Michel Barnier is refusing to back down on erecting a border in the Irish Sea to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, and has publicly asked the British government for data to prove that the checks on goods flowing within the territory of the UK would be few in number.
Barnier was appointed by the Commission whose members are appointed by the European Council made up of politicians elected by voters in each EU country. So although indirectly elected, Barnier acts on behalf of all voters in the EU.
But no voter in Rome or Rotterdam wants a border in the Irish Sea; it’s a stupid position for him to be taking.
The EU’s overplaying a strong hand will backfire on them.
If you want a Canada-style deal you must accept that this means a customs border in the English Channel. If you accept that Ireland is staying in the EU then you must accept that there has to be a customs border somewhere between Great Britain and Ireland. If you accept the fundamental basis of the Good Friday Agreement then that border cannot be within the island of Ireland.
Therefore either you accept the necessity of an Irish sea customs border, or you stop being so silly about the feasibility of a Canada-style trade deal.
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Yes it does. The UK has even written into the EU Withdrawal Act that no new customs infrastructure or controls on the Irish border are permitted as a consequence of Brexit. You may have no problem personally with border posts, but you're not the dictator of the UK.
Its interesting how you consider some eminently adaptable things (like an Act of Parliament) unchangeable and some irrevocable things (like the notion of democratic choice) easy to renege on.
Hard to say. Blaenau Gwent was rock-solid Labour, until it wasn't. I think that Field would stand a good chance as an independent in a by-election, although a general election would be much tougher.
His brand of Labour, both on the right of the party and anti-EU, is however, rare.
What odds would you want on Field
Well, it rather depends who the Labour Party put up as a candidate.
Against a generic Labour Party politician, I'd reckon it would be a very close fight. If they parachuted someone in, and then flooded the constituency with clueless young Jezuits, then Field should probably be favourite. And if they picked a sensible local Leaver not called George Galloway, then the Labour Party would probably win it at a canter.
So, probably Frank Field as narrow favourite.
Frank Field will lose big. In a general election, we would lose massively. He actually lives in Hertfordshire.
With respect neither are you. When was the EU Withdrawal Act made into law - as I understand it nothing is agreed until everything is agreed but if not can you provide the date that act became a statute
On the 26th of June this year. This is the relevant section, which was based on Chris Patten's amendment:
Congratulations to TheJezziah on a fabulous piece of Whataboutery. Progress - as far as I can see - are not agitating against Labour MPs. Did not call for fealty to Tony Blair. Did not demand the removal of rebels. That's just Momentum.
The enemy of the Labour Party are not Labour MPs. Or Labour officials. Or Labour councillors. We can trust Labour council leaders. We don't need a purge of Labour volunteers elected to run CLPs. And yet that is all that comes out of you fucking crazy entryist loons bent on ensuring the Tory party rule for ever. Class traitors they say about Field and Berger and Streeting. Say the people working flat out to get the Tories in for ever.
You are a disgrace sir.
Not my experience
Corbyn supporters working their bollox off to get Lab elected
Progress types doing everything to ensure JCWNBPM
Everytime Labour are ahead in Polls
The PLP try their best to ensure Tories rule forever
If firing off vile abuse to one and all who do not accept the anti semetic nature of the leadership is working their b.....x off then you are right
With respect neither are you. When was the EU Withdrawal Act made into law - as I understand it nothing is agreed until everything is agreed but if not can you provide the date that act became a statute
On the 26th of June this year. This is the relevant section, which was based on Chris Patten's amendment:
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no deal at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
With respect neither are you. When was the EU Withdrawal Act made into law - as I understand it nothing is agreed until everything is agreed but if not can you provide the date that act became a statute
On the 26th of June this year. This is the relevant section, which was based on Chris Patten's amendment:
With respect neither are you. When was the EU Withdrawal Act made into law - as I understand it nothing is agreed until everything is agreed but if not can you provide the date that act became a statute
On the 26th of June this year. This is the relevant section, which was based on Chris Patten's amendment:
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
The logical solution then is to put a special deal in place. It can treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
Over on Facebook the fucking Kali Ma Corbynite wankers are celebrating Frank Field, egging on Mike Gaoes to follow suit and cheering on the idea of other Labour MPs going away.
Apparently if you are a tosser the enemy of the Labour Party really are Labour MPs
It's time to get Tough on Corbyn and Tough on the Causes of Corbyn
Do the Labour Party get much of their money via membership fees, or is it an insignificant amount?
I had to read two posts mentioned the error before I could actually read the error.. sure I re read it as me saying 2016 at least once.
My impression may well be wrong, I just remember being impressed by the amounts we were making from members and when I lined that up with what we spent on the general election guessed that the members were providing more than the Unions, although I'm probably disregarding too much the money spent outside GE's in my assumptions at the time, it wasn't exactly something I thought about too deeply.
Labour needs to move away from union dependence for two very good reasons: 1) the unions are a pale shadow of what they were and still shrinking, so there's little hope for their future survival and (2) the key unions who support Labour - UNITE, PCSU, RMT - are all led by, shall we say, interesting figures who bring the party into disrepute by their - ahem - novel approaches to leadership. So subs and fundraising are the way to go.
But I'm pretty sure that state hasn't come about yet.
I'd be in favour of more state funding of parties, aside from that small donations it is the only clean way to do it. Political parties shouldn't be in anyone's pocket. I would include large donors in that. I gave £20 to Labour before, which buys me nothing but a little bit of happiness supporting something I like. A individual/business/union who gives many times that figure would gain influence even if they don't specifically push one policy or another whereas I believe in a fair democracy they shouldn't have any more influence than a comparable individual/business/union which doesn't donate.
That is my moral case against it anyway but you are right that there are good reasons aside from that that we need to be more independent of union funding.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
A trade deal even as close as the EEA wouldn't be sufficient to resolve the issue satisfactorily, so given the UK's red lines they have no choice but to negotiate as they are.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
You don't think Macron would see reversing Brexit as a personal triumph?
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
If the threat of a real customs border materialised, how soon do you think it would be before there were a border poll, and what do you think the chances of it resulting in the end of the UK would be?
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
They're asking instead for either the CTA or the internal market of the UK to be torn up. Both would be far more damaging both economically and socially. After all, does anyone really think there will be vast amounts of trade and huge numbers of migrants pounding from Europe to Ireland to Ulster to Britain? Simple geography says it simply wouldn't happen. So the risks are slight and the potential gains including to the EU are enormous, but their stupid dogmatism is stopping them from seeing that.
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
Maybe they don't want a FTA that badly. They know the UK wants one badly.
So racist Poland is now our supporter. The Swedish FM wants a second vote.
I wonder if FoM is back if Poland is supporting the UK government position.
Forgive me, I've only just started reading today, but the Poles are proposing the end to free movement. They want to tax 'exiting' individuals and businesses.
They are also against freedom of movement for recent arrivals into the EU.
Yeah, after exporting 2m people to the EU and living on their remittance.
They're asking instead for either the CTA or the internal market of the UK to be torn up. Both would be far more damaging both economically and socially. After all, does anyone really think there will be vast amounts of trade and huge numbers of migrants pounding from Europe to Ireland to Ulster to Britain? Simple geography says it simply wouldn't happen. So the risks are slight and the potential gains including to the EU are enormous, but their stupid dogmatism is stopping them from seeing that.
From seeing what? What exactly do you think their position should be?
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
They're asking instead for either the CTA or the internal market of the UK to be torn up. Both would be far more damaging both economically and socially. After all, does anyone really think there will be vast amounts of trade and huge numbers of migrants pounding from Europe to Ireland to Ulster to Britain? Simple geography says it simply wouldn't happen. So the risks are slight and the potential gains including to the EU are enormous, but their stupid dogmatism is stopping them from seeing that.
Congratulations to TheJezziah on a fabulous piece of Whataboutery. Progress - as far as I can see - are not agitating against Labour MPs. Did not call for fealty to Tony Blair. Did not demand the removal of rebels. That's just Momentum.
The enemy of the Labour Party are not Labour MPs. Or Labour officials. Or Labour councillors. We can trust Labour council leaders. We don't need a purge of Labour volunteers elected to run CLPs. And yet that is all that comes out of you fucking crazy entryist loons bent on ensuring the Tory party rule for ever. Class traitors they say about Field and Berger and Streeting. Say the people working flat out to get the Tories in for ever.
You are a disgrace sir.
