Why is it every time May opens her mouth negotiations seem to take two steps back?
The i newspaper headline this morning
Eu leaders agree to discuss free trade Stalemate broken. France and Germany stop blocking talks after May makes personal plea. PM agrees there will be no hard border with Ireland Residency deal close for EU citizens who live in Britain.
You missed off the bit about the EU asking for more clarity on the divorce bill oddly...
Yet when you read the article there's nothing really new in there at all. We were told they would start thinking about any future trade deal amongst themselves a while back. That's what any sensible organisation would do isn't it, sit around the table and agree a joint and realistic approach about what they want...before starting to negotiate.
They are throwing May a bone to try to spin it into something it's not to the hard Brexiteers in her party.
Are you really so blinkered? I'm a remainer who has accepted the vote and want the best for the future.
I reply to a post saying every time May says something the process goes back 2 steps.
I type out a headline suggesting the polar opposite is in fact the case, and all you can add is a straw man fact free opinion, based on no knowledge at all, saying its EU PR throwing May a bone. Beyond parody, but drearily predictable.
The UK is being slowly suckered into a very bad deal with the EU. May has conceded publicly and privately that the UK will pay about 40b Euros for effectively a transition deal, ie a prolongation of UK membership of the EU until at least 2021. In exchange the UK has received precisely nothing except vague assurances that a trade deal will be discussed at some point, which we all knew would have to happen anyway.
In the meantime there is nobody in the EU or in the German government (the only one that really matters) who has said anything other than that the 4 freedoms are indivisible, ie that continued membership of or access to the single market will involve continued free movement of labour and jurusdiction by the ECJ.
So, we have committed to pay a large sum of money for what? In order to be told at some future point, when it suits the EU and after France and Germany have been able to lure businesses to their countries because of the indecision they themselves have prolonged, that access to the single market will mean effectively continued control by the EU under another name.
In the 4 years during which this charade is being played out, the Remainers who dominate political discourse in this country will continue to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt in order to demoralise those who supported Brexit. Look, they will say, we have lost money, we have a worse trade deal and no extra sovereignty, is it worth leaving the EU for this?
Those of us who want to see the referendum result carried out need to realise that the choice is not between a bad deal and no deal, but between Brexit and no Brexit.
Editorial in today's Guardian 'A decent 24 hours for May' with an editorial which then proceeds to portray the negotiations in the most negative way possible, but nevertheless a rare nudge towards positivity from the paper.
Now I can't stand the PM, but there's just no balance with some people.
Editorial in today's Guardian 'A decent 24 hours for May' with an editorial which then proceeds to portray the negotiations in the most negative way possible, but nevertheless a rare nudge towards positivity from the paper.
Now I can't stand the PM, but there's just no balance with some people.
We shouldn't let facts get in the way of em having a good moan though.
Why is it every time May opens her mouth negotiations seem to take two steps back?
The i newspaper headline this morning
Eu leaders agree to discuss free trade Stalemate broken. France and Germany stop blocking talks after May makes personal plea. PM agrees there will be no hard border with Ireland Residency deal close for EU citizens who live in Britain.
You missed off the bit about the EU asking for more clarity on the divorce bill oddly...
Yet when you read the article there's nothing really new in there at all. We were told they would start thinking about any future trade deal amongst themselves a while back. That's what any sensible organisation would do isn't it, sit around the table and agree a joint and realistic approach about what they want...before starting to negotiate.
They are throwing May a bone to try to spin it into something it's not to the hard Brexiteers in her party.
Are you really so blinkered? I'm a remainer who has accepted the vote and want the best for the future.
I reply to a post saying every time May says something the process goes back 2 steps.
I type out a headline suggesting the polar opposite is in fact the case, and all you can add is a straw man fact free opinion, based on no knowledge at all, saying its EU PR throwing May a bone. Beyond parody, but drearily predictable.
Except you didn't type out the headline in full did you? You left, possibly the most critical point at this stage out of your interpretation because it undermined your view that this a significant step forward.
