politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Quantum physics could have the answer to Brexit’s Ireland prob

It's that man Chappers again.

https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/919111255759245312

'neither confirm or deny', lol.

I can think of several Brexitloons upon whom I'd like to use the stake I'm holding in a reactionary manner.

The Norway-Sweden border is reasonably hard, as noted below. A more encouraging precedent for David's thesis might be the Swiss/French border. There, many border posts are unmanned, and there is just a notice saying that if you have something to declare you should proceed to the next manned border post, with instructions on how to get there. The French (though not, I believe, the Swiss) having border patrol cars which roam around and stop the occasional lorry or car for inspection as they drive away from the border, but basically nobody is bothering much.

The problem is that this relaxed arrangement has quietly evolved and nobody really cares, if only because bringing non-EU goods into Switzerland to smuggle into the EU is not very practical. If anyone did care, they could challenge it successfully under the WTO, and if it was a high-profile agreement not to enforce that border then that's what would probably happen, if only someone like Putin doing it out of mischief.

This is the *key* reason why Mrs May isn't fit to be PM.

REMARKABLY, the Cabinet has never had a proper discussion about the really big Brexit question: What should the final deal with the EU look like?

This is frustrating Cabinet ministers, breeding distrust and contributing to the current breakdown of discipline within the Government.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4681044/conservative-party-brexit-battle-cabinet-james-forsyth/

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

I find it extraordinary how some* draw political equivalence between the EU and UK. The EU is an international political and economic union of (officially) some 24 years. The latter is our nation, our country, that stretches back centuries.

Unlike the EU, the UK actually has led to a war of secession. Perhaps the UK model of bringing nations together in a unitary state just isn't fit for the 21st century?

Run that by me again?

Benpointer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

MarqueeMark said:

Mortimer said:

Pretty disturbed by the desire of Continuity Remainers to give away integral parts of this country.

For Remainers, no price is too high for us to stay in the UK.

Starting with democracy...

Those Remainers you sold me, they won't mate. They just walk around, Tweeting, and not mating. You sold me... queer Remainers. I want my money back!

?!? Increasingly bizarre Sunil, I do worry for your mental health pal

My mental health, Ben? You're the one wot voted Remain, remember?

BTW here's the original Oliver Reed quote:

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0002133/quotes

Theuniondivvie said:

It's that man Chappers again.

https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/919111255759245312

'neither confirm or deny', lol.

I can think of several Brexitloons upon whom I'd like to use the stake I'm holding in a reactionary manner.

The 'reactionary' Quote is interesting as that would seem to confirm things. What spinner would approve such a,well, reactionary word.

SouthamObserver said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Mortimer said:

Pretty disturbed by the desire of Continuity Remainers to give away integral parts of this country.

I find your desire to give away my rights as an EU citizen pretty disturbing. It takes all sorts.

I'm sure you do, but not having EU rights when no longer in the EU makes sense, even if it is a harrowing thing for people and despite the vote plenty would like a creative solution to avoid that.

Of course. My point being that in a democracy people are entitled to their views and have every right to argue for them, as well as to seek their adoption. The red line is forced imposition.

I never asked to become an "EU citizen" and was never offered a vote on the Maastricht treaty.

I didn't ask for it, didn't want it, and nor will I miss it.

NickPalmer said:

The Norway-Sweden border is reasonably hard, as noted below. A more encouraging precedent for David's thesis might be the Swiss/French border. There, many border posts are unmanned, and there is just a notice saying that if you have something to declare you should proceed to the next manned border post, with instructions on how to get there. The French (though not, I believe, the Swiss) having border patrol cars which roam around and stop the occasional lorry or car for inspection as they drive away from the border, but basically nobody is bothering much.

The problem is that this relaxed arrangement has quietly evolved and nobody really cares, if only because bringing non-EU goods into Switzerland to smuggle into the EU is not very practical. If anyone did care, they could challenge it successfully under the WTO, and if it was a high-profile agreement not to enforce that border then that's what would probably happen, if only someone like Putin doing it out of mischief.

The Swiss/French border (and presumably all other Swiss borders with EU member states) is underpinned by a Swiss relationship with the EU that our government seems to have rejected for the UK. Clearly, there are solutions to the Irish border question - but as others have observed, they are predicated on what the UK's final relationship with the EU will be. Until the government decides precisely what it wants, there can be no progress on this.

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mortimer said:

Pretty disturbed by the desire of Continuity Remainers to give away integral parts of this country.

You want to make a large portion of the citizens of the country worse off, I find that disturbing too.

And you want to give away a large portion of the country.

(Actually, I know you don't, and you know you don't - and we both know that the other knows you aren't. You are quite patriotic at heart. But your form of political debate is simply to remorselessly troll those you disagree with, be it Leftwingers, anti-Osbornites, the SNP, or Leavers, for the lolz.)

It isn't for the lolz.

In my old job, one of my tasks was to look at the other side's position, and deconstruct it, I found taking their ideas to first principles and taking it their logical, if contradictory, positions.