Not my experience
Corbyn supporters working their bollox off to get Lab elected
Progress types doing everything to ensure JCWNBPM
Everytime Labour are ahead in Polls
The PLP try their best to ensure Tories rule forever
If firing off vile abuse to one and all who do not accept the anti semetic nature of the leadership is working their b.....x off then you are right
It's in the PLPs interest to form a government. They want jobs. Roles. A purpose. It's not in the interest of the hardcore loons to form a government. Their speciality is protest. Opposing. Shouting.
There are and remain a couple of dozen MPs who are stridently opposed to Corbyn and all he stands for. As there was a similar number (including Corbyn) who were stridently opposed to Blair and all he stood for. Having a group of MPs working to their own agenda opposed to the leader is not working for the Tories. It wasn't when Corbyn did it. And it isn't now Gapes is doing it. That some "supporters" cannot see this is all the proof you need that this is a personality cult.
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
If the threat of a real customs border materialised, how soon do you think it would be before there were a border poll, and what do you think the chances of it resulting in the end of the UK would be?
Don't you think that might depend on who was blamed for it by the voters? If we fail to put up customs posts (because we only have land borders with the EU) and the EU do (because they have to by law) then it's not perhaps London that would get the flak.
I would say in any case the odds of the former are actually pretty slim right now, largely because of the absence of Stormont. Even if it were to go ahead, it's not a certainty that the economic case to join Ireland would outweigh that of staying with the UK.
Anyway we're back to the same sterile arguments about Brexit which are tedious and unproductive. I'm going to leave it there for tonight.
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
If the threat of a real customs border materialised, how soon do you think it would be before there were a border poll, and what do you think the chances of it resulting in the end of the UK would be?
A majority of NI Protestants voted Leave and will never accept being part of the Republic of Ireland and have no problem at all with a customs border in Ireland.
A majority of NI Catholics voted Remain and have always wanted to be part of the Republic of Ireland and would oppose a customs border in Ireland.
The idea Brexit did anything to change the centuries old dynamics in the north of Ireland is absurd
If the threat of a real customs border materialised, how soon do you think it would be before there were a border poll, and what do you think the chances of it resulting in the end of the UK would be?
How much is the NI deficit? What is the overall size of the RoI economy? What proportion of it would they need to spend propping up the North if the UK wasn't funding it? What would happen to the Irish economy if Britain had tariffs on it's goods but arranged free trade with large agri-food producing nations elsewhere?
It's called a border poll. Not a poll of the whole of NI. The anti-abortionists, the anti-gay lot can stay with the UK and continue to suck huge subsidies from the rUK.
So racist Poland is now our supporter. The Swedish FM wants a second vote.
I wonder if FoM is back if Poland is supporting the UK government position.
Forgive me, I've only just started reading today, but the Poles are proposing the end to free movement. They want to tax 'exiting' individuals and businesses.
They are also against freedom of movement for recent arrivals into the EU.
Yeah, after exporting 2m people to the EU and living on their remittance.
Poland also has more Ukrainian migrants/refugees than any other EU member by far.
Congratulations to TheJezziah on a fabulous piece of Whataboutery. Progress - as far as I can see - are not agitating against Labour MPs. Did not call for fealty to Tony Blair. Did not demand the removal of rebels. That's just Momentum.
The enemy of the Labour Party are not Labour MPs. Or Labour officials. Or Labour councillors. We can trust Labour council leaders. We don't need a purge of Labour volunteers elected to run CLPs. And yet that is all that comes out of you fucking crazy entryist loons bent on ensuring the Tory party rule for ever. Class traitors they say about Field and Berger and Streeting. Say the people working flat out to get the Tories in for ever.
You are a disgrace sir.
Not my experience
Corbyn supporters working their bollox off to get Lab elected
Progress types doing everything to ensure JCWNBPM
Everytime Labour are ahead in Polls
The PLP try their best to ensure Tories rule forever
If firing off vile abuse to one and all who do not accept the anti semetic nature of the leadership is working their b.....x off then you are right
It's in the PLPs interest to form a government. They want jobs. Roles. A purpose. It's not in the interest of the hardcore loons to form a government. Their speciality is protest. Opposing. Shouting.
There are and remain a couple of dozen MPs who are stridently opposed to Corbyn and all he stands for. As there was a similar number (including Corbyn) who were stridently opposed to Blair and all he stood for. Having a group of MPs working to their own agenda opposed to the leader is not working for the Tories. It wasn't when Corbyn did it. And it isn't now Gapes is doing it. That some "supporters" cannot see this is all the proof you need that this is a personality cult.
If the threat of a real customs border materialised, how soon do you think it would be before there were a border poll, and what do you think the chances of it resulting in the end of the UK would be?
How much is the NI deficit? What is the overall size of the RoI economy? What proportion of it would they need to spend propping up the North if the UK wasn't funding it? What would happen to the Irish economy if Britain had tariffs on it's goods but arranged free trade with large agri-food producing nations elsewhere?
It's called a border poll. Not a poll of the whole of NI. The anti-abortionists, the anti-gay lot can stay with the UK and continue to suck huge subsidies from the rUK.
Erm, it might be worth researching what a border poll is before going any further...
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
Maybe they don't want a FTA that badly. They know the UK wants one badly.
That's our mistake for not taking no-deal seriously.
So racist Poland is now our supporter. The Swedish FM wants a second vote.
I wonder if FoM is back if Poland is supporting the UK government position.
Forgive me, I've only just started reading today, but the Poles are proposing the end to free movement. They want to tax 'exiting' individuals and businesses.
They are also against freedom of movement for recent arrivals into the EU.
Soon to be joined by Orban's Hungary and Salvini's Italy no doubt
For many champagne is simply a sparkling wine. If the Californians make a good sparkling wine and want to market it as Californian Champagne why shouldn't they?.
Err, because (a) it isn't champagne, and (b) the only possible reason for wanting to use the name is to sell off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
I'm frankly gobsmacked that anyone disagrees with this. I can only assume it's an attitude of 'this is an EU thing so it must be bad by definition'.
For me, nothing to do with the EU but I am not a fan of additional IP rights. We had that absurd case recently where the NT was trying to force a manufacturer of outdoor clothes wear because they claimed the name of a hill. We had the ridiculous case involving the supermarket Iceland.
Inventions should be protected and encouraged. Geography, not so much.
So you'd be cool with a wine from Algeria being sold as Gevrey-Chambertin (as used to happen in the bad old days)? Or apple juice mixed with industrial alcohol being sold as Scotch Whisky?
If the former brought the price of my favourite Gevs down, absolutely
More seriously, the second isn’t an IP issue, it’s a safety issue, surely?
On the Gorgonzola note - it simply is what a lot of people say when they mean gooey Italian blue cheese
Sorry but this is bonkers on stilts. Protecting the rights of origin is just good sense, both for producer and consumer.
So which American rights of origin do we currently protect?
You can't say something is a Californian Chardonnay if it's actually a Bulgarian Reisling.
No, because its not Californian. But you can have a Californian Reisling or a Bulgarian Chardonnay. One is the location, the other is the type.
Well yes, and the EU argues that Champagne is the region (hence you can also get Champagne brandy) not the type of wine.
It's a difficult balance to get right.
I’m not sure if anyone else picked this up, but Champagne cognac is not from the Champagne region but from the area around Cognac, which is on the othe side of the country.
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
If the threat of a real customs border materialised, how soon do you think it would be before there were a border poll, and what do you think the chances of it resulting in the end of the UK would be?
For many champagne is simply a sparkling wine. If the Californians make a good sparkling wine and want to market it as Californian Champagne why shouldn't they?.
Err, because (a) it isn't champagne, and (b) the only possible reason for wanting to use the name is to sell off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
I'm frankly gobsmacked that anyone disagrees with this. I can only assume it's an attitude of 'this is an EU thing so it must be bad by definition'.
For me, nothing to do with the EU but I am not a fan of additional IP rights. We had that absurd case recently where the NT was trying to force a manufacturer of outdoor clothes wear because they claimed the name of a hill. We had the ridiculous case involving the supermarket Iceland.
Inventions should be protected and encouraged. Geography, not so much.
So you'd be cool with a wine from Algeria being sold as Gevrey-Chambertin (as used to happen in the bad old days)? Or apple juice mixed with industrial alcohol being sold as Scotch Whisky?
If the former brought the price of my favourite Gevs down, absolutely
More seriously, the second isn’t an IP issue, it’s a safety issue, surely?
On the Gorgonzola note - it simply is what a lot of people say when they mean gooey Italian blue cheese
Sorry but this is bonkers on stilts. Protecting the rights of origin is just good sense, both for producer and consumer.
So which American rights of origin do we currently protect?
You can't say something is a Californian Chardonnay if it's actually a Bulgarian Reisling.