I could go on but you clearly have a problem with pretty much anything I post on the subject and I haven't got the patience at the moment but in the same newspaper this morning Andrew Grice offers much the same opinion as myself that she's being given some assistance by the other leaders to assist her domestically.
The UK is being slowly suckered into a very bad deal with the EU. May has conceded publicly and privately that the UK will pay about 40b Euros for effectively a transition deal, ie a prolongation of UK membership of the EU until at least 2021. In exchange the UK has received precisely nothing except vague assurances that a trade deal will be discussed at some point, which we all knew would have to happen anyway.
In the meantime there is nobody in the EU or in the German government (the only one that really matters) who has said anything other than that the 4 freedoms are indivisible, ie that continued membership of or access to the single market will involve continued free movement of labour and jurusdiction by the ECJ.
So, we have committed to pay a large sum of money for what? In order to be told at some future point, when it suits the EU and after France and Germany have been able to lure businesses to their countries because of the indecision they themselves have prolonged, that access to the single market will mean effectively continued control by the EU under another name.
In the 4 years during which this charade is being played out, the Remainers who dominate political discourse in this country will continue to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt in order to demoralise those who supported Brexit. Look, they will say, we have lost money, we have a worse trade deal and no extra sovereignty, is it worth leaving the EU for this?
Those of us who want to see the referendum result carried out need to realise that the choice is not between a bad deal and no deal, but between Brexit and no Brexit.
You genuinely think that "remainers control political discourse" ?
All the guff and noise from politicians is from the Brexit hardliners, who might not spout fear but certainly spout misinformation and generally have nothing more to say than the latest sound bite.
It's inconvenient I know but facts and expert opinion are what should be guiding the debate but it is not being allowed to happen by being shouted down by the likes of Grayling, IDS, Fox, Johnson, Gove and Farage. They are the ones controlling the political discourse. The will of the people in course terms voted for Brexit but if ever there was such and ill informed debate in order to get that majority I'd like to see it. Every respectable and creditable informed source tells us that Brexit will be bad but let's listen to the group of chancers and liars above.
Why is it every time May opens her mouth negotiations seem to take two steps back?
The i newspaper headline this morning
Eu leaders agree to discuss free trade Stalemate broken. France and Germany stop blocking talks after May makes personal plea. PM agrees there will be no hard border with Ireland Residency deal close for EU citizens who live in Britain.
You missed off the bit about the EU asking for more clarity on the divorce bill oddly...
Yet when you read the article there's nothing really new in there at all. We were told they would start thinking about any future trade deal amongst themselves a while back. That's what any sensible organisation would do isn't it, sit around the table and agree a joint and realistic approach about what they want...before starting to negotiate.
They are throwing May a bone to try to spin it into something it's not to the hard Brexiteers in her party.
Are you really so blinkered? I'm a remainer who has accepted the vote and want the best for the future.
I reply to a post saying every time May says something the process goes back 2 steps.
I type out a headline suggesting the polar opposite is in fact the case, and all you can add is a straw man fact free opinion, based on no knowledge at all, saying its EU PR throwing May a bone. Beyond parody, but drearily predictable.
Except you didn't type out the headline in full did you? You left, possibly the most critical point at this stage out of your interpretation because it undermined your view that this a significant forward.
I could go on but you clearly have a problem with pretty much anything I post on the subject and I haven't got the patience at the moment but in the same newspaper this morning Andrew Grice offers much the same opinion as myself that she's being given some assistance by the other leaders to assist her domestically.
Deflection, now. I was pointing out the positives which undermined the original post I was replying to. You are now trying to focus on the one obvious part of the headline which we all know still needs to be ironed out. It's not, in my opinion, news. The parts I typed out are IMO news and are relevant to the original post I was replying to.
There are negatives of course, that's why I voted remain, but to ignore the positives, which you consistently do, looks small minded. Now, instead of you deflecting and making up (the worst possible) interpretations of what has happened, can you focus on the original post.
