Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[AndrewJB]

You are wasting your breath, both Andrew and Martin are remainers at all costs, anything that delays leaving is good and supported, they continue to post only what other remainers or articles that point to the failing of leave. This is coupled with there continued insistence of BJ being a liar and therefore no one should ever vote for him or the Tory party.

I stopped replying or questioning anything they post as they do not think for themselves or look at any point from both sides and think, well that could work or I never thought of that, there mantra is reflected throughout the whole of this post.

I think you’re misrepresenting me somewhat. Never think for myself?

I’ve said it’s quite unfair for Johnson to be smeared over his personal life, but that’s just the way politics goes (not many raised issues about the press smears on Corbyn), and I think that over time some older Tory voting women might end up repelled by him.

You’re also wrong in claiming I’m Remain at all costs. My Brexit would be to leave the EU but stay in everything else - CU, single market, and the many areas of cooperation we have. This would nullify any Irish border issues, and reduce to a minimum any trade disruption, or otherwise to police and security cooperation, etc. Britain could loosen ties further in the future - such as when there actually is a technology solution to the Irish border, and this path wouldn’t require keeping no deal on the table as a belligerent (and frankly useless) bargaining chip, so would be far less expensive than the present government’s way (which is yet to succeed at all). My path wouldn’t work for the foaming at the mouth type brexiters (it doesn’t involve bricking up the chunnel), but in many ways is far more realistic than their unicorns.

[AndyClaret]

And it’s changed the figures of that poll. But hey facts.

Apologies, it's a fake account and a fake poll.

[Burnley Ace]

Martin,
how about just for once you answer the reverse question which I have asked you and others.

Tell me what was so good about being in the EU from the day we joined up until now, this is historical, and factual because it happened not what will be in someone's imagined future reality. Just try to explain the benefits of remaining, I can immediately give you one, not having to wait in a passport line, that would be a benefit of remaining.

I can remember before the EU, I can remember the time since we joined and I can not come up with anything that fundamentally made my life, my family's better by joining the EU, or the ultimate requirement for me, it made the UK better.

If your a famer you could add that having subsidies such that I don't have to farm as much is good, isolated and does not help the UK as a whole, so these are examples of what could be better but are in fact irrelevant to the majority of British people.

The ability to work in any EU country without needing a visa, free healthcare in any EU country, improved health and safety rules, cleaner water, cheaper produce, increased investment in our local infrastructure, EAW, cheap flights, cheap labour, more flexible workforce, cultural investment, expansion of our European export market.

[aggi]

Why oh why did Labour abandon the leave vote?? Idiots. Absolute idiots.

They're probably looking at real polling rather than a clearly made up twitter account.

[Burnley Ace]

You’re also wrong in claiming I’m Remain at all costs. My Brexit would be to leave the EU but stay in everything else - CU, single market, and the many areas of cooperation we have

What is it you actually want to leave?

[martin_p]

If you look at the real polling organisations the Tory lead is generally around the 6-8% mark, although there are some outliers that give a bigger lead.

[AndrewJB]

The ability to work in any EU country without needing a visa, free healthcare in any EU country, improved health and safety rules, cleaner water, cheaper produce, increased investment in our local infrastructure, EAW, cheap flights, cheap labour, more flexible workforce, cultural investment, expansion of our European export market.

By pooling our sovereignty with other members it allows us to negotiate trade deals with big economic powers (such as the US) on an equal basis. The areas of cooperation such as security, and scientific innovation, in which Britain often leads. The absence of war between members, after the most violent half century eh in history. The So is Charter, and commitment to democracy, the rule of law, and human rights.

[KateR]

If you can point to where you’ve asked me this question before I’ll apologise, but you haven’t.

The benefits are simple, frictionless, tariff free trade with the EU has made food and good cheaper. Certain EU directives have helped, such as abolishing mobile phone roaming charges in the EU or the working time directive meaning bosses can no longer force employers to work excessively long hours. The there’s the stuff you’ve mentioned, the ability to travel, live and work in Europe with ease.

These are just some of the things membership of the EU has brought us. Maybe you don’t take advantage of some of these benefits, neither do I (I’m unlikely to ever go working/living in the EU) but that doesn’t mean I don’t see them as a good thing.

Thank you for confirming what I thought and said previously, you, are clearly, like many people I have had to deal with during my working life, you don't like change and your basis is I'm fat and happy as I am, let's not rock this boat.

Unlike you I have traveled and lived overseas in many places, including the EU, I have seen numerous cultures and the way different countries do things, some good and I wish the UK would adopt, they will not dramatically change the country but they are small steps to improvements. I have also posted several times that Brexit will affect different people in differently locations so it is impossible to point to the future for what is great, I have said for some leaving will be worse. Fishermen in Scotland/NI etc will not see the same as laborours in Cornwall, Bankers/Financiers in London will not be affected the same as farmers in the hill countries such as Lancashire and Cumbria.