No, because its not Californian. But you can have a Californian Reisling or a Bulgarian Chardonnay. One is the location, the other is the type.
Well yes, and the EU argues that Champagne is the region (hence you can also get Champagne brandy) not the type of wine.
It's a difficult balance to get right.
I’m not sure if anyone else picked this up, but Champagne cognac is not from the Champagne region but from the area around Cognac, which is on the othe side of the country.
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
Maybe they don't want a FTA that badly. They know the UK wants one badly.
The UK will be the EU's largest export market post Brexit
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
If the threat of a real customs border materialised, how soon do you think it would be before there were a border poll, and what do you think the chances of it resulting in the end of the UK would be?
A majority of NI Protestants voted Leave and will never accept being part of the Republic of Ireland and have no problem at all with a customs border in Ireland.
A majority of NI Catholics voted Remain and have always wanted to be part of the Republic of Ireland and would oppose a customs border in Ireland.
The idea Brexit did anything to change the centuries old dynamics in the north of Ireland is absurd
The majority of the people of NI will be against any hard border. They voted for Remain. Don't start playing with statistics.
So racist Poland is now our supporter. The Swedish FM wants a second vote.
I wonder if FoM is back if Poland is supporting the UK government position.
Forgive me, I've only just started reading today, but the Poles are proposing the end to free movement. They want to tax 'exiting' individuals and businesses.
They are also against freedom of movement for recent arrivals into the EU.
Yeah, after exporting 2m people to the EU and living on their remittance.
Perhaps losing vast amounts of young people is being seen as an enormously detrimental aspect of the EU?
Unless you keep them imprisoned, then EU membership is neither here nor there. They can go wherever they're welcome.
I don’t agree with you that Brexit is a harmful policy; but just playing along for a second, if you’re going to persue a policy that some consider negative, wouldn’t you rather have the backing of your people?
I understand your point, but Brexit has the backing of a minority - less than 40% of voters voted for it. It is not too far from the truth to say that 1/3rd voted for it, 1/3 against it and 1/3rd could not be bothered to get off their arse and vote either way. But I guarantee you this - if it causes economic hurt, that apathetic 1/3rd will not be in favour of it. Also, we know that a significant number of pro-Brexit voters have since popped their clogs and gone for the ultimate "Leave" option....
Brexit was voted for. An Irish Sea border was not. Which is going to be objected to more?
An Irish Sea border is a direct outcome of the vote. It may not have been stated at the time, but given the Irish position the desired Brexit position and the GFA, it is hard to see how any outcome is possible.
For many champagne is simply a sparkling wine. If the Californians make a good sparkling wine and want to market it as Californian Champagne why shouldn't they?.
Err, because (a) it isn't champagne, and (b) the only possible reason for wanting to use the name is to sell off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
I'm frankly gobsmacked that anyone disagrees with this. I can only assume it's an attitude of 'this is an EU thing so it must be bad by definition'.
For me, nothing to do with the EU but I am not a fan of additional IP rights. We had that absurd case recently where the NT was trying to force a manufacturer of outdoor clothes wear because they claimed the name of a hill. We had the ridiculous case involving the supermarket Iceland.
Inventions should be protected and encouraged. Geography, not so much.
So you'd be cool with a wine from Algeria being sold as Gevrey-Chambertin (as used to happen in the bad old days)? Or apple juice mixed with industrial alcohol being sold as Scotch Whisky?
If the former brought the price of my favourite Gevs down, absolutely
More seriously, the second isn’t an IP issue, it’s a safety issue, surely?
On the Gorgonzola note - it simply is what a lot of people say when they mean gooey Italian blue cheese
Sorry but this is bonkers on stilts. Protecting the rights of origin is just good sense, both for producer and consumer.
So which American rights of origin do we currently protect?
You can't say something is a Californian Chardonnay if it's actually a Bulgarian Reisling.
No, because its not Californian. But you can have a Californian Reisling or a Bulgarian Chardonnay. One is the location, the other is the type.
Well yes, and the EU argues that Champagne is the region (hence you can also get Champagne brandy) not the type of wine.
It's a difficult balance to get right.
I’m not sure if anyone else picked this up, but Champagne cognac is not from the Champagne region but from the area around Cognac, which is on the othe side of the country.
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
If the threat of a real customs border materialised, how soon do you think it would be before there were a border poll, and what do you think the chances of it resulting in the end of the UK would be?
Long and zero.
It's clearly not zero given that there have already been polls showing a majority would prefer a united Ireland over a hard border.
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
Maybe they don't want a FTA that badly. They know the UK wants one badly.
The UK will be the EU's largest export market post Brexit
The UK will still buy EU produce regardless of any deal. I am not so confident about UK exports.
I’m not sure if anyone else picked this up, but Champagne cognac is not from the Champagne region but from the area around Cognac, which is on the othe side of the country.
I didn't know that... Thank you.
Perhaps Champaign, Illinois should license their name to sparkling wine producers.
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
If the threat of a real customs border materialised, how soon do you think it would be before there were a border poll, and what do you think the chances of it resulting in the end of the UK would be?
Long and zero.
It's clearly not zero given that there have already been polls showing a majority would prefer a united Ireland over a hard border.
I assume it would be politically impossible for the republic to say no if NI wanted to join them. What would it do to their economy?
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
If the threat of a real customs border materialised, how soon do you think it would be before there were a border poll, and what do you think the chances of it resulting in the end of the UK would be?
Long and zero.
It's clearly not zero given that there have already been polls showing a majority would prefer a united Ireland over a hard border.
I don’t agree with you that Brexit is a harmful policy; but just playing along for a second, if you’re going to persue a policy that some consider negative, wouldn’t you rather have the backing of your people?
I understand your point, but Brexit has the backing of a minority - less than 40% of voters voted for it. It is not too far from the truth to say that 1/3rd voted for it, 1/3 against it and 1/3rd could not be bothered to get off their arse and vote either way. But I guarantee you this - if it causes economic hurt, that apathetic 1/3rd will not be in favour of it. Also, we know that a significant number of pro-Brexit voters have since popped their clogs and gone for the ultimate "Leave" option....
Brexit was voted for. An Irish Sea border was not. Which is going to be objected to more?
An Irish Sea border is a direct outcome of the vote. It may not have been stated at the time, but given the Irish position the desired Brexit position and the GFA, it is hard to see how any outcome is possible.
I hear this rather distasteful comment about leave voters dying off but as I am in my mid seventies and voted remain do I not negate one of them !!!!
Michel Barnier is refusing to back down on erecting a border in the Irish Sea to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, and has publicly asked the British government for data to prove that the checks on goods flowing within the territory of the UK would be few in number.
Barnier was appointed by the Commission whose members are appointed by the European Council made up of politicians elected by voters in each EU country. So although indirectly elected, Barnier acts on behalf of all voters in the EU.
But no voter in Rome or Rotterdam wants a border in the Irish Sea; it’s a stupid position for him to be taking.
The EU’s overplaying a strong hand will backfire on them.
Maybe so. Brexit is backfiring on us.
Backfires all round It is so darn stupid.
There are no clear cut short term winners from Brexit, and that includes the Russians who need to sell the EU their gas.
That being so it is pretty damning that the EU has not asked itself why the vote went against them. They keep wrapping themselves in the comfort blanket that it was all about immigration, or that the English have never really bought into Europe as a project, or that Cameron was unpopular, and therefore nothing else needs to change.
A lot of that is probably true, or at least counts as contributing factors, but our highly anti-European Press helped form a lot of anti-Europe memes such as the "EU accounts have never been signed off because they are all trousering our cash" story or the "UK never gets its way" story.
Add in the fact that our own politicians never used mechanisms to protect our own jobs and industry and Labour allowed a very, very open door policy.
I don’t agree with you that Brexit is a harmful policy; but just playing along for a second, if you’re going to persue a policy that some consider negative, wouldn’t you rather have the backing of your people?
I understand your point, but Brexit has the backing of a minority - less than 40% of voters voted for it. It is not too far from the truth to say that 1/3rd voted for it, 1/3 against it and 1/3rd could not be bothered to get off their arse and vote either way. But I guarantee you this - if it causes economic hurt, that apathetic 1/3rd will not be in favour of it. Also, we know that a significant number of pro-Brexit voters have since popped their clogs and gone for the ultimate "Leave" option....
Brexit was voted for. An Irish Sea border was not. Which is going to be objected to more?
An Irish Sea border is a direct outcome of the vote. It may not have been stated at the time, but given the Irish position the desired Brexit position and the GFA, it is hard to see how any outcome is possible.
