?
There is a solution to that, of course, that does not involve reducing the rights of EU citizens.
As Schroedinger was an Irish citizen - that would work.
However better to be brave and stay in the EU!
Staying in the EU would be the ultimate act of running away. It would only be "brave" in a Brave Sir Robin kind of way....
And it would give the current politicians in the UK hell to pay. And hand many of them their P45. In June, 80%+ voted for parties who were pledged to getting us out the EU. "We gave you one job to do....Just one."
Well over 50% of voters also backed parties that favour immediate confirmation that the rights of EU resident in the UK should be immediately and unconditionally confirmed. We're not doing that.
Have you seen why? Have you seee the way the EU negotiators have banked the PM's Florence speech and just flatly said "More...."? Yes, it would have been great to have sorted this issue out. The humane thing to do. But for that, there needs to be good faith by the EU. And that just isn't happening.
The UK does not take responsibility for this issue still causing huge worry to many people.
The rights and status of EU citizens in the UK is entirely the responsibility of the UK. Over 50% of voters backed parties that favour immediate and unconditional recognition of their existing rights. That's a majority, just like the 80% voting for parties that back Brexit is a majority. Or maybe it's a bit more complicated than that.
Their rights and status being guaranteed unconditionally by... what? Isn't that the fundamental point at dispute?
It can be done under UK law. Give EU citizens resident here on a specific date the rights they enjoy now. That would apply in the absence of a final deal.
So they should have superior rights to UK citizens?
The simple answer is to give our citizens the same rights, not to reduce the rights of the EU citizens.
I think you're missing a bit of "why we're leaving"......
I don't think Brexit and the 26-6 partition of Ireland can simultaneously exist. One of them is going to have to give.
The obvious interim solution is to move the controlled border (for people and goods) between the EU and the UK to the Irish Sea, as a prelude to Irish re-unification. In the EU referendum, there was a 56-44 majority in favour of remaining in the EU in the 6 counties.
The United Kingdom (UK) remains the most significant market for businesses in Northern Ireland – sales to Great Britain were worth one and a half times the value of all Northern Ireland exports and nearly four times the value of exports to Ireland in 2015
Actually, the best place for the future border between rUK and the EU is along the Cheviots (plus the Irish Sea).
I find it fascinating how many Remainers feel that Britain should be punished for its vote to Leave the EU by stripping it of as much of its domestic and overseas territory as possible.
Spoken like a true little englander. The scots also voted to remain. They will not accept a hard border with Northern Ireland
Different constituent parts of a nation voting a different way in a referendum, or a general election, does not invalidate that nation.
As Schroedinger was an Irish citizen - that would work.
However better to be brave and stay in the EU!
Staying in the EU would be the ultimate act of running away. It would only be "brave" in a Brave Sir Robin kind of way....
And it would give the current politicians in the UK hell to pay. And hand many of them their P45. In June, 80%+ voted for parties who were pledged to getting us out the EU. "We gave you one job to do....Just one."
Well over 50% of voters also backed parties that favour immediate confirmation that the rights of EU resident in the UK should be immediately and unconditionally confirmed. We're not doing that.
Have you seen why? Have you seee the way the EU negotiators have banked the PM's Florence speech and just flatly said "More...."? Yes, it would have been great to have sorted this issue out. The humane thing to do. But for that, there needs to be good faith by the EU. And that just isn't happening.
The UK does not take responsibility for this issue still causing huge worry to many people.
The rights and status of EU citizens in the UK is entirely the responsibility of the UK. Over 50% of voters backed parties that favour immediate and unconditional recognition of their existing rights. That's a majority, just like the 80% voting for parties that back Brexit is a majority. Or maybe it's a bit more complicated than that.
Their rights and status being guaranteed unconditionally by... what? Isn't that the fundamental point at dispute?
It can be done under UK law. Give EU citizens resident here on a specific date the rights they enjoy now. That would apply in the absence of a final deal.
So they should have superior rights to UK citizens?
The simple answer is to give our citizens the same rights, not to reduce the rights of the EU citizens.
But the UK can't grant those rights to British citizens living abroad. That's the whole point of contention.
Mr. Mark, possibly. Still a credible route for the far right to rise, alas.
The failure to deliver Brexit would lead to a significant portion of the voters getting very, very peeved indeed. I'd hate to see it, but I suspect direct action would be vented in ways virtually all on here would be appalled about.
Ha! An army of over-65s setting barriers in the street!
I don't think Brexit and the 26-6 partition of Ireland can simultaneously exist. One of them is going to have to give.
The obvious interim solution is to move the controlled border (for people and goods) between the EU and the UK to the Irish Sea, as a prelude to Irish re-unification. In the EU referendum, there was a 56-44 majority in favour of remaining in the EU in the 6 counties.
The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom.
Easy. The majority of their MPs in Westminster wish to Brexit.
Good point. So presumably since the majority of UK MPS wish to remain in the EU, we should do so?
Erm....where does this "majority" of MPs come from? Other than plucked out your arse. Remind me - how many MPs voted to approve the PM serving the Article 50 notice?
An interesting distinction in fairness. We know a majority wanted to remain, but by voting to trigger A50 they explicitly agreed, at that point, that we shold nor remain any longer. They wished to remain rather than still wish to remain, in the sense of being willing to try and make it happen.
David's first paragraph sounds overly defensive. Why does an article about the Irish border need to start with a reassurance that Brexit really, really, really will happen?
Because far too many don't recognise that truth and are more interested in dreaming up impractical and ineffective efforts to stop it than they are in dealing with the consequences of it.
It's rather like trying to work out how to get back into the plane rather than how to open the parachute.
You're in complete denial. Brexit is not a law of physics. It is the weakest link in this chain and it can and will break first.
Surprise surprise, on that you're blinkered.
The most remote, the least accountable and the most alien to our way of life and constituenional settlement was EU membership. That was the weakest link in the chain. It has broken because of the fundamental flaws within it.
"That’s far from certain as the two sides continue to talk at cross purposes, becoming irritated with each other in the process as neither understands why the other won’t be reasonable. It’s a microcosm of why the difference in philosophical understanding of what the EU is propelled Britain to leave in the first place."
Precisely, David. This is what I've been saying for months.
I see the point, but there is another angle to it. My parents, WWC in their seventies, were definitely drawn to the Brexit line. If I hadn't put the case for staying in to them they might well have voted out. My children on the other hand simply couldn't understand why anyone would want to leave the EU. This is quite literal. I couldn't explain to them what the arguments on either side of the debate were. Had I wanted to persuade them to vote leave I would have not had any idea of how to even start persuading them.
I am beginning to doubt whether the collective efforts of the supporters of Brexit are even up to the task of actually getting us out. But let's assume they manage it. Support for Brexit only just made it to a majority last year. Real life usually disappoints expectations. And as the older voters drop off the register support for the EU will grow. We'll be back in soon enough.
This is a very telling point. Brexit will be increasingly blamed for a whole series of woes, including some for which it is not really responible (see Monarch), just as the EU has for many years. The long term result of the Brexiteers' efforts will be UK fully in the EU - Euro , Schengen and all.