Unlike you I have lead negotiations in $Billions with numerous Fortune 500 companies, unlike you I worked in Ireland and had to stay there since an Irish company had taken my company to the International Court in the Hague, one which I happened to win but ensured I was living in a place where I did not want to be.

Unlike you I think about what people say and try to see the benefits, never the negative, I read many articles, some for leaving but most against leaving to try and understand what I might be missing.

I did you will have noticed ignore your request to point something out to you that I know is 100% a fact, I'm following yours and Andrews line here, why don't you do some research yourself instead of having everyone else do it for you.

While your digesting this, let's keep you the same premise, and you think and answer for a change to justify your thoughts and opinions: Do you really believe that if we remain and revoke A50 that everything will go back to how it was pre-2016, do you really believe other members such as France/Germany will say, it's ok, will the EU parliament say isn't this great you're back. I ask this because I don't for one minute believe that to be the case.

Finally I do apologize for the rant and length of this reply

[aggi]

Hi aggi, I'd expect a democratic institution to have political parties that stood for election across the whole of that institution. The EU structure isn't this. At present, no one in the UK can express their electoral support for a political party which is based in, for example, France or Spain or Italy or Germany.

Also, I'd want the politically elected leaders to be the leaders of the EU, rather than a separate "Commission class." The latter should be civil servants - and, generally, "seen and not heard. "

I'd expect a democratic institution to have political parties that stood for election across the whole of that institution

The parties do have alliances within the European Parliament so you know roughly which faction you are voting for, although I believe that these are sometimes done after the election rather than before which I would prefer. There is nothing stopping a party standing in another territory, the Brexit Party could stand in Germany for instance. I imagine this doesn't tend to happen as they wouldn't get many votes.

This doesn't seem any different to the UK though. I can't vote for the SNP, Plaid Cymru, etc if I don't live there. Or, closer to home, you couldn't vote for Harry Brooks in 2005 if you didn't live in Burnley.

I'd want the politically elected leaders to be the leaders of the EU

I don't really see logistically how this would work. Would our PM be going to Brussels every week to also run the EU? Added to that, 28 disparate leaders seems a recipe for nothing being done. A "commission class" selected by those leaders and ratified by an elected parliament seems a reasonable proxy to me.

[KateR]

The ability to work in any EU country without needing a visa, free healthcare in any EU country, improved health and safety rules, cleaner water, cheaper produce, increased investment in our local infrastructure, EAW, cheap flights, cheap labour, more flexible workforce, cultural investment, expansion of our European export market.

Now that is a good attempt to clarify, thank you.

None of what you purport improved as a direct of joining the EU, sorry they are all part of the slow evolution of virtually every country.

When I worked on the continent pre EU I had free healthcare, so after we joined nothing changed. Is it that when you go on a holiday to Spain/Italy etc I never have to have insurance because of health, that I can as a Brit get free healthcare and doctors now? Let me give you a hint, had to go to the doc's this July while on holiday in Spain, cost for 5 minutes, 100 euro!

[martin_p]

Thank you for confirming what I thought and said previously, you, are clearly, like many people I have had to deal with during my working life, you don't like change and your basis is I'm fat and happy as I am, let's not rock this boat.

Unlike you I have traveled and lived overseas in many places, including the EU, I have seen numerous cultures and the way different countries do things, some good and I wish the UK would adopt, they will not dramatically change the country but they are small steps to improvements. I have also posted several times that Brexit will affect different people in differently locations so it is impossible to point to the future for what is great, I have said for some leaving will be worse. Fishermen in Scotland/NI etc will not see the same as laborours in Cornwall, Bankers/Financiers in London will not be affected the same as farmers in the hill countries such as Lancashire and Cumbria.

Unlike you I have lead negotiations in $Billions with numerous Fortune 500 companies, unlike you I worked in Ireland and had to stay there since an Irish company had taken my company to the International Court in the Hague, one which I happened to win but ensured I was living in a place where I did not want to be.

Unlike you I think about what people say and try to see the benefits, never the negative, I read many articles, some for leaving but most against leaving to try and understand what I might be missing.

I did you will have noticed ignore your request to point something out to you that I know is 100% a fact, I'm following yours and Andrews line here, why don't you do some research yourself instead of having everyone else do it for you.

While your digesting this, let's keep you the same premise, and you think and answer for a change to justify your thoughts and opinions: Do you really believe that if we remain and revoke A50 that everything will go back to how it was pre-2016, do you really believe other members such as France/Germany will say, it's ok, will the EU parliament say isn't this great you're back. I ask this because I don't for one minute believe that to be the case.