More people voted for Brexit than have ever voted for any party or any referendum question in postwar history. Regaining sovereignty and reducing immigration were pivotal for them
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
If the threat of a real customs border materialised, how soon do you think it would be before there were a border poll, and what do you think the chances of it resulting in the end of the UK would be?
A majority of NI Protestants voted Leave and will never accept being part of the Republic of Ireland and have no problem at all with a customs border in Ireland.
A majority of NI Catholics voted Remain and have always wanted to be part of the Republic of Ireland and would oppose a customs border in Ireland.
The idea Brexit did anything to change the centuries old dynamics in the north of Ireland is absurd
The majority of the people of NI will be against any hard border. They voted for Remain. Don't start playing with statistics.
So what, the Protestant majority counties of Antrim and Down could not care less about a hard border, what the Catholic border counties think is a different matter, Brexit or no Brexit they were already moving towards the Republic anyway
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
If the threat of a real customs border materialised, how soon do you think it would be before there were a border poll, and what do you think the chances of it resulting in the end of the UK would be?
Long and zero.
It's clearly not zero given that there have already been polls showing a majority would prefer a united Ireland over a hard border.
Most polls show even with a hard border NI would narrowly vote to stay in the UK and Protestants still back staying in the UK by a thumping margin even with a hard border.
Northern Ireland was set up as a Protestant province of the UK and will remain a Protestant province of the UK, indeed losing a few Catholic counties like Fermanagh and Tyrone to the Republic may be no bad thing as it will entrench the Protestant and Unionist majority within Northern Ireland
So racist Poland is now our supporter. The Swedish FM wants a second vote.
I wonder if FoM is back if Poland is supporting the UK government position.
Forgive me, I've only just started reading today, but the Poles are proposing the end to free movement. They want to tax 'exiting' individuals and businesses.
They are also against freedom of movement for recent arrivals into the EU.
Soon to be joined by Orban's Hungary and Salvini's Italy no doubt
A lot of Eastern European nations have seen massive population reductions due to free movement. The scale of it in places like Bulgaria, Romania and Latvia has been dramatic.
While it may have seemed like a nice idea to export your young people en masse to northern and Western Europe maybe its not desirable for the long term future of your own nation.
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
Maybe they don't want a FTA that badly. They know the UK wants one badly.
The UK will be the EU's largest export market post Brexit
The UK will still buy EU produce regardless of any deal. I am not so confident about UK exports.
Will it? There are plenty of Australian, South African even English wines now to choose from, Japanese cars etc
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
If the threat of a real customs border materialised, how soon do you think it would be before there were a border poll, and what do you think the chances of it resulting in the end of the UK would be?
Long and zero.
It's clearly not zero given that there have already been polls showing a majority would prefer a united Ireland over a hard border.
Not Protestants though who still back staying in the UK by a thumping margin even with a hard border.
Northern Ireland was set up as a Protestant province of the UK and will remain a Protestant province of the UK, indeed losing a few Catholic counties like Fermanagh and Tyrone to the Republic may be no bad thing as it will entrench the Protestant and Unionist majority within Northern Ireland
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
If the threat of a real customs border materialised, how soon do you think it would be before there were a border poll, and what do you think the chances of it resulting in the end of the UK would be?
A majority of NI Protestants voted Leave and will never accept being part of the Republic of Ireland and have no problem at all with a customs border in Ireland.
A majority of NI Catholics voted Remain and have always wanted to be part of the Republic of Ireland and would oppose a customs border in Ireland.
The idea Brexit did anything to change the centuries old dynamics in the north of Ireland is absurd
The majority of the people of NI will be against any hard border. They voted for Remain. Don't start playing with statistics.
So what, the Protestant majority counties of Antrim and Down could not care less about a hard border, what the Catholic border counties think is a different matter, Brexit or no Brexit they were already moving towards the Republic anyway
Talking about the "Protestant majority counties of Antrim and Down" is stupid. They have substantial areas that are almost wholly Catholic (e.g. South Down). In any case, the traditional counties are no longer used for any purpose in NI anymore. If there's ever a repartition (far. far less likely than a United Ireland IMO) no-one would use the county boundaries to delimitate it.
I don’t agree with you that Brexit is a harmful policy; but just playing along for a second, if you’re going to persue a policy that some consider negative, wouldn’t you rather have the backing of your people?
I understand your point, but Brexit has the backing of a minority - less than 40% of voters voted for it. It is not too far from the truth to say that 1/3rd voted for it, 1/3 against it and 1/3rd could not be bothered to get off their arse and vote either way. But I guarantee you this - if it causes economic hurt, that apathetic 1/3rd will not be in favour of it. Also, we know that a significant number of pro-Brexit voters have since popped their clogs and gone for the ultimate "Leave" option....
Brexit was voted for. An Irish Sea border was not. Which is going to be objected to more?
An Irish Sea border is a direct outcome of the vote. It may not have been stated at the time, but given the Irish position the desired Brexit position and the GFA, it is hard to see how any outcome is possible.
I hear this rather distasteful comment about leave voters dying off but as I am in my mid seventies and voted remain do I not negate one of them !!!!
Yes you do negate one Leaver, but distasteful or otherwise, it is a fact that many Leave voters (56% of the group aged 50-64 and 61% of the group aged 65+) and were elderly and that the older one gets the closer that appointment with the Grim Reaper gets. Although I am younger than you, I find it mildly depressing that I am more than halfway through my life, that fewer days are ahead than behind and I still have so much I want to do and see.
So racist Poland is now our supporter. The Swedish FM wants a second vote.
I wonder if FoM is back if Poland is supporting the UK government position.
Forgive me, I've only just started reading today, but the Poles are proposing the end to free movement. They want to tax 'exiting' individuals and businesses.
They are also against freedom of movement for recent arrivals into the EU.
Soon to be joined by Orban's Hungary and Salvini's Italy no doubt
A lot of Eastern European nations have seen massive population reductions due to free movement. The scale of it in places like Bulgaria, Romania and Latvia has been dramatic.
While it may have seemed like a nice idea to export your young people en masse to northern and Western Europe maybe its not desirable for the long term future of your own nation.
What could possibly go wrong with emptying out your nation of the best and brightest tax payers, leaving the sick and old behind?
So racist Poland is now our supporter. The Swedish FM wants a second vote.
I wonder if FoM is back if Poland is supporting the UK government position.
Forgive me, I've only just started reading today, but the Poles are proposing the end to free movement. They want to tax 'exiting' individuals and businesses.
They are also against freedom of movement for recent arrivals into the EU.
Soon to be joined by Orban's Hungary and Salvini's Italy no doubt
A lot of Eastern European nations have seen massive population reductions due to free movement. The scale of it in places like Bulgaria, Romania and Latvia has been dramatic.
While it may have seemed like a nice idea to export your young people en masse to northern and Western Europe maybe its not desirable for the long term future of your own nation.
Indeed, so the squeeze from both West and East and the concerns over lack of proper controls over migration from Africa and the Middle East will undermine support for free movement further
I don’t agree with you that Brexit is a harmful policy; but just playing along for a second, if you’re going to persue a policy that some consider negative, wouldn’t you rather have the backing of your people?
I understand your point, but Brexit has the backing of a minority - less than 40% of voters voted for it. It is not too far from the truth to say that 1/3rd voted for it, 1/3 against it and 1/3rd could not be bothered to get off their arse and vote either way. But I guarantee you this - if it causes economic hurt, that apathetic 1/3rd will not be in favour of it. Also, we know that a significant number of pro-Brexit voters have since popped their clogs and gone for the ultimate "Leave" option....
Brexit was voted for. An Irish Sea border was not. Which is going to be objected to more?
An Irish Sea border is a direct outcome of the vote. It may not have been stated at the time, but given the Irish position the desired Brexit position and the GFA, it is hard to see how any outcome is possible.
I hear this rather distasteful comment about leave voters dying off but as I am in my mid seventies and voted remain do I not negate one of them !!!!
To take an actuarial position:
Elderly Remainers live longer than elderly Leavers. There is a considerable SE class tilt to Remain, and quite a marked higher SE class bias to longevity, often 10 or more years.
The trend is therefore for the percentage of Remainers to increase in this age range even above the raw mortality.
An Irish Sea border is a direct outcome of the vote. It may not have been stated at the time, but given the Irish position the desired Brexit position and the GFA, it is hard to see how any outcome is possible.
The alternative is the EU agreeing a deal that makes physical borders moot.