Of course, quite a few leave voters will have shuffled off this mortal coil by then, so maybe they'll not live to see it.
It's just the age old debate about whether old people adopt their political positions because they are old (which means that their political preferences will become more entrenched as the dominant political consensus as the population ages) or whether old people adopt their political preferences based on what they thought when they were younger (the "Tories are dying out" argument). Generally I think the evidence seems to favour the former argument (with added bonus to the Tories that where the latter argument has some validity their younger voters live younger) although sometimes there are absolutely fundamental issues which seem to over-ride this and one can observe certain generations retaining their views over time (one such example being the generation most affected by the Tory recession of the early/mid nineties).
"That’s far from certain as the two sides continue to talk at cross purposes, becoming irritated with each other in the process as neither understands why the other won’t be reasonable. It’s a microcosm of why the difference in philosophical understanding of what the EU is propelled Britain to leave in the first place."
Precisely, David. This is what I've been saying for months.
I see the point, but there is another angle to it. My parents, WWC in their seventies, were definitely drawn to the Brexit line. If I hadn't put the case for staying in to them they might well have voted out. My children on the other hand simply couldn't understand why anyone would want to leave the EU. This is quite literal. I couldn't explain to them what the arguments on either side of the debate were. Had I wanted to persuade them to vote leave I would have not had any idea of how to even start persuading them.
I am beginning to doubt whether the collective efforts of the supporters of Brexit are even up to the task of actually getting us out. But let's assume they manage it. Support for Brexit only just made it to a majority last year. Real life usually disappoints expectations. And as the older voters drop off the register support for the EU will grow. We'll be back in soon enough.
Leave won 40 to 50 year olds and 50 to 60 year olds, not just pensioners. Only under 40s had a majority for Remain.
Plus there is no guarantee the EU would let the UK back in without also demanding membership of the Euro and Schengen as well of course as free movement so in those circumstances we would definitely still vote Leave.
Returning to the single market and joining EFTA again may be possibilities longer term but not rejoining the EU unless they also give unlikely concessions to the UK
If you make those points to my parents they would nod. They might even agree. I can see what you are saying. But there are plenty of people around who like my children would simply stare back blankly. Schengen - no need for passports. Sounds good. Join the Euro? That would save a lot of trouble. Free movement - yes please! I want to spend the summer in Rome!
And remember that it only needs one of the big parties to put EU membership in their manifesto and to win an election to wipe out the referendum result. I am only wondering which one will do it first.
"That’s far from certain as the two sides continue to talk at cross purposes, becoming irritated with each other in the process as neither understands why the other won’t be reasonable. It’s a microcosm of why the difference in philosophical understanding of what the EU is propelled Britain to leave in the first place."
Precisely, David. This is what I've been saying for months.
I see the point, but there is another angle to it. My parents, WWC in their seventies, were definitely drawn to the Brexit line. If I hadn't put the case for staying in to them they might well have voted out. My children on the other hand simply couldn't understand why anyone would want to leave the EU. This is quite literal. I couldn't explain to them what the arguments on either side of the debate were. Had I wanted to persuade them to vote leave I would have not had any idea of how to even start persuading them.
I am beginning to doubt whether the collective efforts of the supporters of Brexit are even up to the task of actually getting us out. But let's assume they manage it. Support for Brexit only just made it to a majority last year. Real life usually disappoints expectations. And as the older voters drop off the register support for the EU will grow. We'll be back in soon enough.
You are assuming no new Leave supporters will arise, whilst all the existing ones will die off, to be replaced wholly by "new" Rejoiners
Exactly like SINDYREF.
'You wait til the old No voters have died off'.......
Well? We're still waiting.......polls yet to show any shift.....
Mr. Mark, possibly. Still a credible route for the far right to rise, alas.
The failure to deliver Brexit would lead to a significant portion of the voters getting very, very peeved indeed. I'd hate to see it, but I suspect direct action would be vented in ways virtually all on here would be appalled about.
Ha! An army of over-65s setting barriers in the street!
Aux barricades! In a bit, Songs of Praise is on.
Then Country File and...then Antiques Roadshow.... Bugger, my night vision isn't what it was....how about the morning?
I don't think Brexit and the 26-6 partition of Ireland can simultaneously exist. One of them is going to have to give.
The obvious interim solution is to move the controlled border (for people and goods) between the EU and the UK to the Irish Sea, as a prelude to Irish re-unification. In the EU referendum, there was a 56-44 majority in favour of remaining in the EU in the 6 counties.
The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom.
The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain a part of the EU.
Try squaring that circle.
That's easy. We have voted to Leave the EU. The people in NI still wish to remain part of the UK. Ergo, there is no circle to square: they have accepted the result and decision.
I find it extraordinary how some* draw political equivalence between the EU and UK. The EU is an international political and economic union of (officially) some 24 years. The latter is our nation, our country, that stretches back centuries.
(*Except, in your case, of course, you are just trying to troll Leavers, since you do it with Gibraltar, the Falklands and anything else you can thing of as well, because you enjoy it.)
As Schroedinger was an Irish citizen - that would work.
However better to be brave and stay in the EU!
Staying in the EU would be the ultimate act of running away. It would only be "brave" in a Brave Sir Robin kind of way....
And it would give the current politicians in the UK hell to pay. And hand many of them their P45. In June, 80%+ voted for parties who were pledged to getting us out the EU. "We gave you one job to do....Just one."
Well over 50% of voters also backed parties that favour immediate confirmation that the rights of EU resident in the UK should be immediately and unconditionally confirmed. We're not doing that.
Have you seen why? Have you seee the way the EU negotiators have banked the PM's Florence speech and just flatly said "More...."? Yes, it would have been great to have sorted this issue out. The humane thing to do. But for that, there needs to be good faith by the EU. And that just isn't happening.
The UK does not take responsibility for this issue still causing huge worry to many people.
The rights and status of EU citizens in the UK is entirely the responsibility of the UK. Over 50% of voters backed parties that favour immediate and unconditional recognition of their existing rights. That's a majority, just like the 80% voting for parties that back Brexit is a majority. Or maybe it's a bit more complicated than that.
Their rights and status being guaranteed unconditionally by... what? Isn't that the fundamental point at dispute?
It can be done under UK law. Give EU citizens resident here on a specific date the rights they enjoy now. That would apply in the absence of a final deal.
So they should have superior rights to UK citizens?
The simple answer is to give our citizens the same rights, not to reduce the rights of the EU citizens.
It is not in the gift of the UK government to unilaterally guarantee, under UK law, UK citizens the rights that they currently enjoy as EU citizens.
As Schroedinger was an Irish citizen - that would work.
However better to be brave and stay in the EU!
Staying in the EU would be the ultimate act of running away. It would only be "brave" in a Brave Sir Robin kind of way....
And it would give the current politicians in the UK hell to pay. And hand many of them their P45. In June, 80%+ voted for parties who were pledged to getting us out the EU. "We gave you one job to do....Just one."
Well over 50% of voters also backed parties that favour immediate confirmation that the rights of EU resident in the UK should be immediately and unconditionally confirmed. We're not doing that.