Finally I do apologize for the rant and length of this reply

Absolutely it will be the same in terms of what we give to and get from the EU. There’ll be some grumpiness for a while, the the EU don’t want us to leave so I expect the overwhelming feeling on their side is one of relief.

I’ve searched for where you’ve asked me the question before and you haven’t.

Oh, and for your information I have been involved in multi billion pound contract negotiations.

[aggi]

It feels like you're making out that Remainers need to fully understand why leavers voted leave in order for remainers to be able to help them get the leave they wanted. I can't help but chuckle at that that thought. The vote is done and leave won. We don't need to keep justifying that decision just to please remainers. If remainers want a say in how it's enacted they have to approach it with that in mind.

Accept it. Leavers and Remainers are enemies now. Determining who was to blame for this state of affairs is academic - we are where we are.

So you think the best way to get a Brexit deal is to ignore 48% of the country and tell them that it's none of their business. Unless those 52% of leavers want exactly the same deal (which we know isn't the case) then a rational person would realise you need to get some of the remain people on board too to get a deal through.

Again, your polarised view and inability to compromise is exactly why we haven't left the EU.

[aggi]

Now that is a good attempt to clarify, thank you.

None of what you purport improved as a direct of joining the EU, sorry they are all part of the slow evolution of virtually every country.

When I worked on the continent pre EU I had free healthcare, so after we joined nothing changed. Is it that when you go on a holiday to Spain/Italy etc I never have to have insurance because of health, that I can as a Brit get free healthcare and doctors now? Let me give you a hint, had to go to the doc's this July while on holiday in Spain, cost for 5 minutes, 100 euro!

This is a bizarre argument to make. Trying to suggest the ability to work in any EU country without needing a visa is nothing to do with joining the EU is so clearly incorrect that I don't really understand why you're trying to make that argument.

[KateR]

This is a bizarre argument to make. Trying to suggest the ability to work in any EU country without needing a visa is nothing to do with joining the EU is so clearly incorrect that I don't really understand why you're trying to make that argument.

Aggi,
sorry I was obviously not clear

I replied on your healthcare point.

Regarding visa's yes it is very helpful to those very few working in EU countries, nice to have but not essentially changing the face of the UK after joining is it? I worked in some present EU countries before we joined the EU, it was hardly a chore or difficult for my company to get me a visa and it is not, excuse me, in my opinion a good argument that says we the people of the UK should stay in the EU because if you want to work there or even live you don't need a visa, is it?

[Murger]

Ever so slightly off topic, but when was it normal protocol for the EU to be having meetings with the Speaker (pompous Bercow) about preventing No-deal Brexit? I thought negotiations only happened with governments.

[KateR]

Absolutely it will be the same in terms of what we give to and get from the EU. There’ll be some grumpiness for a while, the the EU don’t want us to leave so I expect the overwhelming feeling on their side is one of relief.

I’ve searched for where you’ve asked me the question before and you haven’t.

Oh, and for your information I have been involved in multi billion pound contract negotiations.

And it is this kind of thinking that helps rationalize your thoughts because I 100% do not agree with you. However like the current situation we will never know until it happens. Sorry I should have said that I do agree 100% with the fact that the EU does not want the UK to leave since they are among the top monetary contributors, but that's about it.

also thank you for the info regarding negotiations, so when you negotiated, you never went into negotiations with a nuclear option of walk away, your company stance was we will bend over and agree to whatever they want to get this deal? Plus presumably you were never involved in negotiations where you walked away, it that correct?

[mkmel]

I have always gone with a successful negotiation is where both sides are happy with the outcome

[KateR]

I have always gone with a successful negotiation is where both sides are happy with the outcome

absolutely agree, no question.

My experience has been that it is what we ended up with in 99% of negotiations.

However one bad experience where red lines and legalities ensured we were no able to execute successfully and I walked away on behalf of the company, that was 18 months of on/off negotiating to get to that point, we were awarded the contract as the best technically & priced contractor. However one sentence in the minutia of the T&C's meant we could not agree, both parties relaxed there red lines somewhat but we were still to far apart to come to an agreement and therefore I invoked the nuclear option and they went to the second best technically & priced contractor.

In this case there is no second best to be able to go to, yet there is the nuclear no deal option that no one wants and yet we slip ever closer as the weeks pass.

[martin_p]

And it is this kind of thinking that helps rationalize your thoughts because I 100% do not agree with you. However like the current situation we will never know until it happens. Sorry I should have said that I do agree 100% with the fact that the EU does not want the UK to leave since they are among the top monetary contributors, but that's about it.

also thank you for the info regarding negotiations, so when you negotiated, you never went into negotiations with a nuclear option of walk away, your company stance was we will bend over and agree to whatever they want to get this deal? Plus presumably you were never involved in negotiations where you walked away, it that correct?