A lot of that is probably true, or at least counts as contributing factors, but our highly anti-European Press helped form a lot of anti-Europe memes such as the "EU accounts have never been signed off because they are all trousering our cash" story or the "UK never gets its way" story.
Add in the fact that our own politicians never used mechanisms to protect our own jobs and industry and Labour allowed a very, very open door policy.
It was not a simple, single factor.
I saw plenty of reasons for voting leave. The most significant was probably the democratic deficit, the idea that too many decisions were being made by people that we could not get rid of (this was in my mind the strongest argument for Scottish independence as well), followed closely by the sense that this was the last possible opportunity to do so as it would only get more difficult from here. I voted remain partially because I did not think the economic hit would be worth it (I believed what the treasury was saying) but mostly because of my distaste over the nature of the campaign. If one side had Farage and Galloway on it, I wanted to be on the other.
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
Maybe they don't want a FTA that badly. They know the UK wants one badly.
The UK will be the EU's largest export market post Brexit
The UK will still buy EU produce regardless of any deal. I am not so confident about UK exports.
So have a think about if you erect barriers to trade between two regions that have free trade, that are at the same level of development, why would one suffer more than the other?
I don’t agree with you that Brexit is a harmful policy; but just playing along for a second, if you’re going to persue a policy that some consider negative, wouldn’t you rather have the backing of your people?
I understand your point, but Brexit has the backing of a minority - less than 40% of voters voted for it. It is not too far from the truth to say that 1/3rd voted for it, 1/3 against it and 1/3rd could not be bothered to get off their arse and vote either way. But I guarantee you this - if it causes economic hurt, that apathetic 1/3rd will not be in favour of it. Also, we know that a significant number of pro-Brexit voters have since popped their clogs and gone for the ultimate "Leave" option....
Brexit was voted for. An Irish Sea border was not. Which is going to be objected to more?
An Irish Sea border is a direct outcome of the vote. It may not have been stated at the time, but given the Irish position the desired Brexit position and the GFA, it is hard to see how any outcome is possible.
I hear this rather distasteful comment about leave voters dying off but as I am in my mid seventies and voted remain do I not negate one of them !!!!
To take an actuarial position:
Elderly Remainers live longer than elderly Leavers. There is a considerable SE class tilt to Remain, and quite a marked higher SE class bias to longevity, often 10 or more years.
The trend is therefore for the percentage of Remainers to increase in this age range even above the raw mortality.
Most South East constituencies voted Leave even if London voted Remain
So racist Poland is now our supporter. The Swedish FM wants a second vote.
I wonder if FoM is back if Poland is supporting the UK government position.
Forgive me, I've only just started reading today, but the Poles are proposing the end to free movement. They want to tax 'exiting' individuals and businesses.
They are also against freedom of movement for recent arrivals into the EU.
Soon to be joined by Orban's Hungary and Salvini's Italy no doubt
A lot of Eastern European nations have seen massive population reductions due to free movement. The scale of it in places like Bulgaria, Romania and Latvia has been dramatic.
While it may have seemed like a nice idea to export your young people en masse to northern and Western Europe maybe its not desirable for the long term future of your own nation.
What could possibly go wrong with emptying out your nation of the best and brightest tax payers, leaving the sick and old behind?
It didn't seem to hold Ireland back in the late 20th Century.
Indeed there is considerable evidence that the diaspora often returns with new skills to set up new industries.
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
If the threat of a real customs border materialised, how soon do you think it would be before there were a border poll, and what do you think the chances of it resulting in the end of the UK would be?
A majority of NI Protestantsing to change the centuries old dynamics in the north of Ireland is absurd
The majority of the people of NI will be against any hard border. They voted for Remain. Don't start playing with statistics.
So what, the Protestant majority couepublic anyway
Talking about the "Protestant majority counties of Antrim and Down" is stupid. They have substantial areas that are almost wholly Catholic (e.g. South Down). In any case, the traditional counties are no longer used for any purpose in NI anymore. If there's ever a repartition (far. far less likely than a United Ireland IMO) no-one would use the county boundaries to delimitate it.
No it is not. Antrim and Down are majority Protestant and the largest population areas of Northern Ireland.
Of course there would be a repartition rather than forcing Protestant majority counties into the Republic as the latter would inevitably see bombs exploding in Dublin from Protestant loyalist paramilitaries within a week
I don’t agree with you that Brexit is a harmful policy; but just playing along for a second, if you’re going to persue a policy that some consider negative, wouldn’t you rather have the backing of your people?
I understand your point, but Brexit has the backing of a minority - less than 40% of voters voted for it. It is not too far from the truth to say that 1/3rd voted for it, 1/3 against it and 1/3rd could not be bothered to get off their arse and vote either way. But I guarantee you this - if it causes economic hurt, that apathetic 1/3rd will not be in favour of it. Also, we know that a significant number of pro-Brexit voters have since popped their clogs and gone for the ultimate "Leave" option....
Brexit was voted for. An Irish Sea border was not. Which is going to be objected to more?
An Irish Sea border is a direct outcome of the vote. It may not have been stated at the time, but given the Irish position the desired Brexit position and the GFA, it is hard to see how any outcome is possible.
I hear this rather distasteful comment about leave voters dying off but as I am in my mid seventies and voted remain do I not negate one of them !!!!
To take an actuarial position:
Elderly Remainers live longer than elderly Leavers. There is a considerable SE class tilt to Remain, and quite a marked higher SE class bias to longevity, often 10 or more years.
The trend is therefore for the percentage of Remainers to increase in this age range even above the raw mortality.
Most South East constituencies voted Leave even if London voted Remain
True, but nothing to do with my point. Demography is trending Remain.
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
Maybe they don't want a FTA that badly. They know the UK wants one badly.
The UK will be the EU's largest export market post Brexit
The UK will still buy EU produce regardless of any deal. I am not so confident about UK exports.
So have a think about if you erect barriers to trade between two regions that have free trade, that are at the same level of development, why would one suffer more than the other?
Because British people like a lot of European products.
I don’t agree with you that Brexit is a harmful policy; but just playing along for a second, if you’re going to persue a policy that some consider negative, wouldn’t you rather have the backing of your people?
I understand your point, but Brexit has the backing of a minority - less than 40% of voters voted for it. It is not too far from the truth to say that 1/3rd voted for it, 1/3 against it and 1/3rd could not be bothered to get off their arse and vote either way. But I guarantee you this - if it causes economic hurt, that apathetic 1/3rd will not be in favour of it. Also, we know that a significant number of pro-Brexit voters have since popped their clogs and gone for the ultimate "Leave" option....
Brexit was voted for. An Irish Sea border was not. Which is going to be objected to more?
An Irish Sea border is a direct outcome of the vote. It may not have been stated at the time, but given the Irish position the desired Brexit position and the GFA, it is hard to see how any outcome is possible.
I hear this rather distasteful comment about leave voters dying off but as I am in my mid seventies and voted remain do I not negate one of them !!!!
To take an actuarial position:
Elderly Remainers live longer than elderly Leavers. There is a considerable SE class tilt to Remain, and quite a marked higher SE class bias to longevity, often 10 or more years.
The trend is therefore for the percentage of Remainers to increase in this age range even above the raw mortality.
Most South East constituencies voted Leave even if London voted Remain
True, but nothing to do with my point. Demography is trending Remain.
If demography foretold political allegiance we would not now have a Tory government as the last time the Tories won the 18 to 24 vote was 1983
So racist Poland is now our supporter. The Swedish FM wants a second vote.
I wonder if FoM is back if Poland is supporting the UK government position.
Forgive me, I've only just started reading today, but the Poles are proposing the end to free movement. They want to tax 'exiting' individuals and businesses.
They are also against freedom of movement for recent arrivals into the EU.
Soon to be joined by Orban's Hungary and Salvini's Italy no doubt
A lot of Eastern European nations have seen massive population reductions due to free movement. The scale of it in places like Bulgaria, Romania and Latvia has been dramatic.
While it may have seemed like a nice idea to export your young people en masse to northern and Western Europe maybe its not desirable for the long term future of your own nation.
What could possibly go wrong with emptying out your nation of the best and brightest tax payers, leaving the sick and old behind?
It didn't seem to hold Ireland back in the late 20th Century.
Indeed there is considerable evidence that the diaspora often returns with new skills to set up new industries.
Ireland didn't have net emigration in the late 20th century.
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
Maybe they don't want a FTA that badly. They know the UK wants one badly.
The UK will be the EU's largest export market post Brexit
The UK will still buy EU produce regardless of any deal. I am not so confident about UK exports.
So have a think about if you erect barriers to trade between two regions that have free trade, that are at the same level of development, why would one suffer more than the other?
