So shall we cancel hard Brexit because we cannot resollve the NI/ROI border issue ?
Perhaps, if Cameron had focused on being a Prime Minister for the whole of the UK, instead of his own self interests he might have thought this through and the implications it might have.
As it is, most of the Leave leaders and the Cabinet didn't even realise that they actually have TWO borders to deal with here.
P.S. We could be about to find out precisely the impact of the EU, or the lack of it. The Speaker has just given the Government until tomorrow night to publish the 58 secret reports into the impact of Brexit.
P.S. We could be about to find out precisely the impact of the EU, or the lack of it. The Speaker has just given the Government until tomorrow night to publish the 58 secret reports into the impact of Brexit.
So shall we cancel hard Brexit because we cannot resollve the NI/ROI border issue ?
There are possible resolutions to the border issue, none of them good (except absolutely no change).
What is hard brexit anyway, does anybody know?
At a guess, I'd say any attempt to negotiate a successful departure from the EU that is reliant upon David Davis' negotiation skills, Liam Fox's economic acumen, Boris Johnson's diplomacy, and Theresa May's leadership....
P.S. We could be about to find out precisely the impact of the EU, or the lack of it. The Speaker has just given the Government until tomorrow night to publish the 58 secret reports into the impact of Brexit.
You'd like to hope there will be something of substance but I fear that they will be redacted to the point of being useless and/or there will be so much information contained within a that it will be almost overwhelming to properly analyse anything.
The reports could say that the country is 100% doomed to fail but Leavers wouldn't change their minds. The lines are drawn and everyone is too far down the path and too proud to back down.
The reports could say that the country is 100% doomed to fail but Leavers wouldn't change their minds. The lines are drawn and everyone is too far down the path and too proud to back down.
I think this is both a really interesting point and depressingly all too true. We see it on here, and in everyday life, all too often where a relevant point is made, backed up with data, etc. but because the recipient's existing bias on the issue is being challenged by the new information they subconsciously, or in many cases consciously, choose to ignore it, downplay it's importance or attack the source.
Do we all do it and does it cut both ways? Of course, to one extent or another, but the Remain campaign, poor as it was, should have realised it was going to have to counter decades worth of confirmation bias and it failed miserably to do so.
We'll see what's in the reports later. I'm guessing it's not packed full of good news or they would have used them before now, but as you say, we've long since entered the realms of being bloodyminded about it all.
Historians and social scientists are going to be fascinated by this period in years to come.
One of the really good things about Brexit is the way that there will be no impact on things like food standards, etc. which will provide the greatest possible a) reassurance to the public and b) convergence with EU rules and regulations that will allow the easiest free trade deal in history to be negotiated.
When you add to that the prospect of a trade deal with the US that will respect the UK position in these regards, as the Trump administration seems determined to negotiate, there's absolutely nothing to worry about.
If the UK falls in line with what Ross says, access to EU markets for UK agricultural products will be affected. And I cannot see the EU agreeing a comprehensive trade deal with the UK that does not allow for change to import/export arrangements in the event of a US-UK deal.
One of the really good things about Brexit is the way that there will be no impact on things like food standards, etc. which will provide the greatest possible a) reassurance to the public and b) convergence with EU rules and regulations that will allow the easiest free trade deal in history to be negotiated.
When you add to that the prospect of a trade deal with the US that will respect the UK position in these regards, as the Trump administration seems determined to negotiate, there's absolutely nothing to worry about.
If the UK falls in line with what Ross says, access to EU markets for UK agricultural products will be affected. And I cannot see the EU agreeing a comprehensive trade deal with the UK that does not allow for change to import/export arrangements in the event of a US-UK deal.
Ahh...now we're talking. Chlorinated chicken's back on the menu.
As I've said many times in these debates the EU* and US have a vastly different approach to the subject of food safety, product safety and consumer protection and the Americans will try to impose their approach as part of any trade deal.