We could have walked away from negotiations yes, but we always had other options when we did so. It was never a case of walking away and making ourselves poorer, it was ‘we‘ll walk away and talk to another company instead’ (usually for the award of contracts in my case). This is why I feel it’s wrong to compare Brexit negotiations with business type negotiations as business negotiations usually have another path to take in the event of breakdown. The Brexit negotiations seem to be unique in that essentially they’re about short term damage limitation.

[AndrewJB]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... fer-arcuri" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I’d like to see him answer questions about the failed garden bridge too - forty million in public money went where exactly. The Arcuri questions involve a lot less money, but there will be a legitimate U.K. based company wondering how they missed out, and definitely questions to answer on how all this came to be.

[AndrewJB]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/li ... -live-news" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - so if Johnson is ruling out campaigning for a no deal exit, isn’t he (according to some on here) undermining his own negotiating position somewhat? Or do you think he’s just saying this to get his moderate wing onboard?

[KateR]

We could have walked away from negotiations yes, but we always had other options when we did so. It was never a case of walking away and making ourselves poorer, it was ‘we‘ll walk away and talk to another company instead’ (usually for the award of contracts in my case). This is why I feel it’s wrong to compare Brexit negotiations with business type negotiations as business negotiations usually have another path to take in the event of breakdown. The Brexit negotiations seem to be unique in that essentially they’re about short term damage limitation.

Thank you, we will just have to agree to not agree, which is fairly obvious I suspect.

I totally agree that I have never been involved in negotiations as complex as Brexit but I do believe there is a correlation between it and business negotiations, Brexit also has options where negotiations breakdown. Of course there are so many other fundamental issues where there is no correlation and there was a complete and utter failure at the beginning of these negotiations where the team selected by the UK were not suitable for the task Plus having the "executives" back home openly disagreeing would damage any negotiations by anyone.

If you went to talk to another company instead, then you walked away from a deal which was on the table, is this what you meant, or is it that you made a tender and were willing to walk away from that if you didn't get what you tendered? Sorry just not clear to me what you meant.

[AndyClaret]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/li ... -live-news - so if Johnson is ruling out campaigning for a no deal exit, isn’t he (according to some on here) undermining his own negotiating position somewhat? Or do you think he’s just saying this to get his moderate wing onboard?

He's ruling out campaigning for no deal, not ruling it out completely.

[KateR]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/li ... -live-news - so if Johnson is ruling out campaigning for a no deal exit, isn’t he (according to some on here) undermining his own negotiating position somewhat? Or do you think he’s just saying this to get his moderate wing onboard?

I see you're back to the mud slinging again in your previous post to this one!!

Let me try to answer and see your response: No deal is a negotiating tactic commonly used through out the world, everyone negotiating has this nuclear option from buying a car/house to Brexit, the ramifications of executing are what differs. If you do not have that option then you weaken your bargaining power and rely on the other side to be open minded, see where your issues lie and act accordingly. The EU being the other side in this case or you and many like you are not open minded and willing to negotiate/compromise to get a deal, you are so set against this that you are willing to actually push that nuclear button on behalf of the UK.

No deal is obviously not a major option for any but a few in the UK and therefore is hardly sensible as a main slogan/mandate for the if you vote for us we will trigger no deal. Leave is the mandate, elect us and we will go back to the EU and try to get them one foot over there red line, however be aware if they do not then as an absolute last resort we will leave with no deal.

Please don't ask why the EU should move as a counter, just let me know if it answers your question, yes or no, no need to clarify why either

[KateR]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... fer-arcuri

I’d like to see him answer questions about the failed garden bridge too - forty million in public money went where exactly. The Arcuri questions involve a lot less money, but there will be a legitimate U.K. based company wondering how they missed out, and definitely questions to answer on how all this came to be.

Don’t Be a Victim of Social Engineering

Social engineering is a psychological attack, where an attacker tricks you into believing or doing something you should not do.

Attacks like these are not limited to phone calls or email. They can happen in any form, including text messages on your phone, over social media, newsprint, headlines or even in person. The key is to know what to look out for.

You are your own best defense.

Know the Signs

Someone creating a tremendous sense of urgency; they are attempting to fool you into making a mistake
Someone asking for information they should not have access to or should already know, such as your account numbers
Someone asking for your password; no legitimate organization will ever ask you for that
Someone pressuring you to bypass or ignore security processes or procedures you are expected to follow at work
Something too good to be true; for example, you are notified you won the lottery or an iPad, even though you never even entered the lottery
You receive an odd email from a friend or co-worker containing wording that does not sound like it is really them. A cyber attacker may have hacked into their account and is attempting to trick you. To protect yourself, verify such requests by reaching out to your friend using a different communications method, such as in person or over the phone.
Continuing to post negative articles about you or someone in order to try and influence your thoughts

[Mala591]

...as May's withdrawal agreement makes a Lazarus like reappearance on the negotiating table...