Do you think May's intervention resulted in negotiations going back two steps? Yes or no?
Why is it every time May opens her mouth negotiations seem to take two steps back?
The i newspaper headline this morning
Eu leaders agree to discuss free trade Stalemate broken. France and Germany stop blocking talks after May makes personal plea. PM agrees there will be no hard border with Ireland Residency deal close for EU citizens who live in Britain.
You missed off the bit about the EU asking for more clarity on the divorce bill oddly...
Yet when you read the article there's nothing really new in there at all. We were told they would start thinking about any future trade deal amongst themselves a while back. That's what any sensible organisation would do isn't it, sit around the table and agree a joint and realistic approach about what they want...before starting to negotiate.
They are throwing May a bone to try to spin it into something it's not to the hard Brexiteers in her party.
Are you really so blinkered? I'm a remainer who has accepted the vote and want the best for the future.
I reply to a post saying every time May says something the process goes back 2 steps.
I type out a headline suggesting the polar opposite is in fact the case, and all you can add is a straw man fact free opinion, based on no knowledge at all, saying its EU PR throwing May a bone. Beyond parody, but drearily predictable.
Except you didn't type out the headline in full did you? You left, possibly the most critical point at this stage out of your interpretation because it undermined your view that this a significant forward.
I could go on but you clearly have a problem with pretty much anything I post on the subject and I haven't got the patience at the moment but in the same newspaper this morning Andrew Grice offers much the same opinion as myself that she's being given some assistance by the other leaders to assist her domestically.
Deflection, now. I was pointing out the positives which undermined the original post I was replying to. You are now trying to focus on the one obvious part of the headline which we all know still needs to be ironed out. It's not, in my opinion, news. The parts I typed out are IMO news and are relevant to the original post I was replying to.
There are negatives of course, that's why I voted remain, but to ignore the positives, which you consistently do, looks small minded. Now, instead of you deflecting and making up (the worst possible) interpretations of what has happened, can you focus on the original post.
Do you think May's intervention resulted in negotiations going back two steps? Yes or no?
Where have I said her intervention has put the negotiations back? It clearly hasn't.
Why is it every time May opens her mouth negotiations seem to take two steps back?
The i newspaper headline this morning
Eu leaders agree to discuss free trade Stalemate broken. France and Germany stop blocking talks after May makes personal plea. PM agrees there will be no hard border with Ireland Residency deal close for EU citizens who live in Britain.
You missed off the bit about the EU asking for more clarity on the divorce bill oddly...
Yet when you read the article there's nothing really new in there at all. We were told they would start thinking about any future trade deal amongst themselves a while back. That's what any sensible organisation would do isn't it, sit around the table and agree a joint and realistic approach about what they want...before starting to negotiate.
They are throwing May a bone to try to spin it into something it's not to the hard Brexiteers in her party.
Are you really so blinkered? I'm a remainer who has accepted the vote and want the best for the future.
I reply to a post saying every time May says something the process goes back 2 steps.
I type out a headline suggesting the polar opposite is in fact the case, and all you can add is a straw man fact free opinion, based on no knowledge at all, saying its EU PR throwing May a bone. Beyond parody, but drearily predictable.
Except you didn't type out the headline in full did you? You left, possibly the most critical point at this stage out of your interpretation because it undermined your view that this a significant forward.
I could go on but you clearly have a problem with pretty much anything I post on the subject and I haven't got the patience at the moment but in the same newspaper this morning Andrew Grice offers much the same opinion as myself that she's being given some assistance by the other leaders to assist her domestically.
Deflection, now. I was pointing out the positives which undermined the original post I was replying to. You are now trying to focus on the one obvious part of the headline which we all know still needs to be ironed out. It's not, in my opinion, news. The parts I typed out are IMO news and are relevant to the original post I was replying to.
There are negatives of course, that's why I voted remain, but to ignore the positives, which you consistently do, looks small minded. Now, instead of you deflecting and making up (the worst possible) interpretations of what has happened, can you focus on the original post.