Have you seen why? Have you seee the way the EU negotiators have banked the PM's Florence speech and just flatly said "More...."? Yes, it would have been great to have sorted this issue out. The humane thing to do. But for that, there needs to be good faith by the EU. And that just isn't happening.
The UK does not take responsibility for this issue still causing huge worry to many people.
The rights and status of EU citizens in the UK is entirely the responsibility of the UK. Over 50% of voters backed parties that favour immediate and unconditional recognition of their existing rights. That's a majority, just like the 80% voting for parties that back Brexit is a majority. Or maybe it's a bit more complicated than that.
Their rights and status being guaranteed unconditionally by... what? Isn't that the fundamental point at dispute?
It can be done under UK law. Give EU citizens resident here on a specific date the rights they enjoy now. That would apply in the absence of a final deal.
So they should have superior rights to UK citizens?
The simple answer is to give our citizens the same rights, not to reduce the rights of the EU citizens.
But the UK can't grant those rights to British citizens living abroad. That's the whole point of contention.
No need for contention. We have the control now to decide the rights EU citizens should have post-Brexit in the event of there being no deal.
I don't think Brexit and the 26-6 partition of Ireland can simultaneously exist. One of them is going to have to give.
The obvious interim solution is to move the controlled border (for people and goods) between the EU and the UK to the Irish Sea, as a prelude to Irish re-unification. In the EU referendum, there was a 56-44 majority in favour of remaining in the EU in the 6 counties.
The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom.
The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain a part of the EU.
Try squaring that circle.
I'd imagine the margin is stronger for staying in the UK, and the issue is much more salient. It's not like Gibraltar is going to be delivered into the hands of Spain, despite the Remoaner wet dreams. Same with NI.
The events of the last few weeks will have removed any lingering Gibraltarian appetite for some form of dialogue with Spain and set back talks for decades.
The issue is that the UK becomes a third country when it leaves the EU. WTO rules forbid dicriminatory treatment in the absence of a formal trade agreement between countries. The UK only has borders with the EU. The EU has borders with a number of third countries. A de facto soft border between the EU and UK discriminates against other third countries with which the EU has a border - Russia and Ukraine, for example. The EU just cannot do it. There has to be an agreement that is then properly policed. Anything else invites WTO action against the EU.
I don't know much about the Sweden/Norway border, but has it ever been open in the way that the Irish border is now? If not, the trade flows between Norway and Sweden are unlikely to mirror those between NI and Ireland. What's more, I suspect the Norway/Sweden border is the subject of a formal, policed agreement.
All of the above is why the Irish border is an EU red line. It has no choice. Unless the problem is resolved there will be No Deal.
Although if there's No Deal there would be a border between Eire and NI, so how does that help anyone?
Yep, and for that reason for the RoI no deal is better than a bad deal.
That is certainly untrue. ROI would be hit much, much harder than the UK economically, and probably politically too.
I find it extraordinary how some* draw political equivalence between the EU and UK. The EU is an international political and economic union of (officially) some 24 years. The latter is our nation, our country, that stretches back centuries.
Unlike the EU, the UK actually has led to a war of secession. Perhaps the UK model of bringing nations together in a unitary state just isn't fit for the 21st century?
I don't think Brexit and the 26-6 partition of Ireland can simultaneously exist. One of them is going to have to give.
The obvious interim solution is to move the controlled border (for people and goods) between the EU and the UK to the Irish Sea, as a prelude to Irish re-unification. In the EU referendum, there was a 56-44 majority in favour of remaining in the EU in the 6 counties.
The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom.
Easy. The majority of their MPs in Westminster wish to Brexit.
Good point. So presumably since the majority of UK MPS wish to remain in the EU, we should do so?
Erm....where does this "majority" of MPs come from? Other than plucked out your arse. Remind me - how many MPs voted to approve the PM serving the Article 50 notice?
Not in fact 'plucked from my arse' but from a Press Association survey of MPs:
The Article 50 vote was of course whipped, so most MPs voted as their party told them. Additionally I am sure many Remain voting MPs voted for A50 to respect the Referendum outcome. But your point on NI was that the MPs views were more important than the EU Ref outcome; I'm merely pointing out that that's not the way we decided Brexit overall. If we had left it to MPs in the first place we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now!
"That’s far from certain as the two sides continue to talk at cross purposes, becoming irritated with each other in the process as neither understands why the other won’t be reasonable. It’s a microcosm of why the difference in philosophical understanding of what the EU is propelled Britain to leave in the first place."
Precisely, David. This is what I've been saying for months.
I see the point, but there is another angle to it. My parents, WWC in their seventies, were definitely drawn to the Brexit line. If I hadn't put the case for staying in to them they might well have voted out. My children on the other hand simply couldn't understand why anyone would want to leave the EU. This is quite literal. I couldn't explain to them what the arguments on either side of the debate were. Had I wanted to persuade them to vote leave I would have not had any idea of how to even start persuading them.
I am beginning to doubt whether the collective efforts of the supporters of Brexit are even up to the task of actually getting us out. But let's assume they manage it. Support for Brexit only just made it to a majority last year. Real life usually disappoints expectations. And as the older voters drop off the register support for the EU will grow. We'll be back in soon enough.
This is a very telling point. Brexit will be increasingly blamed for a whole series of woes, including some for which it is not really responible (see Monarch), just as the EU has for many years. The long term result of the Brexiteers' efforts will be UK fully in the EU - Euro , Schengen and all.
Of course, quite a few leave voters will have shuffled off this mortal coil by then, so maybe they'll not live to see it.
I fear you guys are right. I'm a Remainer, who definitely doesn't want us in the Euro. Yet we may end up there in, say, twenty years time.
We won't, had the referendum been about staying in the EU and joining the Eurozone it would have been about 80% Leave not 52% Leave.
More likely Sweden and Denmark, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and the other non Eurozone EU nations leave the EU and join EFTA along with the UK than the UK joins the Eurozone
I don't think Brexit and the 26-6 partition of Ireland can simultaneously exist. One of them is going to have to give.
The obvious interim solution is to move the controlled border (for people and goods) between the EU and the UK to the Irish Sea, as a prelude to Irish re-unification. In the EU referendum, there was a 56-44 majority in favour of remaining in the EU in the 6 counties.
The United Kingdom (UK) remains the most significant market for businesses in Northern Ireland – sales to Great Britain were worth one and a half times the value of all Northern Ireland exports and nearly four times the value of exports to Ireland in 2015
Actually, the best place for the future border between rUK and the EU is along the Cheviots (plus the Irish Sea).
I find it fascinating how many Remainers feel that Britain should be punished for its vote to Leave the EU by stripping it of as much of its domestic and overseas territory as possible.
Spoken like a true little englander. The scots also voted to remain. They will not accept a hard border with Northern Ireland
Different constituent parts of a nation voting a different way in a referendum, or a general election, does not invalidate that nation.
That's sort of what a nation means.
Indeed. Unless they are voting on whether to separate themselves from the whole, it is insulting suggest another vote means they must want to separate.
It might even make sense given whatever that vote was, but people can be odd, and you cannot assume a vote that you'd think would lead to a surge of Independence or unification support will automatically follow. Ask the SNP. They might still get their aim, but there wasnt the immediate fillip some hoped.