"...Ross also bemoaned the lack of US involvement in the EU standard-setting process. These “hindrances... [are] potentially ones that the UK could help solve if you don’t simply adopt EU trade policy in its entirety [after Brexit]”, he added" = they are going to try to drive a coach and horses through our current food/product safety/consumer protection laws as part of any trade deal.
*(The EU approach is being worked on as the basis for good practice in other countries as we speak, which makes our decision to bin it all the more bizarre).
So in order to trade with the eu who are our biggest export market and the USA not only will industry have to be governed by existing eu standards in order to trade with their biggest customers they will also need to abide by standards set by the USA and presumably Uncle Tom Cobbly and all.
All that restrictive eu red tape will start to look very attractive.
But Randy, if there is a violent outcome (which nobody wants) won't it be their own countrymen that are to blame ?
Hmmmn. It is OK to usher violence back in as long as there is somewhere to lay the blame? Really? If it is about blame for violence in Ireland throughout History it is clearly down to the English unless you blame the Irish for reacting to centuries of English near genocidal behaviour? I don't want violence to return and instead of searching for who to blame it is better to search for solutions.
There will be a solution.
A hard border, so if you are a Republican or Unionist in NI or ROI - choose which side of it you want to live and go there.
I'm going to try very hard not to be derogatory about this "solution".
It is, however, on a par with the nonsensical bollocks that extreme Republican Nationalists spout about people going back to where they came from (talking about the descendants of those arriving during the Ulster Plantation or even earlier).
You are talking, on both sides of the Nationalist/Unionist divide of people whose families, in most cases, will have lived in a location for hundreds of years. They do not just get up and move, because of political stupidity on the part of others. Inasmuch as they need to choose where they want to live, they have already done so. Forcing people to leave their homes, either at the barrel of a gun or by punitive political actions, is not a good look.
It's depressing, if your statement represents a wider view, that people can be so dismissive about their fellow subjects/citizens/human beings.
I was in the Rose & Crown puffing my way through 20 B&H when the guvnor told me there had been a democratic vote to change the rules about smoking.
He said I had a choice - give up smoking or do it outside. I protested that I had been puffing away for years in there without any issue.
He said - sorry, but the rules have changed and you have to change your behaviour to suit.
Yep, it was parliament that voted it through. Democracy in action
Yes, I guess they were enacting the will of the voters.
Stuff changed and I was affected.
Except they weren't. Read what the Labour manifesto said, and compare with what they did. In that case people didn't vote for it, in the case of the EU vote people did not know what they were voting for. Same difference.
Take this bunch of tools - 70% of them voted for Brexit, now look at the mealy mouthed clowns:
But Randy, if there is a violent outcome (which nobody wants) won't it be their own countrymen that are to blame ?
Hmmmn. It is OK to usher violence back in as long as there is somewhere to lay the blame? Really? If it is about blame for violence in Ireland throughout History it is clearly down to the English unless you blame the Irish for reacting to centuries of English near genocidal behaviour? I don't want violence to return and instead of searching for who to blame it is better to search for solutions.
There will be a solution.
A hard border, so if you are a Republican or Unionist in NI or ROI - choose which side of it you want to live and go there.
I'm going to try very hard not to be derogatory about this "solution".
It is, however, on a par with the nonsensical bollocks that extreme Republican Nationalists spout about people going back to where they came from (talking about the descendants of those arriving during the Ulster Plantation or even earlier).
You are talking, on both sides of the Nationalist/Unionist divide of people whose families, in most cases, will have lived in a location for hundreds of years. They do not just get up and move, because of political stupidity on the part of others. Inasmuch as they need to choose where they want to live, they have already done so. Forcing people to leave their homes, either at the barrel of a gun or by punitive political actions, is not a good look.
It's depressing, if your statement represents a wider view, that people can be so dismissive about their fellow subjects/citizens/human beings.
I was in the Rose & Crown puffing my way through 20 B&H when the guvnor told me there had been a democratic vote to change the rules about smoking.