[summitclaret]

He's ruling out campaigning for no deal, not ruling it out completely.

I hope he is going to do what I thought he would i.e. fd deal in a WA but we will leave if the EU dont play ball. It's a vote winner all the way. He won't care much about Brexit anyway will he if he gets to be PM for 5 years.

[Spijed]

He's ruling out campaigning for no deal, not ruling it out completely.

Apparently he's hasn't ruled out campaigning for 'no-deal'

[Devils_Advocate]

Ever so slightly off topic, but when was it normal protocol for the EU to be having meetings with the Speaker (pompous Bercow) about preventing No-deal Brexit? I thought negotiations only happened with governments.

Loving this. Johnson, Cummings and co ripped up protocol months ago and have been trying every dirty trick in the book and Brexiteers have been lapping it up.

Looked up #Bercow trend on Twitter this aft and the knuckledraggers are having a right proper meltdown. Talk about your bottom lip going.

Anyhow stay strong Murger don't let it beat you

[If it be your will]

They're probably looking at real polling rather than a clearly made up twitter account.

This is why no one listens to the other side (and why I largely ignore anything written by remainers these days). It just results in both sides taking any opportunity to score a little, pointless victory. But never any more than that.

Someone posted a fake poll. I made a comment in response Great! An opportunity for a little pointless victory, here!

Before I leave you to it, here's the real data. Note when Labour changed to a pro-remain stance - immediately after the EU elections (23rd May). It's just before the precipitous fall in the graph:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... l_election" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[If it be your will]

So you think the best way to get a Brexit deal is to ignore 48% of the country and tell them that it's none of their business. Unless those 52% of leavers want exactly the same deal (which we know isn't the case) then a rational person would realise you need to get some of the remain people on board too to get a deal through.

Again, your polarised view and inability to compromise is exactly why we haven't left the EU.

Ha. It's the only way to get Brexit done.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I've liked reading your posts, but there's one assumption that I'm not immediately agreeing to: the necessity of self sufficiency in food. So many successful countries are not self sufficient in food, relying instead on imports. I'm not sure we should base food policy on 'What if there's a war?'

But let's say the electorate disagrees with me, and actively do want self-sufficiency in preparation for a future crisis. Then we should make sure we are only self sufficient in essential calories and nutrients. This could easily be achieved with very little land and vastly reduced subsidies. Sheep farming would be a glaring example of what is not needed for this purpose. We are not reliant on lamb for survival should a crisis occur.

It isn’t just wars.

Self sufficiency protects prices, guards against diseases affecting crops in other countries, climate change, and protects us against global mass extinction fears such as the decline in bees and other pollinators. It isn’t hard to imagine us doing more to combat these threats than some other countries.

Products such as fruits and vegetables could easily lead to a widening life expectancy gap between the poor and rich if prices shoot up for a decade or more due to an issue unrelated to the UK (we are less self sufficient in these than most other products).

Basically, a sovereign country should aspire not to depend on others for its way of life. We should learn a lesson from the USA, Canada, France, Australia and Russia who have zero food dependency,

[CrosspoolClarets]

Right

So reform of the Uk agriculture system (Gove has done some good work on this as part of his green vision btw)

Long term, no problem with that

Short term, you are talking about a very damaging situation for farming in the UK.

Short to medium term, you are looking at the employment prospects and economy in rural areas getting absolutely decimated.

The NFU are rightly bricking it, because all the promises and soothing comments from the UK Government have proved to be (as is depressingly becoming the norm) to be completely unreliable.

I would be absolutely amazed if any farmer backs a "No Deal".

I'd be very surprised if the vast majority don't regret their vote.

I would agree, apart from the hyperbole.

We need to see how it plays out, whether anyone regrets their vote or not can only be answered in a decade, luckily people won’t be asked for another one in the meantime (nor should they of course).

[Spijed]

Steve Rotheram
✔
@MetroMayorSteve
"If Boris Johnson is in Liverpool this week – he should put time aside to, at long last, acknowledge the pain he caused as Editor of the Spectator, in publishing an article that smeared our city and the lives of 96 football fans who lost their lives at Hillsborough."

I suspect he couldn't care less, apart from trying to get votes.

[aggi]

Ha. It's the only way to get Brexit done.

Yes, the past three years have definitely shown that this plan works well.

[martin_p]

I hope he is going to do what I thought he would i.e. fd deal in a WA but we will leave if the EU dont play ball. It's a vote winner all the way. He won't care much about Brexit anyway will he if he gets to be PM for 5 years.

And let’s be clear, that’s been his driver since day one.

[aggi]

This is why no one listens to the other side (and why I largely ignore anything written by remainers these days). It just results in both sides taking any opportunity to score a little, pointless victory. But never any more than that.