A predicted exodus of EU academics from British universities has not yet materialised. Helen de Cruz discusses why – despite the uncertainty hanging over their future status and rights – the ‘brain drain’ has not really begun yet. Finding new posts, especially at a very senior level, can take time; hiring systems elsewhere in Europe are opaque and sometimes not meritocratic; many academics have put down roots in Britain; and other Anglophone destinations are not always attractive.
Mr. Mark, possibly. Still a credible route for the far right to rise, alas.
The failure to deliver Brexit would lead to a significant portion of the voters getting very, very peeved indeed. I'd hate to see it, but I suspect direct action would be vented in ways virtually all on here would be appalled about.
And if it turns out that Brexit is undeliverable?
Brexit is going to be delivered. And I have no doubt, some aspects will be painful. There will be losers, some of those will be people who voted for Leave with a greater sense of optimism that their life would be better.
But amidst all this uncertainty, there's one thing we can be sure of: those who tied us into the EU, often on the sly, with the intention of making sure that leaving was impossible or incredibly costly - without ever getting the blessing of the the people of the UK in this - will take no responsibility whatspever for their actions. It will all be down to those pesky kids who found them out and stopped them.
Right now, is the most politically risky time. We are going through the Brexit event horizon - the eye of the storm - and the process isn't anywhere near complete yet.
It's no wonder why so many Remainers are fighting tooth-and-nail, day and night, for the right to be told what to do by Juncker, Verhofstadht and Barnier.
Mr. Mark, possibly. Still a credible route for the far right to rise, alas.
The failure to deliver Brexit would lead to a significant portion of the voters getting very, very peeved indeed. I'd hate to see it, but I suspect direct action would be vented in ways virtually all on here would be appalled about.
And if it turns out that Brexit is undeliverable?
Brexit is going to be delivered. And I have no doubt, some aspects will be painful. There will be losers, some of those will be people who voted for Leave with a greater sense of optimism that their life would be better.
But amidst all this uncertainty, there's one thing we can be sure of: those who tied us into the EU, often on the sly, with the intention of making sure that leaving was impossible or incredibly costly - without ever getting the blessing of the the people of the UK in this - will take no responsibility whatspever for their actions. It will all be down to those pesky kids who found them out and stopped them.
Mr. Glenn, if you want to go back to the early part of the 20th century and look at nations responsible for war, I'm pretty sure the UK isn't topping the list.
I don't think Brexit and the 26-6 partition of Ireland can simultaneously exist. One of them is going to have to give.
The obvious interim solution is to move the controlled border (for people and goods) between the EU and the UK to the Irish Sea, as a prelude to Irish re-unification. In the EU referendum, there was a 56-44 majority in favour of remaining in the EU in the 6 counties.
The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom.
Easy. The majority of their MPs in Westminster wish to Brexit.
Good point. So presumably since the majority of UK MPS wish to remain in the EU, we should do so?
Erm....where does this "majority" of MPs come from? Other than plucked out your arse. Remind me - how many MPs voted to approve the PM serving the Article 50 notice?
Not in fact 'plucked from my arse' but from a Press Association survey of MPs:
The Article 50 vote was of course whipped, so most MPs voted as their party told them.
Any MP who put party loyalty over what they regard as a terrible terrible option deserves no respect. They all had the option of having some balls and saying no.
Respecting the referendum result even if they disagreed is at least a principled reason to vote.
And of course preferring to remain us not the same as being willing to make it happen, as the A50 vote showed, they accepted leaving. They wished to remain, unless they act on it right now they merely wish we had remained. Not the same thing.
Quiz question: which state/country/empire was the only one in history, excepting a brief time under the Third Reich, to unite modern day France and Germany into a single political state? [NB obviously not counting the EU for this].
"That’s far from certain as the two sides continue to talk at cross purposes, becoming irritated with each other in the process as neither understands why the other won’t be reasonable. It’s a microcosm of why the difference in philosophical understanding of what the EU is propelled Britain to leave in the first place."
Precisely, David. This is what I've been saying for months.
I see the point, but there is another angle to it. My parents, WWC in their seventies, were definitely drawn to the Brexit line. If I hadn't put the case for staying in to them they might well have voted out. My children on the other hand simply couldn't understand why anyone would want to leave the EU. This is quite literal. I couldn't explain to them what the arguments on either side of the debate were. Had I wanted to persuade them to vote leave I would have not had any idea of how to even start persuading them.
I am beginning to doubt whether the collective efforts of the supporters of Brexit are even up to the task of actually getting us out. But let's assume they manage it. Support for Brexit only just made it to a majority last year. Real life usually disappoints expectations. And as the older voters drop off the register support for the EU will grow. We'll be back in soon enough.
Leave won 40 to 50 year olds and 50 to 60 year olds, not just pensioners. Only under 40s had a majority for Remain.
Plus there is no guarantee the EU would let the UK back in without also demanding membership of the Euro and Schengen as well of course as free movement so in those circumstances we would definitely still vote Leave.
Returning to the single market and joining EFTA again may be possibilities longer term but not rejoining the EU unless they also give unlikely concessions to the UK
Yes, I'd agree with that.
Once again, sensible Remainers have a much easier target there, but they'd much rather cut off their nose to sock it to the Leavers than advocate (would would be for them) a better more stable settlement in the national interest.
Maybe time for a bit of creative thinking for Northern Ireland... Make it a special 'European Province' .. both inside EU and UK.
The Channel Islands have been within the Customs Union - but not within the EU - so Channel Islanders have no automatic right to work in the EU, for example.
A predicted exodus of EU academics from British universities has not yet materialised. Helen de Cruz discusses why – despite the uncertainty hanging over their future status and rights – the ‘brain drain’ has not really begun yet. Finding new posts, especially at a very senior level, can take time; hiring systems elsewhere in Europe are opaque and sometimes not meritocratic; many academics have put down roots in Britain; and other Anglophone destinations are not always attractive.
There's clearly been a bit of a slowdown in scientific academic jobs being advertised - I think a mixture of Brexit uncertainty and REF 2020 still being up in the air as well.
"That’s far from certain as the two sides continue to talk at cross purposes, becoming irritated with each other in the process as neither understands why the other won’t be reasonable. It’s a microcosm of why the difference in philosophical understanding of what the EU is propelled Britain to leave in the first place."
Precisely, David. This is what I've been saying for months.
I see the point, but there is another angle to it. My parents, WWC in their seventies, were definitely drawn to the Brexit line. If I hadn't put the case for staying in to them they might well have voted out. My children on the other hand simply couldn't understand why anyone would want to leave the EU. This is quite literal. I couldn't explain to them what the arguments on either side of the debate were. Had I wanted to persuade them to vote leave I would have not had any idea of how to even start persuading them.
I am beginning to doubt whether the collective efforts of the supporters of Brexit are even up to the task of actually getting us out. But let's assume they manage it. Support for Brexit only just made it to a majority last year. Real life usually disappoints expectations. And as the older voters drop off the register support for the EU will grow. We'll be back in soon enough.