I had great fun at university taking apart the logic of those who oppose abortion and concurrently support the death penalty (and vice versa of course)

Interesting article. The critical thing to understand is that the Irish border isn't a normal one. If you stand on the banks of the Rhine you can point to the other side and say, that's France, this is Germany. Over there they are French, on this side they are German. The border is the edge between territories.

The Irish border is the concept that defines Northern Ireland. It's not really an edge. It doesn't matter much which river it follows or what village is on which side of the line. Northern Ireland exists to create a space for a particular group of people in Ireland. A separation is needed to produce the uniqueness of that space. It's almost arbitrary where that separation lies.

The Irish border therefore isn't the potentially bothersome consequence of maintaining territories. It is a concept that one group in north Ireland actively wants and promotes because it defines their identity, and which another group wants to remove because it gets in the way of their identity.

The Good Friday Agreement didn't aim to remove the border. It tried to make it ambiguous, so the first group can still imagine it being there while the second can pretend it no longer exists. Brexit makes the ambiguous explicit.

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Benpointer said:

SouthamObserver said:

The issue is that the UK becomes a third country when it leaves the EU. WTO rules forbid dicriminatory treatment in the absence of a formal trade agreement between countries. The UK only has borders with the EU. The EU has borders with a number of third countries. A de facto soft border between the EU and UK discriminates against other third countries with which the EU has a border - Russia and Ukraine, for example. The EU just cannot do it. There has to be an agreement that is then properly policed. Anything else invites WTO action against the EU.

I don't know much about the Sweden/Norway border, but has it ever been open in the way that the Irish border is now? If not, the trade flows between Norway and Sweden are unlikely to mirror those between NI and Ireland. What's more, I suspect the Norway/Sweden border is the subject of a formal, policed agreement.

All of the above is why the Irish border is an EU red line. It has no choice. Unless the problem is resolved there will be No Deal.

Although if there's No Deal there would be a border between Eire and NI, so how does that help anyone?

Yep, and for that reason for the RoI no deal is better than a bad deal.

That is certainly untrue. ROI would be hit much, much harder than the UK economically, and probably politically too.

Why do you talk such nonsense?

I just disagree with you. A No Deal Brexit that creates a hard border in Ireland is clearly better for the RoI than a Brexit deal that creates a policed border with Northern Ireland (a bad deal from the RoI's perspective). With a No Deal the RoI has more opportunity to benefit from business and financial relocations from the UK, as well as inward investments that the UK might otherwise have got. No Deal and a Bad Deal both bring considerable trade downsides from the RoI's point of view, but No Deal delivers more possible upsides.

Bottom line - a bad deal for the UK is not the same as a bad deal for the RoI.

This is just wrong, sorry Joff.

Have you seen the level of economic hit that EIRE takes in the event of no deal? How massively it's affected by the gas/electricity networks that branch over from the UK, and most of its trade that is routed through and with the UK? Not to mention the political disruption that it'd then be obliged to manage via the enforcement of the EU external border at NI?

Bottom line - no deal for EIRE is even worse than no deal for the UK.

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Recidivist said:

HYUFD said:

Recidivist said:

Casino_Royale said:

"That’s far from certain as the two sides continue to talk at cross purposes, becoming irritated with each other in the process as neither understands why the other won’t be reasonable. It’s a microcosm of why the difference in philosophical understanding of what the EU is propelled Britain to leave in the first place."

Precisely, David. This is what I've been saying for months.

I see the point, but there is another angle to it. assume they manage it. Support for Brexit only just made it to a majority last year. Real life usually disappoints expectations. And as the older voters drop off the register support for the EU will grow. We'll be back in soon enough.

Leave won 40 to 50 year olds and 50 to 60 year olds, not just pensioners. Only under 40s had a majority for Remain.

Plus there is no guarantee the EU would let the UK back in without also demanding membership of the Euro and Schengen as well of course as free movement so in those circumstances we would definitely still vote Leave.

Returning to the single market and joining EFTA again may be possibilities longer term but not rejoining the EU unless they also give unlikely concessions to the UK

If you make those points to my parents they would nod. They might even agree. I can see what you are saying. But there are plenty of people around who like my children would simply stare back blankly. Schengen - no need for passports. Sounds good. Join the Euro? That would save a lot of trouble. Free movement - yes please! I want to spend the summer in Rome!

And remember that it only needs one of the big parties to put EU membership in their manifesto and to win an election to wipe out the referendum result. I am only wondering which one will do it first.

Even younger voters oppose the Euro. Only the LDs want a second referendum on EU membership

Don't tell all those labour remainers (that is, those who want to still remain, rather than merely those who voted remain)

As long as Corbyn leads Labour, Labour will not even back staying permanently in the single market let alone returning to the EU

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Mortimer said:

Pretty disturbed by the desire of Continuity Remainers to give away integral parts of this country.

I find your desire to give away my rights as an EU citizen pretty disturbing. It takes all sorts.

I'm sure you do, but not having EU rights when no longer in the EU makes sense, even if it is a harrowing thing for people and despite the vote plenty would like a creative solution to avoid that.