Someone posted a fake poll. I made a comment in response Great! An opportunity for a little pointless victory, here!

Before I leave you to it, here's the real data. Note when Labour changed to a pro-remain stance - immediately after the EU elections (23rd May). It's just before the precipitous fall in the graph:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... l_election" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Or alternatively May quitting and Boris coming into power was what precipitated the change.

Plus obviously you're equating anti-No Deal to pro-remain. The two are very different.

It was a bit of a cheap jibe but the point was that a fair bit of the polling doesn't match the accepted wisdom that switching away from a strong leave position is electoral suicide for Labour.

[Paul Waine]

Cheers Paul

You are dismissing an expert without any evidence to back it up.

Cheers again

Hi Lancs, been busy this afternoon, so only now coming back to look at the latest.

Do you think that the NFU are experts? and that my comments aren't at least equally valid (if not more so) and what you would expect to be argued by an expert with an alternative view?

Anyone who has a (good) economics degree and/or a good understanding of the subject will understand that my comments are valid.

[Paul Waine]

First, brilliant post.

But the problem we leavers have is that we did sign the GFA. That means it can be used as a weapon to stop brexit, should one side (e.g. ROI) choose to do this. I totally agree that the GFA could be tweaked to allow the UK to leave the EU, but that would require both sides to want to enable this outcome. For as long as one side does not, and I can see why the ROI does not, we have a problem.

Okay, here's a question: What is the solution if ROI refuse point blank to alter any aspect of the GFA?

Hi iibyw, that was what I was thinking when I read the GFA (it doesn't take so long). I don't think there is a single thing in the GFA that needs to be amended to allow the UK to leave the EU - it is most definitely not a condition of GFA that UK and RoI are both in (or both out, or one in and one out) of EU. There's also nothing that requires both to be in single market and/or customs union. There's nothing that's not compatible with making whatever arrangements are required by RoI and EU for the NI/RoI border.

So, as I see it, it's only "ill will" on the side of RoI if they are claiming Brexit in any form creates a breach of GFA.

I've noticed that Lancs has provided a link - and I will read what is on that link. I'll let you know whether I see anything that makes a worthwhile argument against my understanding of GFA.

[Paul Waine]

[quote="martin_p"]The EU supports its member states so wouldn’t do anything that put one of those member states in a position where it defaulted, whether to the letter or in spirit, on its commitments laid out in an international treaty.[/quote

What is the "spirit" of an international treaty? Is that just saying the treaty doesn't actually say this, mean this or require this, but if it helps our position with regard to, in this case, Brexit, we will all claim that "the spirit of the GFA" means this?

[Paul Waine]

I'd expect a democratic institution to have political parties that stood for election across the whole of that institution

The parties do have alliances within the European Parliament so you know roughly which faction you are voting for, although I believe that these are sometimes done after the election rather than before which I would prefer. There is nothing stopping a party standing in another territory, the Brexit Party could stand in Germany for instance. I imagine this doesn't tend to happen as they wouldn't get many votes.

This doesn't seem any different to the UK though. I can't vote for the SNP, Plaid Cymru, etc if I don't live there. Or, closer to home, you couldn't vote for Harry Brooks in 2005 if you didn't live in Burnley.

I'd want the politically elected leaders to be the leaders of the EU

I don't really see logistically how this would work. Would our PM be going to Brussels every week to also run the EU? Added to that, 28 disparate leaders seems a recipe for nothing being done. A "commission class" selected by those leaders and ratified by an elected parliament seems a reasonable proxy to me.

Hi aggi, isn't that the conundrum, you don't see how logistically it would work.... so, when we vote we are voting a potential member of a party who's leader, if supported by a majority, will be the leader of the EU.

And, yes, we have a government in Westminster and a separate one in Brussels.

Another factor: how often have we seen a party political broadcast by an EU wide political party? I expect very few of us know much about the political parties in the other member states.

[AndyClaret]

Steve Rotheram
✔
@MetroMayorSteve
"If Boris Johnson is in Liverpool this week – he should put time aside to, at long last, acknowledge the pain he caused as Editor of the Spectator, in publishing an article that smeared our city and the lives of 96 football fans who lost their lives at Hillsborough."

I suspect he couldn't care less, apart from trying to get votes.

So he couldn't win either way.

[summitclaret]

And let’s be clear, that’s been his driver since day one.

Don't disagree and atm I don't care. I just want out with a deal that means we will leave properly and in such a way that we can never go back, unless the EU reverts to just a trading block and gives up on trying to be a country.

I am normally with the majority in the country and firmly believe that I have judged rightly that we want a WA with a planned move to free trade deal.

[android]

Breaking the law is now fine if you want Brexit.

Cheers for the confirmation Android.

A bloke as bright as you shouldn't need telling that if you ignore laws you don't like in a country, then that country is in serious trouble.