Do you think May's intervention resulted in negotiations going back two steps? Yes or no?
Where have I said her intervention has put the negotiations back? It clearly hasn't.
Fish said it mate, who Art quoted in his original post
The UK is being slowly suckered into a very bad deal with the EU. May has conceded publicly and privately that the UK will pay about 40b Euros for effectively a transition deal, ie a prolongation of UK membership of the EU until at least 2021. In exchange the UK has received precisely nothing except vague assurances that a trade deal will be discussed at some point, which we all knew would have to happen anyway.
In the meantime there is nobody in the EU or in the German government (the only one that really matters) who has said anything other than that the 4 freedoms are indivisible, ie that continued membership of or access to the single market will involve continued free movement of labour and jurusdiction by the ECJ.
So, we have committed to pay a large sum of money for what? In order to be told at some future point, when it suits the EU and after France and Germany have been able to lure businesses to their countries because of the indecision they themselves have prolonged, that access to the single market will mean effectively continued control by the EU under another name.
In the 4 years during which this charade is being played out, the Remainers who dominate political discourse in this country will continue to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt in order to demoralise those who supported Brexit. Look, they will say, we have lost money, we have a worse trade deal and no extra sovereignty, is it worth leaving the EU for this?
Those of us who want to see the referendum result carried out need to realise that the choice is not between a bad deal and no deal, but between Brexit and no Brexit.
The UK is being slowly suckered into a very bad deal .........
The UK was suckered into a very bad deal when the Brexit vote was delivered by the lies and fake news from the looney wing of the Tory party, Dark money and Russian trolls.
The UK is being slowly suckered into a very bad deal with the EU. May has conceded publicly and privately that the UK will pay about 40b Euros for effectively a transition deal, ie a prolongation of UK membership of the EU until at least 2021. In exchange the UK has received precisely nothing except vague assurances that a trade deal will be discussed at some point, which we all knew would have to happen anyway.
In the meantime there is nobody in the EU or in the German government (the only one that really matters) who has said anything other than that the 4 freedoms are indivisible, ie that continued membership of or access to the single market will involve continued free movement of labour and jurusdiction by the ECJ.
So, we have committed to pay a large sum of money for what? In order to be told at some future point, when it suits the EU and after France and Germany have been able to lure businesses to their countries because of the indecision they themselves have prolonged, that access to the single market will mean effectively continued control by the EU under another name.
In the 4 years during which this charade is being played out, the Remainers who dominate political discourse in this country will continue to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt in order to demoralise those who supported Brexit. Look, they will say, we have lost money, we have a worse trade deal and no extra sovereignty, is it worth leaving the EU for this?
Those of us who want to see the referendum result carried out need to realise that the choice is not between a bad deal and no deal, but between Brexit and no Brexit.
Your point of view seems to be shared by a lot of people who want Brexit.
However where it diversifies is when anybody is asked what brexit actually means.
The political discourse is also dominated by people on both sides who obsessively discuss money, few people in favour of brexit seem able to discuss issues such as the status of people, the conundrum of the hard/soft Irish border, security co-operation, the dependence of this country on overseas workers, academic and intellectual and cultural co-operation, and the aspects of Law that will generally apply.
There are people who don't give a toss about trade, or exit bills but do give a toss about everything else.
The brexit people seem to endlessly say that the non financials will sort themselves out somehow, but none of them, none of them are able to suggest solutions to the list I have indicated above. We are still hearing, 18 months after the vote, that there has been a common travel area in Ireland since the 1920's. This has been stated endlessly but it is not a solution. Neither is endlessly stating an aspiration.
I accept the vote sadly, but the brexit people simplt do not have a solution to the problems.
@Southbank you are in favour of brexit, can you suggest a solution to the Irish border problem, or will you do as so many others do and say 'that's what the politicians have to sort out, that's what we pay them for'?
Because those politicians simply can't sort it out can they?
Why is it every time May opens her mouth negotiations seem to take two steps back?