Leave won 40 to 50 year olds and 50 to 60 year olds, not just pensioners. Only under 40s had a majority for Remain.
Plus there is no guarantee the EU would let the UK back in without also demanding membership of the Euro and Schengen as well of course as free movement so in those circumstances we would definitely still vote Leave.
Returning to the single market and joining EFTA again may be possibilities longer term but not rejoining the EU unless they also give unlikely concessions to the UK
If you make those points to my parents they would nod. They might even agree. I can see what you are saying. But there are plenty of people around who like my children would simply stare back blankly. Schengen - no need for passports. Sounds good. Join the Euro? That would save a lot of trouble. Free movement - yes please! I want to spend the summer in Rome!
And remember that it only needs one of the big parties to put EU membership in their manifesto and to win an election to wipe out the referendum result. I am only wondering which one will do it first.
Even younger voters oppose the Euro. Only the LDs want a second referendum on EU membership
"That’s far from certain as the two sides continue to talk at cross purposes, becoming irritated with each other in the process as neither understands why the other won’t be reasonable. It’s a microcosm of why the difference in philosophical understanding of what the EU is propelled Britain to leave in the first place."
Precisely, David. This is what I've been saying for months.
I see the point, but there is another angle to it. My parents, WWC in their seventies, were definitely drawn to the Brexit line. If I hadn't put the case for staying in to them they might well have voted out. My children on the other hand simply couldn't understand why anyone would want to leave the EU. This is quite literal. I couldn't explain to them what the arguments on either side of the debate were. Had I wanted to persuade them to vote leave I would have not had any idea of how to even start persuading them.
I am beginning to doubt whether the collective efforts of the supporters of Brexit are even up to the task of actually getting us out. But let's assume they manage it. Support for Brexit only just made it to a majority last year. Real life usually disappoints expectations. And as the older voters drop off the register support for the EU will grow. We'll be back in soon enough.
This is a very telling point. Brexit will be increasingly blamed for a whole series of woes, including some for which it is not really responible (see Monarch), just as the EU has for many years. The long term result of the Brexiteers' efforts will be UK fully in the EU - Euro , Schengen and all.
Of course, quite a few leave voters will have shuffled off this mortal coil by then, so maybe they'll not live to see it.
I fear you guys are right. I'm a Remainer, who definitely doesn't want us in the Euro. Yet we may end up there in, say, twenty years time.
We won't, had the referendum been about staying in the EU and joining the Eurozone it would have been about 80% Leave not 52% Leave.
More likely Sweden and Denmark, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and the other non Eurozone EU nations leave the EU and join EFTA along with the UK than the UK joins the Eurozone
We'd never* have joined the Euro if we'd stayed in the EU. But coming out means if/when we re-join (only after a referendum) we are very likely to have to join the Euro too.
In 20 years time the majority of the electorate won't give a shit about the pound; they'll be too used to buying in USD, EUR, and Bitcoin or its successors.
*Ok 'never' is a long time - let's say never in the next 50 years.
Quiz question: which state/country/empire was the only one in history, excepting a brief time under the Third Reich, to unite modern day France and Germany into a single political state? [NB obviously not counting the EU for this].
As Schroedinger was an Irish citizen - that would work.
However better to be brave and stay in the EU!
Staying in the EU would be the ultimate act of running away. It would only be "brave" in a Brave Sir Robin kind of way....
And it would give the current politicians in the UK hell to pay. And hand many of them their P45. In June, 80%+ voted for parties who were pledged to getting us out the EU. "We gave you one job to do....Just one."
Well over 50% of voters also backed parties that favour immediate confirmation that the rights of EU resident in the UK should be immediately and unconditionally confirmed. We're not doing that.
Have you seen why? Have you seee the way the EU negotiators have banked the PM's Florence speech and just flatly said "More...."? Yes, it would have been great to have sorted this issue out. The humane thing to do. But for that, there needs to be good faith by the EU. And that just isn't happening.
The UK does not take responsibility for this issue still causing huge worry to many people.
The rights and status of EU citizens in the UK is entirely the responsibility of the UK. Over 50% of voters backed parties that favour immediate and unconditional recognition of their existing rights. That's a majority, just like the 80% voting for parties that back Brexit is a majority. Or maybe it's a bit more complicated than that.
From what I've read of the UK's negotiating position, the rights and status of existing EU citizens in the UK isn't a problem.
It's future rights post-Brexit and the role of the ECJ in any dispute that's the problem, where the EU has an unreasonable position that the ECJ should police both sides of the agreement.
And the EU is insisting that UK citizens resident in the EU should only have residency rights in that state, not the EU as a whole and if they leave for 2 years lose residency (and we can't deport criminals):
Pretty disturbed by the desire of Continuity Remainers to give away integral parts of this country.
I find your desire to give away my rights as an EU citizen pretty disturbing. It takes all sorts.
I'm sure you do, but not having EU rights when no longer in the EU makes sense, even if it is a harrowing thing for people and despite the vote plenty would like a creative solution to avoid that.
Mr. Recidivist, losing control of our own monetary policy to 'save trouble' is drunken tomfoolery.
In fairness I can see how young people who voted for Corbyn's free stuff (I know not whether this includes Recidivist's children) might be tempted by such an argument.
I don't think Brexit and the 26-6 partition of Ireland can simultaneously exist. One of them is going to have to give.
The obvious interim solution is to move the controlled border (for people and goods) between the EU and the UK to the Irish Sea, as a prelude to Irish re-unification. In the EU referendum, there was a 56-44 majority in favour of remaining in the EU in the 6 counties.
The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom.
Easy. The majority of their MPs in Westminster wish to Brexit.
Good point. So presumably since the majority of UK MPS wish to remain in the EU, we should do so?
Erm....where does this "majority" of MPs come from? Other than plucked out your arse. Remind me - how many MPs voted to approve the PM serving the Article 50 notice?
Not in fact 'plucked from my arse' but from a Press Association survey of MPs:
The Article 50 vote was of course whipped, so most MPs voted as their party told them. Additionally I am sure many Remain voting MPs voted for A50 to respect the Referendum outcome. But your point on NI was that the MPs views were more important than the EU Ref outcome; I'm merely pointing out that that's not the way we decided Brexit overall. If we had left it to MPs in the first place we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now!
We are "in the mess we are in now" PRECISELY BECAUSE the MPs did what they did on tying us into the EU without ever getting permission from the voters. When the voters were asked, they withdrew that permission. At the first opportunity.
And I reckon if they were honest, many of those MPs who had voted Remain but then voted to approve the Article 50 Notice did so not because of the Party Whips, but because they were tking notice - at last - of the views of the voters they represent.
We'd never* have joined the Euro if we'd stayed in the EU. But coming out means if/when we re-join (only after a referendum) we are very likely to have to join the Euro too.
People should consider the implications of a comment @rcs1000 made yesterday that they wouldn't want us to join the Euro because it would mean Frankfurt would never become the European financial capital.
Joining the Euro would cement London's position as surely as Brexit threatens it.