Thanks for your response Lancs. You nearly always do answer, which I appreciate. But I thought you were not keen on people making stuff up - see your first 2 lines? (I reckon your point was more rhetorical than serious so I'm not too serious either).

In answer to your point, I think the country is in serious trouble if it ignores a democratic vote. To your credit you also to seem to get this and say you support a deal (more difficult for you than me as you were originally 100% remain whereas I was originally 50/50).

But don't you find it at all interesting that (as I predicted, so easily foreseeable) the Supreme Court judgment has had zero practical effect (other than to undermine the government - and Johnson in particular and therefore probably the chances of him getting a Brexit deal)? I was uneasy about it for several reasons: 1) it was justified by Brexit ("one off" circumstances and "extreme effects" on our democracy due to looming Brexit deadline; 2) it effectively created a new law based on the testimony of one man with proragation form and Brexit form (Major's Law) and 3) it only looked at POTENTIAL consequences and ignored ACTUAL consequences (zero due to the Benn BIll which had already achieved all that parliament can agree on by the time the Supreme Court met).

My unease has not been helped by Lady Hale subsequently giving a proud "girly swot" lecture in front of an impression of her defeating the Hulk! I understand we are all human and I get the temptation to boast about her success but it was not a smart thing to do. I also understand how Brexit has clouded everyone's judgment - maybe even supreme court judges.

[Greenmile]

Hi Lancs, been busy this afternoon, so only now coming back to look at the latest.

Do you think that the NFU are experts? and that my comments aren't at least equally valid (if not more so) and what you would expect to be argued by an expert with an alternative view?

Anyone who has a (good) economics degree and/or a good understanding of the subject will understand that my comments are valid.

I may be misreading this, but you appear to be claiming to have more expertise in what is best for farmers than the National Farmers’ Union - a body which exists to decide and promote what is best for farmers - on the basis of having once been a finance manager for a small farm in Carrington.

I mean, I know we’ve had enough of experts but don’t you think that’s a tiny bit hubristic?

[If it be your will]

Hi iibyw, that was what I was thinking when I read the GFA (it doesn't take so long). I don't think there is a single thing in the GFA that needs to be amended to allow the UK to leave the EU - it is most definitely not a condition of GFA that UK and RoI are both in (or both out, or one in and one out) of EU. There's also nothing that requires both to be in single market and/or customs union. There's nothing that's not compatible with making whatever arrangements are required by RoI and EU for the NI/RoI border.

So, as I see it, it's only "ill will" on the side of RoI if they are claiming Brexit in any form creates a breach of GFA.

I've noticed that Lancs has provided a link - and I will read what is on that link. I'll let you know whether I see anything that makes a worthwhile argument against my understanding of GFA.

I agree. There's nothing in the GFA that, per se, prevents any kind of Brexit the UK wants (within reason) - including a no-deal Brexit. But there is one indirect stumbling block. Customs posts are fine, even on the border, but "Security installations" it seems, are not.

But what do you do when a customs post has a bomb laid next to it? Would anyone even be willing to man these customs posts in the absence of "security installations" to protect them? It'd certainly take a brave soul, that's for sure. And that, I think, is giving ROI and the EU enough reason to refuse any deal involving a customs border. It's not in the spirit of the GFA to do this (they couldn't reasonably foresee these precise circumstances when it was signed), and it is ridiculous to conclude the GFA means we can never leave the EU unless Ireland does too, but it's not entirely invalid as an argument either.

If the EU and ROI dig their heals in, I can't immediately see a way around this, with the exception of a customs border down the Irish Sea and leave NI in the CU and SM. But even if the UK agreed to do that, it would surely, from a moral perspective, require NI's consent in the form of a referendum. The only other route is the one Portillo suggests: simply don't put up customs checks and see if smuggling becomes a serious issue. It might not.

[Paul Waine]

Specifically mentioned in the text of the GFA Paul

This is a very lengthy document on the issues, but the conclusion does set out the EU position on this

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/e ... 826_EN.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting paper. The researchers are 2 Queens Univ, Belfast academics, Professor David Phinnemore and Dr Katy Hayward.

The views in the paper are theirs. Of course, the paper includes all the relevant facts and then is makes assertions, including the key assertion that EU membership was the "context" for the success of the GFA. Note: they don't claim that EU membership was necessary for the success of GFA. The facts they include recognise that EU membership was not necessary.

I'm sure, if someone wanted to commission it - in the same way that the EU had commissioned the QUB paper - there could be another paper that made different arguments and concluded that GFA could be successfully maintained without the involvement of EU.

I read a little further - I make no claim that either Phinnemore or Hayward were remain supporters or that support for the EU coloured their research conclusions - Hayward has an article in the magazine Board Management Today: The challenges of managing the Irish boarder after Brexit.

http://www.ibmata.org/wp-content/upload ... _Issue.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The article includes the paragraph copied below.