Of course. My point being that in a democracy people are entitled to their views and have every right to argue for them, as well as to seek their adoption. The red line is forced imposition.

I never asked to become an "EU citizen" and was never offered a vote on the Maastricht treaty.

I didn't ask for it, didn't want it, and nor will I miss it.

This is a big point in the way that the EU ratchet has been applied to the UK. It was never a big issue in elections because both parties agreed to it, the Tories because they didn't want the fight, and Labour because they saw that EU law could move the centre ground in their direction.

So it wasn't until a major force in British politics started to challenge this Westminster enforced settlement that one of the parties had to make the move and shift to the position that the population was increasingly taking. They could hold up the democratic will of the people to be consulted no longer.

Then, because they had as a generation, never had to make a solid argument for it, they had left it too late and could no longer make it.

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Mortimer said:

Pretty disturbed by the desire of Continuity Remainers to give away integral parts of this country.

I find your desire to give away my rights as an EU citizen pretty disturbing. It takes all sorts.

I'm sure you do, but not having EU rights when no longer in the EU makes sense, even if it is a harrowing thing for people and despite the vote plenty would like a creative solution to avoid that.

Of course. My point being that in a democracy people are entitled to their views and have every right to argue for them, as well as to seek their adoption. The red line is forced imposition.

I never asked to become an "EU citizen" and was never offered a vote on the Maastricht treaty.

I didn't ask for it, didn't want it, and nor will I miss it.

+1

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Recidivist said:

HYUFD said:

Recidivist said:

Casino_Royale said:

"That’s far from certain as the two sides continue to talk at cross purposes, becoming irritated with each other in the process as neither understands why the other won’t be reasonable. It’s a microcosm of why the difference in philosophical understanding of what the EU is propelled Britain to leave in the first place."

Precisely, David. This is what I've been saying for months.

I see the point, but there is another angle to it. assume they manage it. Support for Brexit only just made it to a majority last year. Real life usually disappoints expectations. And as the older voters drop off the register support for the EU will grow. We'll be back in soon enough.

Leave won 40 to 50 year olds and 50 to 60 year olds, not just pensioners. Only under 40s had a majority for Remain.

Plus there is no guarantee the EU would let the UK back in without also demanding membership of the Euro and Schengen as well of course as free movement so in those circumstances we would definitely still vote Leave.

Returning to the single market and joining EFTA again may be possibilities longer term but not rejoining the EU unless they also give unlikely concessions to the UK

If you make those points to my parents they would nod. They might even agree. I can see what you are saying. But there are plenty of people around who like my children would simply stare back blankly. Schengen - no need for passports. Sounds good. Join the Euro? That would save a lot of trouble. Free movement - yes please! I want to spend the summer in Rome!

And remember that it only needs one of the big parties to put EU membership in their manifesto and to win an election to wipe out the referendum result. I am only wondering which one will do it first.

Even younger voters oppose the Euro. Only the LDs want a second referendum on EU membership

Don't tell all those labour remainers (that is, those who want to still remain, rather than merely those who voted remain)

As long as Corbyn leads Labour, Labour will not even back staying permanently in the single market let alone returning to the EU

Yes, but plenty don't realise that.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mortimer said:

Pretty disturbed by the desire of Continuity Remainers to give away integral parts of this country.

You want to make a large portion of the citizens of the country worse off, I find that disturbing too.

And you want to give away a large portion of the country.

(Actually, I know you don't, and you know you don't - and we both know that the other knows you aren't. You are quite patriotic at heart. But your form of political debate is simply to remorselessly troll those you disagree with, be it Leftwingers, anti-Osbornites, the SNP, or Leavers, for the lolz.)

It isn't for the lolz.

In my old job, one of my tasks was to look at the other side's position, and deconstruct it, I found taking their ideas to first principles and taking it their logical, if contradictory, positions.

I had great fun at university taking apart the logic of those who oppose abortion and concurrently support the death penalty (and vice versa of course)

I think it is. It's part of your technique. But, at least you concede you find it fun.

I know you well enough to have figured you out by now, even if you think you're clever enough to disguise it.

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Mortimer said:

Pretty disturbed by the desire of Continuity Remainers to give away integral parts of this country.

I find your desire to give away my rights as an EU citizen pretty disturbing. It takes all sorts.

I'm sure you do, but not having EU rights when no longer in the EU makes sense, even if it is a harrowing thing for people and despite the vote plenty would like a creative solution to avoid that.

Of course. My point being that in a democracy people are entitled to their views and have every right to argue for them, as well as to seek their adoption. The red line is forced imposition.

I never asked to become an "EU citizen" and was never offered a vote on the Maastricht treaty.

I didn't ask for it, didn't want it, and nor will I miss it.

So you should have the chance to renounce it - but without taking mine from me.

NickPalmer said:

The Norway-Sweden border is reasonably hard, as noted below. A more encouraging precedent for David's thesis might be the Swiss/French border. There, many border posts are unmanned, and there is just a notice saying that if you have something to declare you should proceed to the next manned border post, with instructions on how to get there. The French (though not, I believe, the Swiss) having border patrol cars which roam around and stop the occasional lorry or car for inspection as they drive away from the border, but basically nobody is bothering much.