He said I had a choice - give up smoking or do it outside. I protested that I had been puffing away for years in there without any issue.
He said - sorry, but the rules have changed and you have to change your behaviour to suit.
Yep, it was parliament that voted it through. Democracy in action
Yes, I guess they were enacting the will of the voters.
Stuff changed and I was affected.
Except they weren't. Read what the Labour manifesto said, and compare with what they did. In that case people didn't vote for it, in the case of the EU vote people did not know what they were voting for. Same difference.
Take this bunch of tools - 70% of them voted for Brexit, now look at the mealy mouthed clowns:
But Randy, if there is a violent outcome (which nobody wants) won't it be their own countrymen that are to blame ?
Hmmmn. It is OK to usher violence back in as long as there is somewhere to lay the blame? Really? If it is about blame for violence in Ireland throughout History it is clearly down to the English unless you blame the Irish for reacting to centuries of English near genocidal behaviour? I don't want violence to return and instead of searching for who to blame it is better to search for solutions.
There will be a solution.
A hard border, so if you are a Republican or Unionist in NI or ROI - choose which side of it you want to live and go there.
I'm going to try very hard not to be derogatory about this "solution".
It is, however, on a par with the nonsensical bollocks that extreme Republican Nationalists spout about people going back to where they came from (talking about the descendants of those arriving during the Ulster Plantation or even earlier).
You are talking, on both sides of the Nationalist/Unionist divide of people whose families, in most cases, will have lived in a location for hundreds of years. They do not just get up and move, because of political stupidity on the part of others. Inasmuch as they need to choose where they want to live, they have already done so. Forcing people to leave their homes, either at the barrel of a gun or by punitive political actions, is not a good look.
It's depressing, if your statement represents a wider view, that people can be so dismissive about their fellow subjects/citizens/human beings.
I was in the Rose & Crown puffing my way through 20 B&H when the guvnor told me there had been a democratic vote to change the rules about smoking.
He said I had a choice - give up smoking or do it outside. I protested that I had been puffing away for years in there without any issue.
He said - sorry, but the rules have changed and you have to change your behaviour to suit.
Yep, it was parliament that voted it through. Democracy in action
Yes, I guess they were enacting the will of the voters.
Stuff changed and I was affected.
Except they weren't. Read what the Labour manifesto said, and compare with what they did. In that case people didn't vote for it, in the case of the EU vote people did not know what they were voting for. Same difference.
Take this bunch of tools - 70% of them voted for Brexit, now look at the mealy mouthed clowns:
But Randy, if there is a violent outcome (which nobody wants) won't it be their own countrymen that are to blame ?
Hmmmn. It is OK to usher violence back in as long as there is somewhere to lay the blame? Really? If it is about blame for violence in Ireland throughout History it is clearly down to the English unless you blame the Irish for reacting to centuries of English near genocidal behaviour? I don't want violence to return and instead of searching for who to blame it is better to search for solutions.
There will be a solution.
A hard border, so if you are a Republican or Unionist in NI or ROI - choose which side of it you want to live and go there.
I'm going to try very hard not to be derogatory about this "solution".
It is, however, on a par with the nonsensical bollocks that extreme Republican Nationalists spout about people going back to where they came from (talking about the descendants of those arriving during the Ulster Plantation or even earlier).
You are talking, on both sides of the Nationalist/Unionist divide of people whose families, in most cases, will have lived in a location for hundreds of years. They do not just get up and move, because of political stupidity on the part of others. Inasmuch as they need to choose where they want to live, they have already done so. Forcing people to leave their homes, either at the barrel of a gun or by punitive political actions, is not a good look.
It's depressing, if your statement represents a wider view, that people can be so dismissive about their fellow subjects/citizens/human beings.
I was in the Rose & Crown puffing my way through 20 B&H when the guvnor told me there had been a democratic vote to change the rules about smoking.
He said I had a choice - give up smoking or do it outside. I protested that I had been puffing away for years in there without any issue.