"That’s far from certain as the two sides continue to talk at cross purposes, becoming irritated with each other in the process as neither understands why the other won’t be reasonable. It’s a microcosm of why the difference in philosophical understanding of what the EU is propelled Britain to leave in the first place."
Precisely, David. This is what I've been saying for months.
I see the point, but there is another angle to it. My parents, WWC in their seventies, were definitely drawn to the Brexit line. If I hadn't put the case for staying in to them they might well have voted out. My children on the other hand simply couldn't understand why anyone would want to leave the EU. This is quite literal. I couldn't explain to them what the arguments on either side of the debate were. Had I wanted to persuade them to vote leave I would have not had any idea of how to even start persuading them.
I am beginning to doubt whether the collective efforts of the supporters of Brexit are even up to the task of actually getting us out. But let's assume they manage it. Support for Brexit only just made it to a majority last year. Real life usually disappoints expectations. And as the older voters drop off the register support for the EU will grow. We'll be back in soon enough.
You are assuming no new Leave supporters will arise, whilst all the existing ones will die off, to be replaced wholly by "new" Rejoiners
Exactly like SINDYREF.
'You wait til the old No voters have died off'.......
Well? We're still waiting.......polls yet to show any shift.....
Exactly. It's entirely possible that the future population of the UK will move in a very internationalist and europhile direction but, it's also speculation.
Another speculation might be that since the UK will be extremely ethnically diverse by 2050, with potentially 50% of the population from a visible ethnic minority, it will feel even less of an affinity with "Europe", but a far greater one with the rest of the world, and the Commonwealth, supported by a number of new UK-international trade and study arrangements.
The issue is that the UK becomes a third country when it leaves the EU. WTO rules forbid dicriminatory treatment in the absence of a formal trade agreement between countries. The UK only has borders with the EU. The EU has borders with a number of third countries. A de facto soft border between the EU and UK discriminates against other third countries with which the EU has a border - Russia and Ukraine, for example. The EU just cannot do it. There has to be an agreement that is then properly policed. Anything else invites WTO action against the EU.
I don't know much about the Sweden/Norway border, but has it ever been open in the way that the Irish border is now? If not, the trade flows between Norway and Sweden are unlikely to mirror those between NI and Ireland. What's more, I suspect the Norway/Sweden border is the subject of a formal, policed agreement.
All of the above is why the Irish border is an EU red line. It has no choice. Unless the problem is resolved there will be No Deal.
Although if there's No Deal there would be a border between Eire and NI, so how does that help anyone?
Yep, and for that reason for the RoI no deal is better than a bad deal.
That is certainly untrue. ROI would be hit much, much harder than the UK economically, and probably politically too.
Why do you talk such nonsense?
I just disagree with you. A No Deal Brexit that creates a hard border in Ireland is clearly better for the RoI than a Brexit deal that creates a policed border with Northern Ireland (a bad deal from the RoI's perspective). With a No Deal the RoI has more opportunity to benefit from business and financial relocations from the UK, as well as inward investments that the UK might otherwise have got. No Deal and a Bad Deal both bring considerable trade downsides from the RoI's point of view, but No Deal delivers more possible upsides.
Bottom line - a bad deal for the UK is not the same as a bad deal for the RoI.
Pretty disturbed by the desire of Continuity Remainers to give away integral parts of this country.
For Remainers, no price is too high for us to stay in the UK.
Starting with democracy...
Those Remainers you sold me, they won't mate. They just walk around, Tweeting, and not mating. You sold me... queer Remainers. I want my money back!
?!? Increasingly bizarre Sunil, I do worry for your mental health pal
Sunil is fine, and a good bloke. He just drops lyrics and quotes that are extremely amusing and entertaining to him inside his own head, but don't always make sense to the rest of us!!
"That’s far from certain as the two sides continue to talk at cross purposes, becoming irritated with each other in the process as neither understands why the other won’t be reasonable. It’s a microcosm of why the difference in philosophical understanding of what the EU is propelled Britain to leave in the first place."
Precisely, David. This is what I've been saying for months.
I see the point, but there is another angle to it. My parents, WWC ssume they manage it. Support for Brexit only just made it to a majority last year. Real life usually disappoints expectations. And as the older voters drop off the register support for the EU will grow. We'll be back in soon enough.
This is a very telling point. Brexit will be increasingly blamed for a whole series of woes, including some for which it is not really responible (see Monarch), just as the EU has for many years. The long term result of the Brexiteers' efforts will be UK fully in the EU - Euro , Schengen and all.
Of course, quite a few leave voters will have shuffled off this mortal coil by then, so maybe they'll not live to see it.
I fear you guys are right. I'm a Remainer, who definitely doesn't want us in the Euro. Yet we may end up there in, say, twenty years time.
We won't, had the referendum been about staying in the EU and joining the Eurozone it would have been about 80% Leave not 52% Leave.
More likely Sweden and Denmark, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and the other non Eurozone EU nations leave the EU and join EFTA along with the UK than the UK joins the Eurozone
We'd never* have joined the Euro if we'd stayed in the EU. But coming out means if/when we re-join (only after a referendum) we are very likely to have to join the Euro too.
In 20 years time the majority of the electorate won't give a shit about the pound; they'll be too used to buying in USD, EUR, and Bitcoin or its successors.
*Ok 'never' is a long time - let's say never in the next 50 years.
Which is why we will definitely never rejoin the EU if the Eurozone is a condition.
Currency of course matters, see Italy where Berlusconi and Grillo now want a parallel currency to the Euro because they are fed up of the Eurozone being attuned to the needs of the German economy and not southern Europe and it is the same story in Greece
Quiz question: which state/country/empire was the only one in history, excepting a brief time under the Third Reich, to unite modern day France and Germany into a single political state? [NB obviously not counting the EU for this].
"That’s far from certain as the two sides continue to talk at cross purposes, becoming irritated with each other in the process as neither understands why the other won’t be reasonable. It’s a microcosm of why the difference in philosophical understanding of what the EU is propelled Britain to leave in the first place."
Precisely, David. This is what I've been saying for months.
I see the point, but there is another angle to it. My parents, WWC in their seventies, were definitely drawn to the Brexit line. If I hadn't put the case for staying in to them they might well have voted out. My children on the other hand simply couldn't understand why anyone would want to leave the EU. This is quite literal. I couldn't explain to them what the arguments on either side of the debate were. Had I wanted to persuade them to vote leave I would have not had any idea of how to even start persuading them.
I am beginning to doubt whether the collective efforts of the supporters of Brexit are even up to the task of actually getting us out. But let's assume they manage it. Support for Brexit only just made it to a majority last year. Real life usually disappoints expectations. And as the older voters drop off the register support for the EU will grow. We'll be back in soon enough.
Leave won 40 to 50 year olds and 50 to 60 year olds, not just pensioners. Only under 40s had a majority for Remain.
Plus there is no guarantee the EU would let the UK back in without also demanding membership of the Euro and Schengen as well of course as free movement so in those circumstances we would definitely still vote Leave.
Returning to the single market and joining EFTA again may be possibilities longer term but not rejoining the EU unless they also give unlikely concessions to the UK
If you make those points to my parents they would nod. They might even agree. I can see what you are saying. But there are plenty of people around who like my children would simply stare back blankly. Schengen - no need for passports. Sounds good. Join the Euro? That would save a lot of trouble. Free movement - yes please! I want to spend the summer in Rome!