The i newspaper headline this morning
Eu leaders agree to discuss free trade Stalemate broken. France and Germany stop blocking talks after May makes personal plea. PM agrees there will be no hard border with Ireland Residency deal close for EU citizens who live in Britain.
You missed off the bit about the EU asking for more clarity on the divorce bill oddly...
Yet when you read the article there's nothing really new in there at all. We were told they would start thinking about any future trade deal amongst themselves a while back. That's what any sensible organisation would do isn't it, sit around the table and agree a joint and realistic approach about what they want...before starting to negotiate.
They are throwing May a bone to try to spin it into something it's not to the hard Brexiteers in her party.
Are you really so blinkered? I'm a remainer who has accepted the vote and want the best for the future.
I reply to a post saying every time May says something the process goes back 2 steps.
I type out a headline suggesting the polar opposite is in fact the case, and all you can add is a straw man fact free opinion, based on no knowledge at all, saying its EU PR throwing May a bone. Beyond parody, but drearily predictable.
Except you didn't type out the headline in full did you? You left, possibly the most critical point at this stage out of your interpretation because it undermined your view that this a significant forward.
I could go on but you clearly have a problem with pretty much anything I post on the subject and I haven't got the patience at the moment but in the same newspaper this morning Andrew Grice offers much the same opinion as myself that she's being given some assistance by the other leaders to assist her domestically.
Deflection, now. I was pointing out the positives which undermined the original post I was replying to. You are now trying to focus on the one obvious part of the headline which we all know still needs to be ironed out. It's not, in my opinion, news. The parts I typed out are IMO news and are relevant to the original post I was replying to.
There are negatives of course, that's why I voted remain, but to ignore the positives, which you consistently do, looks small minded. Now, instead of you deflecting and making up (the worst possible) interpretations of what has happened, can you focus on the original post.
Do you think May's intervention resulted in negotiations going back two steps? Yes or no?
Where have I said her intervention has put the negotiations back? It clearly hasn't.
Fish said it mate, who Art quoted in his original post
And I disagree with the point Fiiishy makes on this occasion.
In fairness I didn't pick up on the point @A-R-T-H-U-R was making so apologies for not addressing that directly and for getting my wires crossed. But everything else I said I stand by. The internal talks have been on the agenda for some while, they've been speaking about a no hard NI border and a residency deal for ages already with not much in the way of detail or agreement to show for it and it appears we are still miles apart on the money side of things.
As I said, by making more conciliatory noises they are helping her out domestically, which ultimately assists push the negotiations along, but this is a tiny step forward for where we are in the process.
@Southbank you are in favour of brexit, can you suggest a solution to the Irish border problem, or will you do as so many others do and say 'that's what the politicians have to sort out, that's what we pay them for'?
Because those politicians simply can't sort it out can they?
Here’s a thought – what if, in the interests of the Good Friday Agreement, the Common Travel Area and associated rights and, above all, maintaining peace, the UK simply refuses to impose a hard border or internal customs checks?
@Southbank you are in favour of brexit, can you suggest a solution to the Irish border problem, or will you do as so many others do and say 'that's what the politicians have to sort out, that's what we pay them for'?
Because those politicians simply can't sort it out can they?
Here’s a thought – what if, in the interests of the Good Friday Agreement, the Common Travel Area and associated rights and, above all, maintaining peace, the UK simply refuses to impose a hard border or internal customs checks?
I like the thought, but the implications are tricky. For a start it would mean no brexit is happening wouldn't it?
@Southbank you are in favour of brexit, can you suggest a solution to the Irish border problem, or will you do as so many others do and say 'that's what the politicians have to sort out, that's what we pay them for'?
Because those politicians simply can't sort it out can they?
Here’s a thought – what if, in the interests of the Good Friday Agreement, the Common Travel Area and associated rights and, above all, maintaining peace, the UK simply refuses to impose a hard border or internal customs checks?
@Southbank you are in favour of brexit, can you suggest a solution to the Irish border problem, or will you do as so many others do and say 'that's what the politicians have to sort out, that's what we pay them for'?