He said - sorry, but the rules have changed and you have to change your behaviour to suit.
Yep, it was parliament that voted it through. Democracy in action
Yes, I guess they were enacting the will of the voters.
Stuff changed and I was affected.
Except they weren't. Read what the Labour manifesto said, and compare with what they did. In that case people didn't vote for it, in the case of the EU vote people did not know what they were voting for. Same difference.
Take this bunch of tools - 70% of them voted for Brexit, now look at the mealy mouthed clowns:
Martin Vickers MP, representing Cleethorpes, is some special kind of genius.
Mr Vickers said the possibility of free trade status for northern Lincolnshire’s ports was a sign of post-Brexit optimism.
“We couldn’t do that if we wanted to at the moment,” said the Eurosceptic Tory.
“But once we get control of our own economy again, that is one of the things that could be looked at and which could be very beneficial.
“That emphasises the freedoms and opportunities that could be opening up after Brexit.”
Would this be an exciting post-Brexit freedom and opportunity to attempt to replicate what the UK has as a member of the EU (which, given that the article lists Bremerhaven and Boulogne-sur-Mer as rivals who "will be looking to capitalise after Brexit" may not be something to which the EU would agree)?
So what if the UK could not make such an arrangement if it wanted at present? It's not as if there is any need within the the current arrangements.
Aren't they supposed to be publishing their doubtless horrifying report today?
I imagine they've had to send out for some more of those special redacting marker pen but I wouldn't worry, according to David Davis we're all too thick to understand them anyway.
I am not getting excited over any reports. One thing this whole sorry mess has consistently shown is that the desire for brexit (whatever that is) trumps any information about anything. It was the will of the people d'yer see?
In case you can't wait for the report, here is a comprehensive and exhaustive list of benefits and things to look forward to of a Tory coordinated Brexit:
So shall we cancel hard Brexit because we cannot resollve the NI/ROI border issue ?
Yes.
So does that mean the voters in the 1970's who voted to join the EEC did not realise that we would never be able to leave - even though there was an "article 50 (or whatever it was called then) " option in the agreement to join ?
When the EEC morphed into the EU via the Maastricht treaty - parliament voted but the voters did not get a direct say in giving up our sovereignty
So shall we cancel hard Brexit because we cannot resollve the NI/ROI border issue ?
Yes.
So does that mean the voters in the 1970's who voted to join the EEC did not realise that we would never be able to leave - even though there was an "article 50 (or whatever it was called then) " option in the agreement to join ?
When the EEC morphed into the EU via the Maastricht treaty - parliament voted but the voters did not get a direct say in giving up our sovereignty
If so, I reckon they were misled.
Nobody is suggesting that we can't ever leave, but the benefits of leaving have to outweigh the consequences. The general drift of what people are saying is, that it is absolute folly to leave now as:
1. There are many very serious consequences associated with Brexit that hadn't been considered before the referendum and that cannot be adequately managed at present. 2. The benefits that people thought they were voting for don't look like materialising. 3. We look to be losing many benefits of EU membership that people hadn't understood before. 4. We have no serious plan for what our departure should look like, either in terms of where we want to be or the process for getting us there. This should have been clear before the referendum.
As a result of losing Cameron's big game of political poker we are sleepwalking into a nightmare. It's time to wake up.
So shall we cancel hard Brexit because we cannot resollve the NI/ROI border issue ?
Yes.
So does that mean the voters in the 1970's who voted to join the EEC did not realise that we would never be able to leave - even though there was an "article 50 (or whatever it was called then) " option in the agreement to join ?
When the EEC morphed into the EU via the Maastricht treaty - parliament voted but the voters did not get a direct say in giving up our sovereignty
If so, I reckon they were misled.
Voters did not vote to join the EEC in the 1970s.
We have not given up our "sovereignty", it is a lie.
UK voters have only been given a direct say in anything 3 times in history - it's the way the parliamentary process you are so keen to "defend" works Phil...
So shall we cancel hard Brexit because we cannot resollve the NI/ROI border issue ?