Because British people like a lot of European products.
I don’t agree with you that Brexit is a harmful policy; but just playing along for a second, if you’re going to persue a policy that some consider negative, wouldn’t you rather have the backing of your people?
I understand your point, but Brexit has the backing of a minority - less than 40% of voters voted for it. It is not too far from the truth to say that 1/3rd voted for it, 1/3 against it and 1/3rd could not be bothered to get off their arse and vote either way. But I guarantee you this - if it causes economic hurt, that apathetic 1/3rd will not be in favour of it. Also, we know that a significant number of pro-Brexit voters have since popped their clogs and gone for the ultimate "Leave" option....
Brexit was voted for. An Irish Sea border was not. Which is going to be objected to more?
An Irish Sea border is a direct outcome of the vote. It may not have been stated at the time, but given the Irish position the desired Brexit position and the GFA, it is hard to see how any outcome is possible.
I hear this rather distasteful comment about leave voters dying off but as I am in my mid seventies and voted remain do I not negate one of them !!!!
Yes you do negate one Leaver, but distasteful or otherwise, it is a fact that many Leave voters (56% of the group aged 50-64 and 61% of the group aged 65+) and were elderly and that the older one gets the closer that appointment with the Grim Reaper gets. Although I am younger than you, I find it mildly depressing that I am more than halfway through my life, that fewer days are ahead than behind and I still have so much I want to do and see.
I would say you must do it while you can. My wife and I started to travel extensively round the world when my eldest emigrated to New Zealand in 2003 and have been fortunate enough to go round the world eight times seeing most of the iconic places on most peoples bucket lists.
Additionally we have travelled a lot in Europe, the Artic and Canada and our retirement present was to join an ice ship and visit Antartica and South Georgia.
However, after our latest cruise to the Greek Islands in May we have accepted that it is unlikely we will fly again due to our reducing mobility and lack of desire to face the nightmare of flying and all it entails.
But we are so content and grateful we accomplished so much travel together and now it is 100% family and our grandchildten that take up our time
I don’t agree with you that Brexit is a harmful policy; but just playing along for a second, if you’re going to persue a policy that some consider negative, wouldn’t you rather have the backing of your people?
I understand your point, but Brexit has the backing of a minority - less than 40% of voters voted for it. It is not too far from the truth to say that 1/3rd voted for it, 1/3 against it and 1/3rd could not be bothered to get off their arse and vote either way. But I guarantee you this - if it causes economic hurt, that apathetic 1/3rd will not be in favour of it. Also, we know that a significant number of pro-Brexit voters have since popped their clogs and gone for the ultimate "Leave" option....
Brexit was voted for. An Irish Sea border was not. Which is going to be objected to more?
An Irish Sea border is a direct outcome of the vote. It may not have been stated at the time, but given the Irish position the desired Brexit position and the GFA, it is hard to see how any outcome is possible.
I hear this rather distasteful comment about leave voters dying off but as I am in my mid seventies and voted remain do I not negate one of them !!!!
To take an actuarial position:
Elderly Remainers live longer than elderly Leavers. There is a considerable SE class tilt to Remain, and quite a marked higher SE class bias to longevity, often 10 or more years.
The trend is therefore for the percentage of Remainers to increase in this age range even above the raw mortality.
Most South East constituencies voted Leave even if London voted Remain
True, but nothing to do with my point. Demography is trending Remain.
If demography foretold political allegiance we would not now have a Tory government as the last time the Tories won the 18 to 24 vote was 1983
Party voting for economic reasons may well change with age, but the same may well not apply to cultural issues like Brexitism.
The easy way to resolve t is a #peoplesvote of course, which even a third of Tory voters support.
I don’t agree with you that Brexit is a harmful policy; but just playing along for a second, if you’re going to persue a policy that some consider negative, wouldn’t you rather have the backing of your people?
I understand your point, but Brexit has the backing of a minority - less than 40% of voters voted for it. It is not too far from the truth to say that 1/3rd voted for it, 1/3 against it and 1/3rd could not be bothered to get off their arse and vote either way. But I guarantee you this - if it causes economic hurt, that apathetic 1/3rd will not be in favour of it. Also, we know that a significant number of pro-Brexit voters have since popped their clogs and gone for the ultimate "Leave" option....
Brexit was voted for. An Irish Sea border was not. Which is going to be objected to more?
An Irish Sea border is a direct outcome of the vote. It may not have been stated at the time, but given the Irish position the desired Brexit position and the GFA, it is hard to see how any outcome is possible.
I hear this rather distasteful comment about leave voters dying off but as I am in my mid seventies and voted remain do I not negate one of them !!!!
To take an actuarial position:
Elderly Remainers live longer than elderly Leavers. There is a considerable SE class tilt to Remain, and quite a marked higher SE class bias to longevity, often 10 or more years.
The trend is therefore for the percentage of Remainers to increase in this age range even above the raw mortality.
Statistics maybe but not a pleasant use of them by any measure
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
The logical solution then is to put a special deal in place. It can treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
Which would require the UK and EU to sign a deal, yes?
I don’t agree with you that Brexit is a harmful policy; but just playing along for a second, if you’re going to persue a policy that some consider negative, wouldn’t you rather have the backing of your people?
I understand your point, but Brexit has the backing of a minority - less than 40% of voters voted for it. It is not too far from the truth to say that 1/3rd voted for it, 1/3 against it and 1/3rd could not be bothered to get off their arse and vote either way. But I guarantee you this - if it causes economic hurt, that apathetic 1/3rd will not be in favour of it. Also, we know that a significant number of pro-Brexit voters have since popped their clogs and gone for the ultimate "Leave" option....
Brexit was voted for. An Irish Sea border was not. Which is going to be objected to more?
An Irish Sea border is a direct outcome of the vote. It may not have been stated at the time, but given the Irish position the desired Brexit position and the GFA, it is hard to see how any outcome is possible.
I hear this rather distasteful comment about leave voters dying off but as I am in my mid seventies and voted remain do I not negate one of them !!!!
To take an actuarial position:
Elderly Remainers live longer than elderly Leavers. There is a considerable SE class tilt to Remain, and quite a marked higher SE class bias to longevity, often 10 or more years.
The trend is therefore for the percentage of Remainers to increase in this age range even above the raw mortality.
Most South East constituencies voted Leave even if London voted Remain
True, but nothing to do with my point. Demography is trending Remain.
If demography foretold political allegiance we would not now have a Tory government as the last time the Tories won the 18 to 24 vote was 1983
Party voting for economic reasons may well change with age, but the same may well not apply to cultural issues like Brexitism.
The easy way to resolve t is a #peoplesvote of course, which even a third of Tory voters support.
The UK has no problem with a soft customs border. Why is the EU obsessed with a hard customs border?
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
Maybe they don't want a FTA that badly. They know the UK wants one badly.
The UK will be the EU's largest export market post Brexit
The UK will still buy EU produce regardless of any deal. I am not so confident about UK exports.
So have a think about if you erect barriers to trade between two regions that have free trade, that are at the same level of development, why would one suffer more than the other?
Because British people like a lot of European products.
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no dea at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
If the threat of a real customs border materialised, how soon do you think it would be before there were a border poll, and what do you think the chances of it resulting in the end of the UK would be?
A majority of NI Protestantsing to change the centuries old dynamics in the north of Ireland is absurd
The majority of the people of NI will be against any hard border. They voted for Remain. Don't start playing with statistics.
So what, the Protestant majority couepublic anyway
Talking about the "Protestant majority counties of Antrim and Down" is stupid. They have substantial areas that are almost wholly Catholic (e.g. South Down). In any case, the traditional counties are no longer used for any purpose in NI anymore. If there's ever a repartition (far. far less likely than a United Ireland IMO) no-one would use the county boundaries to delimitate it.
No it is not. Antrim and Down are majority Protestant and the largest population areas of Northern Ireland.
Of course there would be a repartition rather than forcing Protestant majority counties into the Republic as the latter would inevitably see bombs exploding in Dublin from Protestant loyalist paramilitaries within a week
I would say you must do it while you can. My wife and I started to travel extensively round the world when my eldest emigrated to New Zealand in 2003 and have been fortunate enough to go round the world eight times seeing most of the iconic places on most peoples bucket lists.
Additionally we have travelled a lot in Europe, the Artic and Canada and our retirement present was to join an ice ship and visit Antartica and South Georgia.
However, after our latest cruise to the Greek Islands in May we have accepted that it is unlikely we will fly again due to our reducing mobility and lack of desire to face the nightmare of flying and all it entails.