Because those politicians simply can't sort it out can they?
Here’s a thought – what if, in the interests of the Good Friday Agreement, the Common Travel Area and associated rights and, above all, maintaining peace, the UK simply refuses to impose a hard border or internal customs checks?
@Southbank you are in favour of brexit, can you suggest a solution to the Irish border problem, or will you do as so many others do and say 'that's what the politicians have to sort out, that's what we pay them for'?
Because those politicians simply can't sort it out can they?
Here’s a thought – what if, in the interests of the Good Friday Agreement, the Common Travel Area and associated rights and, above all, maintaining peace, the UK simply refuses to impose a hard border or internal customs checks?
I like the thought, but the implications are tricky. For a start it would mean no brexit is happening wouldn't it?
Not sure to be honest - I need to think it through.
Basically we would be saying that peace is paramount so this is an exception.
@Southbank you are in favour of brexit, can you suggest a solution to the Irish border problem, or will you do as so many others do and say 'that's what the politicians have to sort out, that's what we pay them for'?
Because those politicians simply can't sort it out can they?
Here’s a thought – what if, in the interests of the Good Friday Agreement, the Common Travel Area and associated rights and, above all, maintaining peace, the UK simply refuses to impose a hard border or internal customs checks?
I like the thought, but the implications are tricky. For a start it would mean no brexit is happening wouldn't it?
Not sure to be honest - I need to think it through.
Basically we would be saying that peace is paramount so this is an exception.
The exception is the problem. Either brexit means control of borders or it doesn't. It is not about hard or soft borders, but a border or no border.
@Southbank you are in favour of brexit, can you suggest a solution to the Irish border problem, or will you do as so many others do and say 'that's what the politicians have to sort out, that's what we pay them for'?
Because those politicians simply can't sort it out can they?
Here’s a thought – what if, in the interests of the Good Friday Agreement, the Common Travel Area and associated rights and, above all, maintaining peace, the UK simply refuses to impose a hard border or internal customs checks?
I like the thought, but the implications are tricky. For a start it would mean no brexit is happening wouldn't it?
Not sure to be honest - I need to think it through.
Basically we would be saying that peace is paramount so this is an exception.
The exception is the problem. Either brexit means control of borders or it doesn't. It is not about hard or soft borders, but a border or no border.
Maybe, maybe not ... we have a specific interest in maintaining peace - I do not see why this would not be acceptable to everyone, leave and remain.
@Southbank you are in favour of brexit, can you suggest a solution to the Irish border problem, or will you do as so many others do and say 'that's what the politicians have to sort out, that's what we pay them for'?
Because those politicians simply can't sort it out can they?
Here’s a thought – what if, in the interests of the Good Friday Agreement, the Common Travel Area and associated rights and, above all, maintaining peace, the UK simply refuses to impose a hard border or internal customs checks?
I like the thought, but the implications are tricky. For a start it would mean no brexit is happening wouldn't it?
Not sure to be honest - I need to think it through.
Basically we would be saying that peace is paramount so this is an exception.
The exception is the problem. Either brexit means control of borders or it doesn't. It is not about hard or soft borders, but a border or no border.
You still don't fully understand what a lot of people meant by controlling the borders, do you?
@Southbank you are in favour of brexit, can you suggest a solution to the Irish border problem, or will you do as so many others do and say 'that's what the politicians have to sort out, that's what we pay them for'?
Because those politicians simply can't sort it out can they?
Here’s a thought – what if, in the interests of the Good Friday Agreement, the Common Travel Area and associated rights and, above all, maintaining peace, the UK simply refuses to impose a hard border or internal customs checks?
I like the thought, but the implications are tricky. For a start it would mean no brexit is happening wouldn't it?
Not sure to be honest - I need to think it through.
Basically we would be saying that peace is paramount so this is an exception.
The exception is the problem. Either brexit means control of borders or it doesn't. It is not about hard or soft borders, but a border or no border.