Yes.
So does that mean the voters in the 1970's who voted to join the EEC did not realise that we would never be able to leave - even though there was an "article 50 (or whatever it was called then) " option in the agreement to join ?
When the EEC morphed into the EU via the Maastricht treaty - parliament voted but the voters did not get a direct say in giving up our sovereignty
If so, I reckon they were misled.
The UK joined the EEC, approved by Parliamentary vote, followed by a referendum where the vote was to remain a member state.
UK membership of the EEC/EC/EU has always been within the context of a freely-entered into Treaty. As with other Treaties, the UK could have withdrawn at any time. Also like all other Treaties, a decision to withdraw will have consequences.
There was no Article 50 mechanism before the Treaty of Lisbon (which came in to force in 2009). All that it does is formalise a mechanism for leaving, whereby the departure can be arranged in the most friendly and orderly manner possible (with reference to the shape of intended future trade relationships - albeit agreement on future trade relationships, the devil in the detail, would not be formalised).
The UK always could, and can tomorrow if it so desires, simply withdraw from its EU membership; but to do so would be chaotic and would cause severe damage to the UK (and probably the EU, though much more to the UK), because all constituent elements and benefits of the UK's EU membership would cease to apply without any hope of replacement any time soon.
Leaving without any agreement could, for example, prevent you driving in the EU if you do not hold an International Driving Licence, it could cause many flights to be stopped (mostly because UK airlines would be much more limited in where they could fly between), and the likelihood of impossible congestion at ports. It would certainly make it much more difficult to agree any trade deal with the EU, and possibly wider afield, any time soon.
Must have been out that day when my vote came in to join this freely entered treaty. How democratic of the british government and paradise island EU to give me that choice... They did didn't they.
So shall we cancel hard Brexit because we cannot resollve the NI/ROI border issue ?
Yes.
So does that mean the voters in the 1970's who voted to join the EEC did not realise that we would never be able to leave - even though there was an "article 50 (or whatever it was called then) " option in the agreement to join ?
When the EEC morphed into the EU via the Maastricht treaty - parliament voted but the voters did not get a direct say in giving up our sovereignty
If so, I reckon they were misled.
Quite apart from everything else written by @Stig , @Algarveaddick and @NornIrishAddick . What has what you have to say got to do with your original question?
You asked, "So shall we cancel hard Brexit because we cannot resolve the NI/ROI border issue ?" And I replied "Yes".
Unless of course you are pointing out the deficiencies of giving a yes/no answer to a complex question, which if that is the case I whole heatedly agree with you.
Comments
As it is, most of the Leave leaders and the Cabinet didn't even realise that they actually have TWO borders to deal with here.
Do we all do it and does it cut both ways? Of course, to one extent or another, but the Remain campaign, poor as it was, should have realised it was going to have to counter decades worth of confirmation bias and it failed miserably to do so.
We'll see what's in the reports later. I'm guessing it's not packed full of good news or they would have used them before now, but as you say, we've long since entered the realms of being bloodyminded about it all.
Historians and social scientists are going to be fascinated by this period in years to come.
One of the really good things about Brexit is the way that there will be no impact on things like food standards, etc. which will provide the greatest possible a) reassurance to the public and b) convergence with EU rules and regulations that will allow the easiest free trade deal in history to be negotiated.
When you add to that the prospect of a trade deal with the US that will respect the UK position in these regards, as the Trump administration seems determined to negotiate, there's absolutely nothing to worry about.
Unless, for example, you happen to pay attention to what senior US officials, such as Wilbur Ross, say: https://theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/06/trump-ross-says-uk-us-trade-deal-eu-brexit-chlorinated-chicken.
If the UK falls in line with what Ross says, access to EU markets for UK agricultural products will be affected. And I cannot see the EU agreeing a comprehensive trade deal with the UK that does not allow for change to import/export arrangements in the event of a US-UK deal.