The problem is that this relaxed arrangement has quietly evolved and nobody really cares, if only because bringing non-EU goods into Switzerland to smuggle into the EU is not very practical. If anyone did care, they could challenge it successfully under the WTO, and if it was a high-profile agreement not to enforce that border then that's what would probably happen, if only someone like Putin doing it out of mischief.

When we visited CERN in 2014, my mum and I walked down the road to the French border and walked about 100 yds into French territory, past the abandoned border posts. Quite a weird feeling not being challenged at the border.

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

I find it extraordinary how some* draw political equivalence between the EU and UK. The EU is an international political and economic union of (officially) some 24 years. The latter is our nation, our country, that stretches back centuries.

Unlike the EU, the UK actually has led to a war of secession. Perhaps the UK model of bringing nations together in a unitary state just isn't fit for the 21st century?

Run that by me again?

Consider Scotland - in the UK it has no sovereignty and the Scottish Parliament could be abolished or curtailed at any moment by Westminster. England, which I'm sure you'd agree is a nation, doesn't really have any political institutions at all.

There is a clear contrast with the EU model of a confederation of sovereign states who pool their sovereignty to their mutual benefit.

That will be the Scotland that the UK Government gave a legal independence referendum to then whilst the EU backed the crackdown of the Spanish jackboots in Catalonia.

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Mortimer said:

Pretty disturbed by the desire of Continuity Remainers to give away integral parts of this country.

I find your desire to give away my rights as an EU citizen pretty disturbing. It takes all sorts.

I'm sure you do, but not having EU rights when no longer in the EU makes sense, even if it is a harrowing thing for people and despite the vote plenty would like a creative solution to avoid that.

Of course. My point being that in a democracy people are entitled to their views and have every right to argue for them, as well as to seek their adoption. The red line is forced imposition.

I never asked to become an "EU citizen" and was never offered a vote on the Maastricht treaty.

I didn't ask for it, didn't want it, and nor will I miss it.

So you should have the chance to renounce it - but without taking mine from me.

If you want to be an EU citizen, there are still 27 choices open to you....

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Benpointer said:

SouthamObserver said:

The issue is that the UK becomes a third country when it leaves the EU. WTO rules forbid dicriminatory treatment in the absence of a formal trade agreement between countries. The UK only has borders with the EU. The EU has borders with a number of third countries. A de facto soft border between the EU and UK discriminates against other third countries with which the EU has a border - Russia and Ukraine, for example. The EU just cannot do it. There has to be an agreement that is then properly policed. Anything else invites WTO action against the EU.

I don't know much about the Sweden/Norway border, but has it ever been open in the way that the Irish border is now? If not, the trade flows between Norway and Sweden are unlikely to mirror those between NI and Ireland. What's more, I suspect the Norway/Sweden border is the subject of a formal, policed agreement.

All of the above is why the Irish border is an EU red line. It has no choice. Unless the problem is resolved there will be No Deal.

Although if there's No Deal there would be a border between Eire and NI, so how does that help anyone?

Yep, and for that reason for the RoI no deal is better than a bad deal.

That is certainly untrue. ROI would be hit much, much harder than the UK economically, and probably politically too.

Why do you talk such nonsense?

I just disagree with you. A No Deal Brexit that creates a hard border in Ireland is clearly better for the RoI than a Brexit deal that creates a policed border with Northern Ireland (a bad deal from the RoI's perspective). With a No Deal the RoI has more opportunity to benefit from business and financial relocations from the UK, as well as inward investments that the UK might otherwise have got. No Deal and a Bad Deal both bring considerable trade downsides from the RoI's point of view, but No Deal delivers more possible upsides.

Bottom line - a bad deal for the UK is not the same as a bad deal for the RoI.

This is just wrong, sorry Joff.

Have you seen the level of economic hit that EIRE takes in the event of no deal? How massively it's affected by the gas/electricity networks that branch over from the UK, and most of its trade that is routed through and with the UK? Not to mention the political disruption that it'd then be obliged to manage via the enforcement of the EU external border at NI?

Bottom line - no deal for EIRE is even worse than no deal for the UK.

Bad that doesn't make a Bad Deal for Ireland better.

FF43 said:

If you stand on the banks of the Rhine you can point to the other side and say, that's France, this is Germany. Over there they are French, on this side they are German. The border is the edge between territories.

Generally an insightful post but the worst imaginable example. The Alsatians on the West Bank of the Rhine would argue the point about being 'French' rather than German.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Benpointer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

MarqueeMark said:

Mortimer said:

Pretty disturbed by the desire of Continuity Remainers to give away integral parts of this country.

For Remainers, no price is too high for us to stay in the UK.

Starting with democracy...

Those Remainers you sold me, they won't mate. They just walk around, Tweeting, and not mating. You sold me... queer Remainers. I want my money back!