Maybe, maybe not ... we have a specific interest in maintaining peace - I do not see why this would not be acceptable to everyone, leave and remain.
Peace is of course paramount but not having any kind of border controls for trade would cause enormous issues once the UK is forced to use the WTO tariffs.
The Irish border issue is as complicated as it gets and Seth has been pointing this out for as long as I can remember.
@Southbank you are in favour of brexit, can you suggest a solution to the Irish border problem, or will you do as so many others do and say 'that's what the politicians have to sort out, that's what we pay them for'?
Because those politicians simply can't sort it out can they?
Here’s a thought – what if, in the interests of the Good Friday Agreement, the Common Travel Area and associated rights and, above all, maintaining peace, the UK simply refuses to impose a hard border or internal customs checks?
Then the UK crash out of the EU with no deal.
Why?
Why would the EU accept no border controls? Are there any other EU borders where there are no customs/border controls and checks? Serious question. I assume the answer is no.
@Southbank you are in favour of brexit, can you suggest a solution to the Irish border problem, or will you do as so many others do and say 'that's what the politicians have to sort out, that's what we pay them for'?
Because those politicians simply can't sort it out can they?
Here’s a thought – what if, in the interests of the Good Friday Agreement, the Common Travel Area and associated rights and, above all, maintaining peace, the UK simply refuses to impose a hard border or internal customs checks?
I like the thought, but the implications are tricky. For a start it would mean no brexit is happening wouldn't it?
Not sure to be honest - I need to think it through.
Basically we would be saying that peace is paramount so this is an exception.
The exception is the problem. Either brexit means control of borders or it doesn't. It is not about hard or soft borders, but a border or no border.
Maybe, maybe not ... we have a specific interest in maintaining peace - I do not see why this would not be acceptable to everyone, leave and remain.
Peace is of course paramount but not having any kind of border controls for trade would cause enormous issues once the UK is forced to use the WTO tariffs.
The Irish border issue is as complicated as it gets and Seth has been pointing this out for as long as I can remember.
I do not think my proposal causes a problem for the UK - it may not be perfect for the EU, but ... as we both agree, peace is paramount.
@Southbank you are in favour of brexit, can you suggest a solution to the Irish border problem, or will you do as so many others do and say 'that's what the politicians have to sort out, that's what we pay them for'?
Because those politicians simply can't sort it out can they?
Here’s a thought – what if, in the interests of the Good Friday Agreement, the Common Travel Area and associated rights and, above all, maintaining peace, the UK simply refuses to impose a hard border or internal customs checks?
I like the thought, but the implications are tricky. For a start it would mean no brexit is happening wouldn't it?
Not sure to be honest - I need to think it through.
Basically we would be saying that peace is paramount so this is an exception.
The exception is the problem. Either brexit means control of borders or it doesn't. It is not about hard or soft borders, but a border or no border.
You still don't fully understand what a lot of people meant by controlling the borders, do you?
I am prepared to be enlightened. But the Bradford game comes first.
Comments
I'm a remainer who has accepted the vote and want the best for the future.
I reply to a post saying every time May says something the process goes back 2 steps.
I type out a headline suggesting the polar opposite is in fact the case, and all you can add is a straw man fact free opinion, based on no knowledge at all, saying its EU PR throwing May a bone. Beyond parody, but drearily predictable.
In the meantime there is nobody in the EU or in the German government (the only one that really matters) who has said anything other than that the 4 freedoms are indivisible, ie that continued membership of or access to the single market will involve continued free movement of labour and jurusdiction by the ECJ.
So, we have committed to pay a large sum of money for what?
In order to be told at some future point, when it suits the EU and after France and Germany have been able to lure businesses to their countries because of the indecision they themselves have prolonged, that access to the single market will mean effectively continued control by the EU under another name.
In the 4 years during which this charade is being played out, the Remainers who dominate political discourse in this country will continue to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt in order to demoralise those who supported Brexit. Look, they will say, we have lost money, we have a worse trade deal and no extra sovereignty, is it worth leaving the EU for this?