As I've said many times in these debates the EU* and US have a vastly different approach to the subject of food safety, product safety and consumer protection and the Americans will try to impose their approach as part of any trade deal.
"...Ross also bemoaned the lack of US involvement in the EU standard-setting process. These “hindrances... [are] potentially ones that the UK could help solve if you don’t simply adopt EU trade policy in its entirety [after Brexit]”, he added" = they are going to try to drive a coach and horses through our current food/product safety/consumer protection laws as part of any trade deal.
*(The EU approach is being worked on as the basis for good practice in other countries as we speak, which makes our decision to bin it all the more bizarre).
All that restrictive eu red tape will start to look very attractive.
Take this bunch of tools - 70% of them voted for Brexit, now look at the mealy mouthed clowns:
http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-news/brexit-exemption-sought-grimsby-seafood-736984
Martin Vickers MP, representing Cleethorpes, is some special kind of genius.
Mr Vickers said the possibility of free trade status for northern Lincolnshire’s ports was a sign of post-Brexit optimism.
“We couldn’t do that if we wanted to at the moment,” said the Eurosceptic Tory.
“But once we get control of our own economy again, that is one of the things that could be looked at and which could be very beneficial.
“That emphasises the freedoms and opportunities that could be opening up after Brexit.”
Would this be an exciting post-Brexit freedom and opportunity to attempt to replicate what the UK has as a member of the EU (which, given that the article lists Bremerhaven and Boulogne-sur-Mer as rivals who "will be looking to capitalise after Brexit" may not be something to which the EU would agree)?
So what if the UK could not make such an arrangement if it wanted at present? It's not as if there is any need within the the current arrangements.
One thing this whole sorry mess has consistently shown is that the desire for brexit (whatever that is) trumps any information about anything.
It was the will of the people d'yer see?
When the EEC morphed into the EU via the Maastricht treaty - parliament voted but the voters did not get a direct say in giving up our sovereignty
If so, I reckon they were misled.
1. There are many very serious consequences associated with Brexit that hadn't been considered before the referendum and that cannot be adequately managed at present.
2. The benefits that people thought they were voting for don't look like materialising.
3. We look to be losing many benefits of EU membership that people hadn't understood before.
4. We have no serious plan for what our departure should look like, either in terms of where we want to be or the process for getting us there. This should have been clear before the referendum.
As a result of losing Cameron's big game of political poker we are sleepwalking into a nightmare. It's time to wake up.
We have not given up our "sovereignty", it is a lie.
UK voters have only been given a direct say in anything 3 times in history - it's the way the parliamentary process you are so keen to "defend" works Phil...
UK membership of the EEC/EC/EU has always been within the context of a freely-entered into Treaty. As with other Treaties, the UK could have withdrawn at any time. Also like all other Treaties, a decision to withdraw will have consequences.
There was no Article 50 mechanism before the Treaty of Lisbon (which came in to force in 2009). All that it does is formalise a mechanism for leaving, whereby the departure can be arranged in the most friendly and orderly manner possible (with reference to the shape of intended future trade relationships - albeit agreement on future trade relationships, the devil in the detail, would not be formalised).
The UK always could, and can tomorrow if it so desires, simply withdraw from its EU membership; but to do so would be chaotic and would cause severe damage to the UK (and probably the EU, though much more to the UK), because all constituent elements and benefits of the UK's EU membership would cease to apply without any hope of replacement any time soon.
Leaving without any agreement could, for example, prevent you driving in the EU if you do not hold an International Driving Licence, it could cause many flights to be stopped (mostly because UK airlines would be much more limited in where they could fly between), and the likelihood of impossible congestion at ports. It would certainly make it much more difficult to agree any trade deal with the EU, and possibly wider afield, any time soon.
You asked, "So shall we cancel hard Brexit because we cannot resolve the NI/ROI border issue ?" And I replied "Yes".
Unless of course you are pointing out the deficiencies of giving a yes/no answer to a complex question, which if that is the case I whole heatedly agree with you.