?!? Increasingly bizarre Sunil, I do worry for your mental health pal

Sunil is fine, and a good bloke. He just drops lyrics and quotes that are extremely amusing and entertaining to him inside his own head, but don't always make sense to the rest of us!!

Ok, if you say so, glad to hear it.

"Tweeting and not mating"? As opposed to Oliver Reed's original "eating and not mating"?

[sigh] Forget it then

I enjoyed it, Sunil.

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Mortimer said:

Pretty disturbed by the desire of Continuity Remainers to give away integral parts of this country.

I find your desire to give away my rights as an EU citizen pretty disturbing. It takes all sorts.

I'm sure you do, but not having EU rights when no longer in the EU makes sense, even if it is a harrowing thing for people and despite the vote plenty would like a creative solution to avoid that.

Of course. My point being that in a democracy people are entitled to their views and have every right to argue for them, as well as to seek their adoption. The red line is forced imposition.

I never asked to become an "EU citizen" and was never offered a vote on the Maastricht treaty.

I didn't ask for it, didn't want it, and nor will I miss it.

So you should have the chance to renounce it - but without taking mine from me.

If you wish to become a citizen of a foreign state, it is open to you to take the steps necessary to achieve that.

We will both retain the British passport, which will remain an extremely flexible travel and working document, as it has been for decades and was well before we joined the EU.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Doethur, Gavelkind was abandoned by the Scots in favour of the English system which helped Scotland become much stronger than Wales. Similarly, Ireland kept Gavelkind which didn't exactly enhance stability or prosperity there.

It is a silly system.

You are aware that the English have abandoned primogeniture in favour of gavelkind for non-entailed property? (Absent a will, of course.)

I agree it's in many ways a silly system but it's very popular. Just blaming the Welsh for it seems a mite unfair.

FF43 said:

Interesting article. The critical thing to understand is that the Irish border isn't a normal one. If you stand on the banks of the Rhine you can point to the other side and say, that's France, this is Germany. Over there they are French, on this side they are German. The border is the edge between territories.

The Irish border is the concept that defines Northern Ireland. It's not really an edge. It doesn't matter much which river it follows or what village is on which side of the line. Northern Ireland exists to create a space for a particular group of people in Ireland. A separation is needed to produce the uniqueness of that space. It's almost arbitrary where that separation lies.

The Irish border therefore isn't the potentially bothersome consequence of maintaining territories. It is a concept that one group in north Ireland actively wants and promotes because it defines their identity, and which another group wants to remove because it gets in the way of their identity.

The Good Friday Agreement didn't aim to remove the border. It tried to make it ambiguous, so the first group can still imagine it being there while the second can pretend it no longer exists. Brexit makes the ambiguous explicit.

The Rhine is only a Franco-German border for a short way. Much of the Rhine runs *through* German territory. For example, Cologne is on the Rhine.

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

I find it extraordinary how some* draw political equivalence between the EU and UK. The EU is an international political and economic union of (officially) some 24 years. The latter is our nation, our country, that stretches back centuries.

Unlike the EU, the UK actually has led to a war of secession. Perhaps the UK model of bringing nations together in a unitary state just isn't fit for the 21st century?

Run that by me again?

Consider Scotland - in the UK it has no sovereignty and the Scottish Parliament could be abolished or curtailed at any moment by Westminster. England, which I'm sure you'd agree is a nation, doesn't really have any political institutions at all.

There is a clear contrast with the EU model of a confederation of sovereign states who pool their sovereignty to their mutual benefit.

That will be the Scotland that the UK Government gave a legal independence referendum to then whilst the EU backed the crackdown of the Spanish jackboots in Catalonia.

In fairness, while a grade-a twat in every other way and as mad as a box of frogs when it comes to EU matters, Verhofstadt spoke out against that while our government showed all the moral courage of an especially cowardly diplomat.

kle4 said:

The only inheritance rule that makes sense us the one where youngest child inherits it all.

From a youngest child.

Suspect any such society would have significantly higher murder rates though! And I reckon that in general older siblings would be far more likely to make provision for their younger siblings than vice versa.

welshowl said:

ydoethur said:

FF43 said:

If you stand on the banks of the Rhine you can point to the other side and say, that's France, this is Germany. Over there they are French, on this side they are German. The border is the edge between territories.

Generally an insightful post but the worst imaginable example. The Alsatians on the West Bank of the Rhine would argue the point about being 'French' rather than German.

But what about the German Shepherds?

Give them Dresden Shepherdesses?

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Mortimer said:

Pretty disturbed by the desire of Continuity Remainers to give away integral parts of this country.

I find your desire to give away my rights as an EU citizen pretty disturbing. It takes all sorts.

I'm sure you do, but not having EU rights when no longer in the EU makes sense, even if it is a harrowing thing for people and despite the vote plenty would like a creative solution to avoid that.

Of course. My point being that in a democracy people are entitled to their views and have every right to argue for them, as well as to seek their adoption. The red line is forced imposition.

I never asked to become an "EU citizen" and was never offered a vote on the Maastricht treaty.

I didn't ask for it, didn't want it, and nor will I miss it.