But we are so content and grateful we accomplished so much travel together and now it is 100% family and our grandchildten that take up our time
I don’t agree with you that Brexit is a harmful policy; but just playing along for a second, if you’re going to persue a policy that some consider negative, wouldn’t you rather have the backing of your people?
I understand your point, but Brexit has the backing of a minority - less than 40% of voters voted for it. It is not too far from the truth to say that 1/3rd voted for it, 1/3 against it and 1/3rd could not be bothered to get off their arse and vote either way. But I guarantee you this - if it causes economic hurt, that apathetic 1/3rd will not be in favour of it. Also, we know that a significant number of pro-Brexit voters have since popped their clogs and gone for the ultimate "Leave" option....
Brexit was voted for. An Irish Sea border was not. Which is going to be objected to more?
An Irish Sea border is a direct outcome of the vote. It may not have been stated at the time, but given the Irish position the desired Brexit position and the GFA, it is hard to see how any outcome is possible.
I hear this rather distasteful comment about leave voters dying off but as I am in my mid seventies and voted remain do I not negate one of them !!!!
To take an actuarial position:
Elderly Remainers live longer than elderly Leavers. There is a considerable SE class tilt to Remain, and quite a marked higher SE class bias to longevity, often 10 or more years.
The trend is therefore for the percentage of Remainers to increase in this age range even above the raw mortality.
Most South East constituencies voted Leave even if London voted Remain
True, but nothing to do with my point. Demography is trending Remain.
If demography foretold political allegiance we would not now have a Tory government as the last time the Tories won the 18 to 24 vote was 1983
If demography didn't change political opinion then we would still have homophobic laws. The Tories are not successful because every 18 to 24 year old ends up with the same views older people had when they were young. The Tories are successful because they changed their political opinions to fit the opinions of those 18-24 year old people as they became the older sections of the electorate.
Because it needs to treat all its external borders equally unless it has a special deal in place. So it cannot treat a border in Ireland more leniently than a border in Russia.
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is h a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
"and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance."
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
If they want to keep a border-free Ireland yes.
If the threat of a real customs border materialised, how soon do you think it would be before there were a border poll, and what do you think the chances of it resulting in the end of the UK would be?
A majority of NI Protestantsing to change the centuries old dynamics in the north of Ireland is absurd
The majority of the people of NI will be against any hard border. They voted for Remain. Don't start playing with statistics.
So what, the Protestant majority couepublic anyway
Talking about the "Pless likely than a United Ireland IMO) no-one would use the county boundaries to delimitate it.
No it is not. Antrim and Down are majority Protestant and the largest population areas of Northern Ireland.
Of course there would be a repartition rather than forcing Protestant majority counties into the Republic as the latter would inevitably see bombs exploding in Dublin from Protestant loyalist paramilitaries within a week
You would condone such a bombing campaign?
No, just as I would not have condoned the IRA's bombing of London and Manchester and the mainland UK when Northern Ireland's Catholic majority counties were under direct Westminster rule but it was inevitable and if the Protestant majority counties of Northern Ireland were forced into direct Dublin rule against their will a sustained Protestant loyalist terrorist bombing campaign in the Republic of Ireland would be inevitable.
The simple fact on demographics is that the more exposed to the EU you have been in your life the more anti EU you are. From the polls I believe the cut off was a few years under 40. It does not matter that the OAP's are dying off because the Eurosceptic base is constantly being refilled as more people experience the EU through life. Or why have all those enthusiastic EEC voters in 1973 when they were young now voted out.
I understand your point, but Brexit has the backing of a minority - less than 40% of voters voted for it. It is not too far from the truth to say that 1/3rd voted for it, 1/3 against it and 1/3rd could not be bothered to get off their arse and vote either way. But I guarantee you this - if it causes economic hurt, that apathetic 1/3rd will not be in favour of it. Also, we know that a significant number of pro-Brexit voters have since popped their clogs and gone for the ultimate "Leave" option....
Brexit was voted for. An Irish Sea border was not. Which is going to be objected to more?
An Irish Sea border is a direct outcome of the vote. It may not have been stated at the time, but given the Irish position the desired Brexit position and the GFA, it is hard to see how any outcome is possible.
I hear this rather distasteful comment about leave voters dying off but as I am in my mid seventies and voted remain do I not negate one of them !!!!
To take an actuarial position:
Elderly Remainers live longer than elderly Leavers. There is a considerable SE class tilt to Remain, and quite a marked higher SE class bias to longevity, often 10 or more years.
The trend is therefore for the percentage of Remainers to increase in this age range even above the raw mortality.
Most South East constituencies voted Leave even if London voted Remain
True, but nothing to do with my point. Demography is trending Remain.
If demography foretold political allegiance we would not now have a Tory government as the last time the Tories won the 18 to 24 vote was 1983
Party voting for economic reasons may well change with age, but the same may well not apply to cultural issues like Brexitism.
The easy way to resolve t is a #peoplesvote of course, which even a third of Tory voters support.
How is it an easy resolution?
Think about the possible outcomes:
1) Leave wins again. Nothing has changed except more time has been wasted. What is to stop anti-democrats demanding another? 2) Remain wins. Which referendum decision is followed? There will be as many, if not more, disgruntled by a flagrant lack of respect for the first referendum.
So have a think about if you erect barriers to trade between two regions that have free trade, that are at the same level of development, why would one suffer more than the other?
I think if the two areas have different sized populations?
I don’t agree with you that Brexit is a harmful policy; but just playing along for a second, if you’re going to persue a policy that some consider negative, wouldn’t you rather have the backing of your people?
I understand your point, but Brexit has the backing of a minority - less than 40% of voters voted for it. It is not too far from the truth to say that 1/3rd voted for it, 1/3 against it and 1/3rd could not be bothered to get off their arse and vote either way. But I guarantee you this - if it causes economic hurt, that apathetic 1/3rd will not be in favour of it. Also, we know that a significant number of pro-Brexit voters have since popped their clogs and gone for the ultimate "Leave" option....
Brexit was voted for. An Irish Sea border was not. Which is going to be objected to more?
An Irish Sea border is a direct outcome of the vote. It may not have been stated at the time, but given the Irish position the desired Brexit position and the GFA, it is hard to see how any outcome is possible.
I hear this rather distasteful comment about leave voters dying off but as I am in my mid seventies and voted remain do I not negate one of them !!!!
To take an actuarial position:
Elderly Remainers live longer than elderly Leavers. There is a considerable SE class tilt to Remain, and quite a marked higher SE class bias to longevity, often 10 or more years.
The trend is therefore for the percentage of Remainers to increase in this age range even above the raw mortality.
Most South East constituencies voted Leave even if London voted Remain
True, but nothing to do with my point. Demography is trending Remain.
If demography foretold political allegiance we would not now have a Tory government as the last time the Tories won the 18 to 24 vote was 1983
If demography didn't change political opinion then we would still have homophobic laws. The Tories are not successful because every 18 to 24 year old ends up with the same views older people had when they were young. The Tories are successful because they changed their political opinions to fit the opinions of those 18-24 year old people as they became the older sections of the electorate.
So, given Corbz hasn't demonstrated any capacity for changing his opinions since the 80s, what hope do you think his Labour party has of winning?
I voted remain partially because I did not think the economic hit would be worth it (I believed what the treasury was saying) but mostly because of my distaste over the nature of the campaign. If one side had Farage and Galloway on it, I wanted to be on the other.
I understand exactly what you mean. Although I was a lukewarm Remainer, my reasons were largely economic and philosophical - I grew up in a divided society and so anything that encourages division does not get my vote, but I utterly loathe Galloway and Farage is, in my opinion, a self-serving, publicity-seeking slimeball. Being on the opposite side of the argument from those two is almost reason enough .....
So have a think about if you erect barriers to trade between two regions that have free trade, that are at the same level of development, why would one suffer more than the other?
I think if the two areas have different sized populations?
Have a think about who is a net importer and who is a next exporter. Think what happened in the 30's when trade barriers were erected.
The people who claim the EU wants to erect a hard border in Ireland and Britain doesn't want have got it backwards. The hard border issue only arises because the UK government potentially wants to diverge from the EU and prioritizes that divergence over a soft border in Ireland. You can debate which is better. Nevertheless the hard border is the consequence of the UK's desire to diverge.
I understand your point, but Brexit has the backing of a minority - less than 40% of voters voted for it. It is not too far from the truth to say that 1/3rd voted for it, 1/3 against it and 1/3rd could not be bothered to get off their arse and vote either way. But I guarantee you this - if it causes economic hurt, that apathetic 1/3rd will not be in favour of it. Also, we know that a significant number of pro-Brexit voters have since popped their clogs and gone for the ultimate "Leave" option....