And remember that it only needs one of the big parties to put EU membership in their manifesto and to win an election to wipe out the referendum result. I am only wondering which one will do it first.
Even younger voters oppose the Euro. Only the LDs want a second referendum on EU membership
Don't tell all those labour remainers (that is, those who want to still remain, rather than merely those who voted remain)
Mr. Recidivist, losing control of our own monetary policy to 'save trouble' is drunken tomfoolery.
In fairness I can see how young people who voted for Corbyn's free stuff (I know not whether this includes Recidivist's children) might be tempted by such an argument.
I think social media echo chambers have a part to play in that too.
It will massively reinforce existing views and "facts", whilst you have to be both extremely brave and very skilled at debate to jump in there as a lone wolf refuting it all, possibly at some social cost to yourself.
Under Charlemagne, modern day France/Germany were united. Unfortunately, they still had the idiotic Welsh-style inheritance rules, so when his grandkids rolled around the empire was sliced up.
Mr. Essexit, that's a childish view of the world, though, as per Corbyn's latest apparent wheeze of massively increasing taxes on everyone so the state can provide 'free' stuff.
Mr. Mark, indeed. The political class deliberately bound us as closely to the EU as possible without ever asking the electorate and are now tutting regretfully about how hard it will be to break free, as if they had no role in creating the problem to start with.
New quiz question: which emperor was criticised by Ammianus Marcellinus for attempting to curry favour with the people by fixing commodity prices, a practice known even in the 4th century to lead to shortages of even famine?
It's actually not that hard to accomplish customs checks, via something like the TIR system. Hard checks might be carried out at the ferry ports, and nobody is trying to stop people moving freely across the borders - that's not what FOM in EU terms is about, its about the right to access services and settle and the right of establishment in the member states. There was never really a previous issue about moving peaceably through the member states before the EU.
When it comes to travel control, every time I have been to Ireland, north or south,I have had to produce ID to get onto the ferry or plane, so there is already a hard border at the sea for Identity checks.
Upgrading the TIR carnet system at the ferry ports is not a minor task, but its also not a new or novel system, and much bulk transport all over the world relies on it already. The design was always as I understand it, meant to be a gradual move out to all bulk international goods movement/customs transactions.
The sticking point is really one of small goods movement across the border internally to the Island of Ireland - and more especially agricultural goods which of course the EU protects against any real outside competition (the French won't budge on that especially). And that is also where the potential WTO challenges come, because they cannot do an internal customs/trade deal on the island due to WTO rules. Also, NI would have to agree that its Phytosanitary rules would not alter from the EU's (though this in itself is not difficult under CODEX), but the sticking point again is determination of that issue, mutual recognition of bodies which the EU doesn't like much.
Mr Herdson's idea that 'a blind eye be turned to some issues' might well work - but agriculture will be the stumbling block, because the rest of the agricultural world is watching, and hates the EU's CAP.
"That’s far from certain as the two sides continue to talk at cross purposes, becoming irritated with each other in the process as neither understands why the other won’t be reasonable. It’s a microcosm of why the difference in philosophical understanding of what the EU is propelled Britain to leave in the first place."
Precisely, David. This is what I've been saying for months.
I see the point, but there is another angle to it. My parents, WWC in their seventies, were definitely drawn to the Brexit line. If I hadn't put the case for staying in to them they might well have voted out. My children on the other hand simply couldn't understand why anyone would want to leave the EU. This is quite literal. I couldn't explain to them what the arguments on either side of the debate were. Had I wanted to persuade them to vote leave I would have not had any idea of how to even start persuading them.
I am beginning to doubt whether the collective efforts of the supporters of Brexit are even up to the task of actually getting us out. But let's assume they manage it. Support for Brexit only just made it to a majority last year. Real life usually disappoints expectations. And as the older voters drop off the register support for the EU will grow. We'll be back in soon enough.
This is a very telling point. Brexit will be increasingly blamed for a whole series of woes, including some for which it is not really responible (see Monarch), just as the EU has for many years. The long term result of the Brexiteers' efforts will be UK fully in the EU - Euro , Schengen and all.
Of course, quite a few leave voters will have shuffled off this mortal coil by then, so maybe they'll not live to see it.
I fear you guys are right. I'm a Remainer, who definitely doesn't want us in the Euro. Yet we may end up there in, say, twenty years time.
We won't, had the referendum been about staying in the EU and joining the Eurozone it would have been about 80% Leave not 52% Leave.
More likely Sweden and Denmark, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and the other non Eurozone EU nations leave the EU and join EFTA along with the UK than the UK joins the Eurozone
We'd never* have joined the Euro if we'd stayed in the EU. But coming out means if/when we re-join (only after a referendum) we are very likely to have to join the Euro too.
In 20 years time the majority of the electorate won't give a shit about the pound; they'll be too used to buying in USD, EUR, and Bitcoin or its successors.
*Ok 'never' is a long time - let's say never in the next 50 years.
Quiz question: which state/country/empire was the only one in history, excepting a brief time under the Third Reich, to unite modern day France and Germany into a single political state? [NB obviously not counting the EU for this].
Carolingian?
Why isn't the answer "Rome"?
Rome only controlled the western periphery of Germany.
If you mean 'Rome' as in 'the Holy Roman Empire', then that's because it's the most meaningless and inaccurate name of a state there's ever been. [Also, I believe the conquests occurred before rather than after the silly ceremony in Rome].
Pretty disturbed by the desire of Continuity Remainers to give away integral parts of this country.
I find your desire to give away my rights as an EU citizen pretty disturbing. It takes all sorts.
I'm sure you do, but not having EU rights when no longer in the EU makes sense, even if it is a harrowing thing for people and despite the vote plenty would like a creative solution to avoid that.
Of course. My point being that in a democracy people are entitled to their views and have every right to argue for them, as well as to seek their adoption. The red line is forced imposition.
Comments
I am beginning to doubt whether the collective efforts of the supporters of Brexit are even up to the task of actually getting us out. But let's assume they manage it. Support for Brexit only just made it to a majority last year. Real life usually disappoints expectations. And as the older voters drop off the register support for the EU will grow. We'll be back in soon enough.
It's future rights post-Brexit and the role of the ECJ in any dispute that's the problem, where the EU has an unreasonable position that the ECJ should police both sides of the agreement.
In this case it sets the premise on which the hypothetical scenario shall be explored, since it's about solution to the problem assuming we leave, and for instance your solution to the problem woukd be 'lets not leave then'. Even if that's right, it's not the scenario being explored.
The only real disagreement within the UK Government/Conservative Party is whether the EU will accept the latter two within the context of ANY trading agreement, and so whether it is even worth exploring what "as possible" and "reasonable price" might mean.
That's an interesting precedent you've just set for the other 632 mainland MPs.
Plus there is no guarantee the EU would let the UK back in without also demanding membership of the Euro and Schengen as well of course as free movement so in those circumstances we would definitely still vote Leave.