I never asked for UK citizenship, though I'm happy to have it. I wish I had the certainty in my future that you have in yours.

We're getting a bit reductio ad absurdum here.

You were born English, as was I - the first prize in the lottery of life - and we are both patriots.

Of course, if you wished to renounce it and move abroad and take up a new citizenship, I'm sure you could do so. What I object to is imposition of foreign citizenship upon me without my consent, and the consequent judicial suzerainty upon these islands, which is what, I fear, the EU parliament via the ECJ wishes to continue to do post-Brexit, and then be asked to cry crocodile tears when that ceases to be the case 25 years later.

Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders, as well as US citizens, and, for that matter, EU citizens, and Swiss citizens, are all very happy with their passports and quality of life both domestically and internationally, as will we be.

Pong said:

The thing I struggle to understand....

Why isn't the government planning for these new NHS hospitals?

One a week, wasn't it?

Corbyn is going to have to deal with a massive backlog thanks to the tories inability to plan.

So you Hard-Remainers would rather see our money sent to Brussels, rather than spent on the NHS?

FF43 said:

Casino_Royale said:

That's easy. We have voted to Leave the EU. The people in NI still wish to remain part of the UK. Ergo, there is no circle to square: they have accepted the result and decision.

I find it extraordinary how some* draw political equivalence between the EU and UK. The EU is an international political and economic union of (officially) some 24 years. The latter is our nation, our country, that stretches back centuries.

(*Except, in your case, of course, you are just trying to troll Leavers, since you do it with Gibraltar, the Falklands and anything else you can thing of as well, because you enjoy it.)

If you force that, you will lose Scotland. Maybe it doesn't matter but it will happen. I'm quite far up the Unionist scale but I am Scottish. Scotland is my nation and almost all Scots would agree with that. I am happy also to be British and to say the UK is my country, but on the strict understanding of consent and self-determination. I would strongly argue for Scotland being in the UK and not just on a transactional cost/benefit. But if most of my fellow countrymen and women disagree, the game's up. The same applies if England decides it prefers to do without Scotland.

I'm not suggesting Scotland is forced. I respect Scotland and its decisions.

The UK isn't like Spain, where they beat you up if you want to go.

ydoethur said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

I find it extraordinary how some* draw political equivalence between the EU and UK. The EU is an international political and economic union of (officially) some 24 years. The latter is our nation, our country, that stretches back centuries.

Unlike the EU, the UK actually has led to a war of secession. Perhaps the UK model of bringing nations together in a unitary state just isn't fit for the 21st century?

Run that by me again?

Consider Scotland - in the UK it has no sovereignty and the Scottish Parliament could be abolished or curtailed at any moment by Westminster. England, which I'm sure you'd agree is a nation, doesn't really have any political institutions at all.

There is a clear contrast with the EU model of a confederation of sovereign states who pool their sovereignty to their mutual benefit.

That will be the Scotland that the UK Government gave a legal independence referendum to then whilst the EU backed the crackdown of the Spanish jackboots in Catalonia.

In fairness, while a grade-a twat in every other way and as mad as a box of frogs when it comes to EU matters, Verhofstadt spoke out against that while our government showed all the moral courage of an especially cowardly diplomat.

There is that.

rottenborough said:

Leavers, look away now. Could ruin your breakfast:

https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/919088502964477953

Christ, I thought at first someone had put a giant t shirt on one of those Easter Island statues.

SouthamObserver said:

NickPalmer said:

The Norway-Sweden border is reasonably hard, as noted below. A more encouraging precedent for David's thesis might be the Swiss/French border. There, many border posts are unmanned, and there is just a notice saying that if you have something to declare you should proceed to the next manned border post, with instructions on how to get there. The French (though not, I believe, the Swiss) having border patrol cars which roam around and stop the occasional lorry or car for inspection as they drive away from the border, but basically nobody is bothering much.

The problem is that this relaxed arrangement has quietly evolved and nobody really cares, if only because bringing non-EU goods into Switzerland to smuggle into the EU is not very practical. If anyone did care, they could challenge it successfully under the WTO, and if it was a high-profile agreement not to enforce that border then that's what would probably happen, if only someone like Putin doing it out of mischief.

The Swiss/French border (and presumably all other Swiss borders with EU member states) is underpinned by a Swiss relationship with the EU that our government seems to have rejected for the UK. Clearly, there are solutions to the Irish border question - but as others have observed, they are predicated on what the UK's final relationship with the EU will be. Until the government decides precisely what it wants, there can be no progress on this.

Which makes the EU insistence on this being dealt with as a preliminary issue pretty irrational doesn't it?

For those of us on Ed Miliband as next Labour Leader at 200/1


https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/919080592138035201

Mr. Recidivist, you are right!

About Julian the Apostate, that is. It was notable criticism from Ammianus Marcellinus on two counts. Firstly, he's mostly pro-Julian, so the censure has more weight. Secondly, it demolishes the Milibandite-Mayist idiocy on energy prices.