Those of us who want to see the referendum result carried out need to realise that the choice is not between a bad deal and no deal, but between Brexit and no Brexit.
'A decent 24 hours for May' with an editorial which then proceeds to portray the negotiations in the most negative way possible, but nevertheless a rare nudge towards positivity from the paper.
Now I can't stand the PM, but there's just no balance with some people.
I could go on but you clearly have a problem with pretty much anything I post on the subject and I haven't got the patience at the moment but in the same newspaper this morning Andrew Grice offers much the same opinion as myself that she's being given some assistance by the other leaders to assist her domestically.
independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-brussels-brexit-negotiations-tory-brexiteers-no-deal-oust-a8011021.html
All the guff and noise from politicians is from the Brexit hardliners, who might not spout fear but certainly spout misinformation and generally have nothing more to say than the latest sound bite.
It's inconvenient I know but facts and expert opinion are what should be guiding the debate but it is not being allowed to happen by being shouted down by the likes of Grayling, IDS, Fox, Johnson, Gove and Farage. They are the ones controlling the political discourse. The will of the people in course terms voted for Brexit but if ever there was such and ill informed debate in order to get that majority I'd like to see it. Every respectable and creditable informed source tells us that Brexit will be bad but let's listen to the group of chancers and liars above.
There are negatives of course, that's why I voted remain, but to ignore the positives, which you consistently do, looks small minded.
Now, instead of you deflecting and making up (the worst possible) interpretations of what has happened, can you focus on the original post.
Do you think May's intervention resulted in negotiations going back two steps?
Yes or no?
Who knew the sordid sight of our PM sobbing and begging for her career would have been such an effective tactic?
However where it diversifies is when anybody is asked what brexit actually means.
The political discourse is also dominated by people on both sides who obsessively discuss money, few people in favour of brexit seem able to discuss issues such as the status of people, the conundrum of the hard/soft Irish border, security co-operation, the dependence of this country on overseas workers, academic and intellectual and cultural co-operation, and the aspects of Law that will generally apply.
There are people who don't give a toss about trade, or exit bills but do give a toss about everything else.
The brexit people seem to endlessly say that the non financials will sort themselves out somehow, but none of them, none of them are able to suggest solutions to the list I have indicated above. We are still hearing, 18 months after the vote, that there has been a common travel area in Ireland since the 1920's. This has been stated endlessly but it is not a solution. Neither is endlessly stating an aspiration.
I accept the vote sadly, but the brexit people simplt do not have a solution to the problems.
@Southbank you are in favour of brexit, can you suggest a solution to the Irish border problem, or will you do as so many others do and say 'that's what the politicians have to sort out, that's what we pay them for'?
Because those politicians simply can't sort it out can they?
In fairness I didn't pick up on the point @A-R-T-H-U-R was making so apologies for not addressing that directly and for getting my wires crossed. But everything else I said I stand by. The internal talks have been on the agenda for some while, they've been speaking about a no hard NI border and a residency deal for ages already with not much in the way of detail or agreement to show for it and it appears we are still miles apart on the money side of things.
As I said, by making more conciliatory noises they are helping her out domestically, which ultimately assists push the negotiations along, but this is a tiny step forward for where we are in the process.
Just IMO of course.
They could hardly take the UK to the European Court or send the bailiffs round.
Here’s a thought – what if, in the interests of the Good Friday Agreement, the Common Travel Area and associated rights and, above all, maintaining peace, the UK simply refuses to impose a hard border or internal customs checks?
For a start it would mean no brexit is happening wouldn't it?
Basically we would be saying that peace is paramount so this is an exception.
Either brexit means control of borders or it doesn't.
It is not about hard or soft borders, but a border or no border.
The Irish border issue is as complicated as it gets and Seth has been pointing this out for as long as I can remember.
I do not think my proposal causes a problem for the UK - it may not be perfect for the EU, but ... as we both agree, peace is paramount.