Returning to the single market and joining EFTA again may be possibilities longer term but not rejoining the EU unless they also give unlikely concessions to the UK
Of course, quite a few leave voters will have shuffled off this mortal coil by then, so maybe they'll not live to see it.
It's rather like trying to work out how to get back into the plane rather than how to open the parachute.
Latest summary:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/648148/September_-_Joint_technical_note_on_the_comparison_of_EU-UK_positions_on_citizens__rights.pdf
A lot more green & yellow and a lot less red than there was to start with....
On your second, more substantive point, I hear this an awful lot from Remainers. You are assuming no new Leave supporters will arise, whilst all the existing ones will die off, to be replaced wholly by "new" Rejoiners, you are assuming that the electorate will be willing to revisit the whole constitutional issue all over again, and you are assuming that the terms of re-joining will be attractive.
On the other hand, once Brexit has been completed, some current Remainers may decide it's actually ok, and new opportunities may open up, whilst, if we take Verhofstadht at his word, rejoining would involve signing up to the Euro, and Schengen, which would be something of a blocker, and certainly require another referendum. So it's by no means a certainty.
The evidence from the 1975 European Community referendum (where we voted over 67% to Remain at the time) is that the movement was in the other direction as the EEC/EC/EU developed, and voters aged.
We were all young once.
That's sort of what a nation means.
Of course, how many would try now, or in 2 years?
The most remote, the least accountable and the most alien to our way of life and constituenional settlement was EU membership. That was the weakest link in the chain. It has broken because of the fundamental flaws within it.
Everyone can see this; why can't you?
And remember that it only needs one of the big parties to put EU membership in their manifesto and to win an election to wipe out the referendum result. I am only wondering which one will do it first.
'You wait til the old No voters have died off'.......
Well? We're still waiting.......polls yet to show any shift.....
I find it extraordinary how some* draw political equivalence between the EU and UK. The EU is an international political and economic union of (officially) some 24 years. The latter is our nation, our country, that stretches back centuries.
(*Except, in your case, of course, you are just trying to troll Leavers, since you do it with Gibraltar, the Falklands and anything else you can thing of as well, because you enjoy it.)
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/government-and-public-sector/news/89806/we-spied-trotskyists-who-now-close-corbyn-–-ex-mi5
Starting with democracy...
Why do you talk such nonsense?
http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/how-mps-voted-in-the-eu-referendum-11364110245462
The Article 50 vote was of course whipped, so most MPs voted as their party told them. Additionally I am sure many Remain voting MPs voted for A50 to respect the Referendum outcome. But your point on NI was that the MPs views were more important than the EU Ref outcome; I'm merely pointing out that that's not the way we decided Brexit overall. If we had left it to MPs in the first place we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now!
More likely Sweden and Denmark, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and the other non Eurozone EU nations leave the EU and join EFTA along with the UK than the UK joins the Eurozone
NI already has a form of political special status in the UK anyway, under the Anglo-Irish and Good Friday agreements, so there is a precedent.
It might even make sense given whatever that vote was, but people can be odd, and you cannot assume a vote that you'd think would lead to a surge of Independence or unification support will automatically follow. Ask the SNP. They might still get their aim, but there wasnt the immediate fillip some hoped.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/10/13/why-there-is-no-brain-drain-yet-of-eu-academics-in-the-uk/
It's no wonder why so many Remainers are fighting tooth-and-nail, day and night, for the right to be told what to do by Juncker, Verhofstadht and Barnier.
https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2017/10/13/no-deal-brexit-its-already-too-late/
Respecting the referendum result even if they disagreed is at least a principled reason to vote.
And of course preferring to remain us not the same as being willing to make it happen, as the A50 vote showed, they accepted leaving. They wished to remain, unless they act on it right now they merely wish we had remained. Not the same thing.
Once again, sensible Remainers have a much easier target there, but they'd much rather cut off their nose to sock it to the Leavers than advocate (would would be for them) a better more stable settlement in the national interest.
In 20 years time the majority of the electorate won't give a shit about the pound; they'll be too used to buying in USD, EUR, and Bitcoin or its successors.
*Ok 'never' is a long time - let's say never in the next 50 years.
And I reckon if they were honest, many of those MPs who had voted Remain but then voted to approve the Article 50 Notice did so not because of the Party Whips, but because they were tking notice - at last - of the views of the voters they represent.
Joining the Euro would cement London's position as surely as Brexit threatens it.
Another speculation might be that since the UK will be extremely ethnically diverse by 2050, with potentially 50% of the population from a visible ethnic minority, it will feel even less of an affinity with "Europe", but a far greater one with the rest of the world, and the Commonwealth, supported by a number of new UK-international trade and study arrangements.
Bottom line - a bad deal for the UK is not the same as a bad deal for the RoI.
Currency of course matters, see Italy where Berlusconi and Grillo now want a parallel currency to the Euro because they are fed up of the Eurozone being attuned to the needs of the German economy and not southern Europe and it is the same story in Greece
It will massively reinforce existing views and "facts", whilst you have to be both extremely brave and very skilled at debate to jump in there as a lone wolf refuting it all, possibly at some social cost to yourself.
Under Charlemagne, modern day France/Germany were united. Unfortunately, they still had the idiotic Welsh-style inheritance rules, so when his grandkids rolled around the empire was sliced up.
Mr. Essexit, that's a childish view of the world, though, as per Corbyn's latest apparent wheeze of massively increasing taxes on everyone so the state can provide 'free' stuff.
Mr. Mark, indeed. The political class deliberately bound us as closely to the EU as possible without ever asking the electorate and are now tutting regretfully about how hard it will be to break free, as if they had no role in creating the problem to start with.
New quiz question: which emperor was criticised by Ammianus Marcellinus for attempting to curry favour with the people by fixing commodity prices, a practice known even in the 4th century to lead to shortages of even famine?
When it comes to travel control, every time I have been to Ireland, north or south,I have had to produce ID to get onto the ferry or plane, so there is already a hard border at the sea for Identity checks.
Upgrading the TIR carnet system at the ferry ports is not a minor task, but its also not a new or novel system, and much bulk transport all over the world relies on it already. The design was always as I understand it, meant to be a gradual move out to all bulk international goods movement/customs transactions.
The sticking point is really one of small goods movement across the border internally to the Island of Ireland - and more especially agricultural goods which of course the EU protects against any real outside competition (the French won't budge on that especially). And that is also where the potential WTO challenges come, because they cannot do an internal customs/trade deal on the island due to WTO rules. Also, NI would have to agree that its Phytosanitary rules would not alter from the EU's (though this in itself is not difficult under CODEX), but the sticking point again is determination of that issue, mutual recognition of bodies which the EU doesn't like much.
Mr Herdson's idea that 'a blind eye be turned to some issues' might well work - but agriculture will be the stumbling block, because the rest of the agricultural world is watching, and hates the EU's CAP.
Here is a map of the Carolingian Empire:
It's a funny old world.
If you mean 'Rome' as in 'the Holy Roman Empire', then that's because it's the most meaningless and inaccurate name of a state there's ever been. [Also, I believe the conquests occurred before rather than after the silly ceremony in Rome].