New question, because I can tell you're all very much enjoying this: In the second Triumvirate, which included Octavian and Mark Antony, who was the third member?

ydoethur said:

FF43 said:

If you stand on the banks of the Rhine you can point to the other side and say, that's France, this is Germany. Over there they are French, on this side they are German. The border is the edge between territories.

Generally an insightful post but the worst imaginable example. The Alsatians on the West Bank of the Rhine would argue the point about being 'French' rather than German.

In historical terms you are completely right of course. But this is where I get a bit misty eyed about the EU and Freedom of Movement. The EU has put a lot of effort into making that border almost invisible. It seems to have worked. I was in that part of the world a couple of weeks ago. People don't notice as they move from one country to another and as as far as I can tell they expect not to notice. It's just like moving from Yorkshire to Lancashire (!)

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

NickPalmer said:

The Norway-Sweden border is reasonably hard, as noted below. A more encouraging precedent for David's thesis might be the Swiss/French border. There, many border posts are unmanned, and there is just a notice saying that if you have something to declare you should proceed to the next manned border post, with instructions on how to get there. The French (though not, I believe, the Swiss) having border patrol cars which roam around and stop the occasional lorry or car for inspection as they drive away from the border, but basically nobody is bothering much.

The problem is that this relaxed arrangement has quietly evolved and nobody really cares, if only because bringing non-EU goods into Switzerland to smuggle into the EU is not very practical. If anyone did care, they could challenge it successfully under the WTO, and if it was a high-profile agreement not to enforce that border then that's what would probably happen, if only someone like Putin doing it out of mischief.

The Swiss/French border (and presumably all other Swiss borders with EU member states) is underpinned by a Swiss relationship with the EU that our government seems to have rejected for the UK. Clearly, there are solutions to the Irish border question - but as others have observed, they are predicated on what the UK's final relationship with the EU will be. Until the government decides precisely what it wants, there can be no progress on this.

Which makes the EU insistence on this being dealt with as a preliminary issue pretty irrational doesn't it?

Quite - i'm a bit confused why SO keeps going on about the importance of knowing what the UK Government wants, when, as it is repeatedly pointed out, it doesn't matter what the UK Government wants, only what the EU will give. The basis of any agreement depends on a window existing within which the two can be accommodated. That's why it's called a negotiation. And if the UK stated exactly what it wanted, that could never form the basis for a resolution to the NI border issue as it would inevitably be whittled down before the end of the negotiation.

TheScreamingEagles said:

For those of us on Ed Miliband as next Labour Leader at 200/1


https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/919080592138035201

He'll need a new party though.

Morris_Dancer said:

New question, because I can tell you're all very much enjoying this: In the second Triumvirate, which included Octavian and Mark Antony, who was the third member?

Two dicks weren't enough to screw the Republic?

FF43 said:

ydoethur said:

FF43 said:

If you stand on the banks of the Rhine you can point to the other side and say, that's France, this is Germany. Over there they are French, on this side they are German. The border is the edge between territories.

Generally an insightful post but the worst imaginable example. The Alsatians on the West Bank of the Rhine would argue the point about being 'French' rather than German.

In historical terms you are completely right of course. But this is where I get a bit misty eyed about the EU and Freedom of Movement. The EU has put a lot of effort into making that border almost invisible. It seems to have worked. I was in that part of the world a couple of weeks ago. People don't notice as they move from one country to another and as as far as I can tell they expect not to notice. It's just like moving from Yorkshire to Lancashire (!)

As bad as that?

My goodness.

alex. said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

NickPalmer said:

The Norway-Sweden border is reasonably hard, as noted below. A more encouraging precedent for David's thesis might be the Swiss/French border. There, many border posts are unmanned, and there is just a notice saying that if you have something to declare you should proceed to the next manned border post, with instructions on how to get there. The French (though not, I believe, the Swiss) having border patrol cars which roam around and stop the occasional lorry or car for inspection as they drive away from the border, but basically nobody is bothering much.

The problem is that this relaxed arrangement has quietly evolved and nobody really cares, if only because bringing non-EU goods into Switzerland to smuggle into the EU is not very practical. If anyone did care, they could challenge it successfully under the WTO, and if it was a high-profile agreement not to enforce that border then that's what would probably happen, if only someone like Putin doing it out of mischief.

The Swiss/French border (and presumably all other Swiss borders with EU member states) is underpinned by a Swiss relationship with the EU that our government seems to have rejected for the UK. Clearly, there are solutions to the Irish border question - but as others have observed, they are predicated on what the UK's final relationship with the EU will be. Until the government decides precisely what it wants, there can be no progress on this.

Which makes the EU insistence on this being dealt with as a preliminary issue pretty irrational doesn't it?

Quite - i'm a bit confused why SO keeps going on about the importance of knowing what the UK Government wants, when, as it is repeatedly pointed out, it doesn't matter what the UK Government wants, only what the EU will give. The basis of any agreement depends on a window existing within which the two can be accommodated. That's why it's called a negotiation. And if the UK stated exactly what it wanted, that could never form the basis for a resolution to the NI border issue as it would inevitably be whittled down before the end of the negotiation.