Brexit was voted for. An Irish Sea border was not. Which is going to be objected to more?
An Irish Sea border is a direct outcome of the vote. It may not have been stated at the time, but given the Irish position the desired Brexit position and the GFA, it is hard to see how any outcome is possible.
I hear this rather distasteful comment about leave voters dying off but as I am in my mid seventies and voted remain do I not negate one of them !!!!
To take an actuarial position:
Elderly Remainers live longer than elderly Leavers. There is a considerable SE class tilt to Remain, and quite a marked higher SE class bias to longevity, often 10 or more years.
The trend is therefore for the percentage of Remainers to increase in this age range even above the raw mortality.
Most South East constituencies voted Leave even if London voted Remain
True, but nothing to do with my point. Demography is trending Remain.
If demography foretold political allegiance we would not now have a Tory government as the last time the Tories won the 18 to 24 vote was 1983
Party voting for economic reasons may well change with age, but the same may well not apply to cultural issues like Brexitism.
The easy way to resolve t is a #peoplesvote of course, which even a third of Tory voters support.
How is it an easy resolution?
Think about the possible outcomes:
1) Leave wins again. Nothing has changed except more time has been wasted. What is to stop anti-democrats demanding another? 2) Remain wins. Which referendum decision is followed? There will be as many, if not more, disgruntled by a flagrant lack of respect for the first referendum.
It resolves nothing.
It resolves the question of whether Remainers outnumber Leavers.
I don’t agree with you that Brexit is a harmful policy; but just playing along for a second, if you’re going to persue a policy that some consider negative, wouldn’t you rather have the backing of your people?
I understand your point, but Brexit has the backing of a minority - less than 40% of voters voted for it. It is not too far from the truth to say that 1/3rd voted for it, 1/3 against it and 1/3rd could not be bothered to get off their arse and vote either way. But I guarantee you this - if it causes economic hurt, that apathetic 1/3rd will not be in favour of it. Also, we know that a significant number of pro-Brexit voters have since popped their clogs and gone for the ultimate "Leave" option....
Brexit was voted for. An Irish Sea border was not. Which is going to be objected to more?
An Irish Sea border is a direct outcome of the vote. It may not have been stated at the time, but given the Irish position the desired Brexit position and the GFA, it is hard to see how any outcome is possible.
I hear this rather distasteful comment about leave voters dying off but as I am in my mid seventies and voted remain do I not negate one of them !!!!
To take an actuarial position:
Elderly Remainers livelity.
Most South East constituencies voted Leave even if London voted Remain
True, but nothi point. Demography is trending Remain.
If demography foretold political o 24 vote was 1983
Party voting for economic reasons may well change with age, but the same may well not apply to cultural issues like Brexitism.
The easy way to resolve t is a #peoplesvote of course, which even a third of Tory voters support.
Party voting is now more cultural and age related rather than economic and class related (albeit the latter still exists) across the Western world and that was part of the reason we had the Brexit vote.
Of course most Leavers today who voted to Leave the EU in 2016 in 1975's referendum voted to stay in the Common Market so who knows what young people today may do, if the only alternative to Leave is rejoining a Federal EU superstate and the Euro rather than the half hearted membership of the EU we had before they may become more anti EU as they age too
The people who claim the EU wants to erect a hard border in Ireland and Britain doesn't want have got it backwards. The hard border issue only arises because the UK government potentially wants to diverge from the EU and prioritizes that divergence over a soft border in Ireland. You can debate which is better. Nevertheless the hard border is the consequence of the UK's desire to diverge.
I'd be very surprised if the UK would refuse to recognise EU standards.
It is the EU worrying about what comes in that drives the EU desire for a hard border.
So have a think about if you erect barriers to trade between two regions that have free trade, that are at the same level of development, why would one suffer more than the other?
I think if the two areas have different sized populations?
Have a think about who is a net importer and who is a next exporter. Think what happened in the 30's when trade barriers were erected.
I was in work til 9:30 and I'm in a train surrounded by noisy drunks. My capacity for cogent thought is diminished.
Comments
Is this common amongst EU federalists?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/10/enacted
That's a perfectly valid reason to be obsessing about the border in Ireland. However, where the EU's position falls down is that sorting this should have been their first priority rather than afterthought - and the only way to sort it out is by a free trade and travel deal which they are refusing to countenance.
The position only makes sense if we assume Barnier's brief is almost certainly to either keep the UK in the EU in toto, or force us out with no deal at all. Both are extremely stupid options that would only be put forward by a drunk with the IQ of a dead stoat, and therefore we must assume they are indeed the options the Commission want to pursue.
The result is this mess which a little backbone from Merkel, Macron and May could have avoided.
So, the EU should tear up the Single Marketso that the UK can have FTA without FoM.
That is my moral case against it anyway but you are right that there are good reasons aside from that that we need to be more independent of union funding.
There are and remain a couple of dozen MPs who are stridently opposed to Corbyn and all he stands for. As there was a similar number (including Corbyn) who were stridently opposed to Blair and all he stood for. Having a group of MPs working to their own agenda opposed to the leader is not working for the Tories. It wasn't when Corbyn did it. And it isn't now Gapes is doing it. That some "supporters" cannot see this is all the proof you need that this is a personality cult.
I would say in any case the odds of the former are actually pretty slim right now, largely because of the absence of Stormont. Even if it were to go ahead, it's not a certainty that the economic case to join Ireland would outweigh that of staying with the UK.
Anyway we're back to the same sterile arguments about Brexit which are tedious and unproductive. I'm going to leave it there for tonight.
Nos da i gyd.
A majority of NI Catholics voted Remain and have always wanted to be part of the Republic of Ireland and would oppose a customs border in Ireland.
The idea Brexit did anything to change the centuries old dynamics in the north of Ireland is absurd
Add in the fact that our own politicians never used mechanisms to protect our own jobs and industry and Labour allowed a very, very open door policy.
It was not a simple, single factor.
Northern Ireland was set up as a Protestant province of the UK and will remain a Protestant province of the UK, indeed losing a few Catholic counties like Fermanagh and Tyrone to the Republic may be no bad thing as it will entrench the Protestant and Unionist majority within Northern Ireland
While it may have seemed like a nice idea to export your young people en masse to northern and Western Europe maybe its not desirable for the long term future of your own nation.
Elderly Remainers live longer than elderly Leavers. There is a considerable SE class tilt to Remain, and quite a marked higher SE class bias to longevity, often 10 or more years.
The trend is therefore for the percentage of Remainers to increase in this age range even above the raw mortality.
I voted remain partially because I did not think the economic hit would be worth it (I believed what the treasury was saying) but mostly because of my distaste over the nature of the campaign. If one side had Farage and Galloway on it, I wanted to be on the other.
Indeed there is considerable evidence that the diaspora often returns with new skills to set up new industries.
Of course there would be a repartition rather than forcing Protestant majority counties into the Republic as the latter would inevitably see bombs exploding in Dublin from Protestant loyalist paramilitaries within a week
Additionally we have travelled a lot in Europe, the Artic and Canada and our retirement present was to join an ice ship and visit Antartica and South Georgia.
However, after our latest cruise to the Greek Islands in May we have accepted that it is unlikely we will fly again due to our reducing mobility and lack of desire to face the nightmare of flying and all it entails.
But we are so content and grateful we accomplished so much travel together and now it is 100% family and our grandchildten that take up our time
The easy way to resolve t is a #peoplesvote of course, which even a third of Tory voters support.
Or why have all those enthusiastic EEC voters in 1973 when they were young now voted out.
Think about the possible outcomes:
1) Leave wins again. Nothing has changed except more time has been wasted. What is to stop anti-democrats demanding another?
2) Remain wins. Which referendum decision is followed? There will be as many, if not more, disgruntled by a flagrant lack of respect for the first referendum.
It resolves nothing.
So time to put the tablet down, lean over and give my good lady a hug, and drift of until the morn.
May I wish everyone a pleasant nights rest
Good night folks
Of course most Leavers today who voted to Leave the EU in 2016 in 1975's referendum voted to stay in the Common Market so who knows what young people today may do, if the only alternative to Leave is rejoining a Federal EU superstate and the Euro rather than the half hearted membership of the EU we had before they may become more anti EU as they age too
It is the EU worrying about what comes in that drives the EU desire for a hard border.
[edit: unfuck blockquote]
Time to take F. Uqruhart's tip and check out season two of Ozark for me!