If you don't know what you want you are in no position to negotiate.

Mr. Doethur, to be fair, the Republic was dead at that point. The Second Triumvirate was about deciding who was going to feast on the carcass.

TheScreamingEagles said:

For those of us on Ed Miliband as next Labour Leader at 200/1


https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/919080592138035201

Ed Miliband neither inspires the left like Corbyn or appeals to swing voters like Blair, hence he had the worst Labour general election result for 28 years in 2015. He is a nice chap but was a hopeless leader

alex. said:

Morris_Dancer said:

New question, because I can tell you're all very much enjoying this: In the second Triumvirate, which included Octavian and Mark Antony, who was the third member?

Their tortoise, Alan?

Back in your shell sir!

Anyway, having hopefully improved matters I am also off to get my car mended. Have a great weekend.

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

NickPalmer said:

The Norway-Sweden border is reasonably hard, as noted below. A more encouraging precedent for David's thesis might be the Swiss/French border. There, many border posts are unmanned, and there is just a notice saying that if you have something to declare you should proceed to the next manned border post, with instructions on how to get there. The French (though not, I believe, the Swiss) having border patrol cars which roam around and stop the occasional lorry or car for inspection as they drive away from the border, but basically nobody is bothering much.

The problem is that this relaxed arrangement has quietly evolved and nobody really cares, if only because bringing non-EU goods into Switzerland to smuggle into the EU is not very practical. If anyone did care, they could challenge it successfully under the WTO, and if it was a high-profile agreement not to enforce that border then that's what would probably happen, if only someone like Putin doing it out of mischief.

The Swiss/French border (and presumably all other Swiss borders with EU member states) is underpinned by a Swiss relationship with the EU that our government seems to have rejected for the UK. Clearly, there are solutions to the Irish border question - but as others have observed, they are predicated on what the UK's final relationship with the EU will be. Until the government decides precisely what it wants, there can be no progress on this.

Which makes the EU insistence on this being dealt with as a preliminary issue pretty irrational doesn't it?

No more irrational than us wanting to talk trade without actually knowing precisely what it is we're after.

Until the UK had decided where it stands on regulatory equivalence, discussing the practicalities of how the Irish border will work is pretty pointless.

Casino_Royale said:

FF43 said:

Casino_Royale said:

That's easy. We have voted to Leave the EU. The people in NI still wish to remain part of the UK. Ergo, there is no circle to square: they have accepted the result and decision.

I find it extraordinary how some* draw political equivalence between the EU and UK. The EU is an international political and economic union of (officially) some 24 years. The latter is our nation, our country, that stretches back centuries.

(*Except, in your case, of course, you are just trying to troll Leavers, since you do it with Gibraltar, the Falklands and anything else you can thing of as well, because you enjoy it.)

If you force that, you will lose Scotland. Maybe it doesn't matter but it will happen. I'm quite far up the Unionist scale but I am Scottish. Scotland is my nation and almost all Scots would agree with that. I am happy also to be British and to say the UK is my country, but on the strict understanding of consent and self-determination. I would strongly argue for Scotland being in the UK and not just on a transactional cost/benefit. But if most of my fellow countrymen and women disagree, the game's up. The same applies if England decides it prefers to do without Scotland.

I'm not suggesting Scotland is forced. I respect Scotland and its decisions.

The UK isn't like Spain, where they beat you up if you want to go.

I am saying if you force people to choose a single identity rather than allowing people to have overlapping identities, including where the other identity is more important to them.

Mr. Alex, indeed not.

Mr. Herdson, quite. Marius is often taken as a prime cause, although prolonged victory and a steady political system gave time for factions and dynasties to arise (as we see in modern American politics).

Anyway, I clearly made that question a bit too easy. Who did Caesar have named as a friend and ally of Rome, only for said friend and ally to invade Gaul (whilst Caesar was doing much the same), bringing the two into direct conflict?

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

FF43 said:

The Irish border therefore isn't the potentially bothersome consequence of maintaining territories. It is a concept that one group in north Ireland actively wants and promotes because it defines their identity, and which another group wants to remove because it gets in the way of their identity.

The Good Friday Agreement didn't aim to remove the border. It tried to make it ambiguous, so the first group can still imagine it being there while the second can pretend it no longer exists. Brexit makes the ambiguous explicit.

And the Unionists supported Brexit in part because they felt it strengthened that sense of difference and exceptionalism. I do wonder if a failed Brexit will tarnish the lustre of Britannia.

You don't 'wonder' you 'hope' because you could not care less about Britain and would happily break the UK up into regions and absorb them into an EU superstate

Mr Juncker would not be a fan of that.

Mr Juncker, speaking at a students forum in Luxembourg, warned [Catalonian independence] could result in a region too complicated for the European Union (EU) to govern...."I wouldn't like a European Union in 15 years that consists of some 90 states".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41610863

I expect WG and Juncker could live with a UK split into 4 all part of a Federal Europe.

Though it is interesting how the EU is having problems linking rising regional identity in Catalonia, Scotland and Venetia etc with a cohesive EU identity