I've underlined the words: "and to carry any such checks away from the boundary line itself. Maybe Dr Katy Hayward is on to something.

"As such both have agreed to use ‘best endeavours’ to find ‘alternative arrangements’ to avoiding a hard Irish border in the future, including through the use of technology. There have been a number of innovative proposals put forward in this regard. Although there is no substitution for the legal framework that avoids the need for border controls in the first place, there is certainly plenty of scope and interest in these ideas. They will no doubt include measures to improve the knowledge of what is crossing the border, to keep the need for physical checks to an absolute minimum, and to carry any such checks away from the boundary line itself. For any such measures to work, however, the unique circumstances in which the Irish border will be managed must be given due consideration."

[Lancasterclaret]

I may be misreading this, but you appear to be claiming to have more expertise in what is best for farmers than the National Farmers’ Union - a body which exists to decide and promote what is best for farmers - on the basis of having once been a finance manager for a small farm in Carrington.

I mean, I know we’ve had enough of experts but don’t you think that’s a tiny bit hubristic?

He's lost the plot quite frankly

Apparently all farmers know is how to farm, they nothing about exporting or selling their stuff.

[Lancasterclaret]

Thanks for your response Lancs. You nearly always do answer, which I appreciate. But I thought you were not keen on people making stuff up - see your first 2 lines? (I reckon your point was more rhetorical than serious so I'm not too serious either).

In answer to your point, I think the country is in serious trouble if it ignores a democratic vote. To your credit you also to seem to get this and say you support a deal (more difficult for you than me as you were originally 100% remain whereas I was originally 50/50).

But don't you find it at all interesting that (as I predicted, so easily foreseeable) the Supreme Court judgment has had zero practical effect (other than to undermine the government - and Johnson in particular and therefore probably the chances of him getting a Brexit deal)? I was uneasy about it for several reasons: 1) it was justified by Brexit ("one off" circumstances and "extreme effects" on our democracy due to looming Brexit deadline; 2) it effectively created a new law based on the testimony of one man with proragation form and Brexit form (Major's Law) and 3) it only looked at POTENTIAL consequences and ignored ACTUAL consequences (zero due to the Benn BIll which had already achieved all that parliament can agree on by the time the Supreme Court met).

My unease has not been helped by Lady Hale subsequently giving a proud "girly swot" lecture in front of an impression of her defeating the Hulk! I understand we are all human and I get the temptation to boast about her success but it was not a smart thing to do. I also understand how Brexit has clouded everyone's judgment - maybe even supreme court judges.

The vote would be respected if the uber Brexiteers stop insisting on the harshest of all Brexits.

It really is that simple.

I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again

People pushing for the harshest of Brexits are risking it all and might end up with nothing at all.

From my point of view, its completely mental.

[Lancasterclaret]

Interesting paper. The researchers are 2 Queens Univ, Belfast academics, Professor David Phinnemore and Dr Katy Hayward.

The views in the paper are theirs. Of course, the paper includes all the relevant facts and then is makes assertions, including the key assertion that EU membership was the "context" for the success of the GFA. Note: they don't claim that EU membership was necessary for the success of GFA. The facts they include recognise that EU membership was not necessary.

I'm sure, if someone wanted to commission it - in the same way that the EU had commissioned the QUB paper - there could be another paper that made different arguments and concluded that GFA could be successfully maintained without the involvement of EU.

I read a little further - I make no claim that either Phinnemore or Hayward were remain supporters or that support for the EU coloured their research conclusions - Hayward has an article in the magazine Board Management Today: The challenges of managing the Irish boarder after Brexit.

http://www.ibmata.org/wp-content/upload ... _Issue.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The article includes the paragraph copied below.

I've underlined the words: "and to carry any such checks away from the boundary line itself. Maybe Dr Katy Hayward is on to something.

"As such both have agreed to use ‘best endeavours’ to find ‘alternative arrangements’ to avoiding a hard Irish border in the future, including through the use of technology. There have been a number of innovative proposals put forward in this regard. Although there is no substitution for the legal framework that avoids the need for border controls in the first place, there is certainly plenty of scope and interest in these ideas. They will no doubt include measures to improve the knowledge of what is crossing the border, to keep the need for physical checks to an absolute minimum, and to carry any such checks away from the boundary line itself. For any such measures to work, however, the unique circumstances in which the Irish border will be managed must be given due consideration."

I've let the EU and UK governments know you've solved the border issue Paul.

The world owes you a great service.

(huge smiley, don't take it seriously as I'm being flippant as its too depressing to take seriously)

Look, if it was that easy, there would be no problem accepting the backstop, because the tech is there and we'd be out in two years.

Whether you or me like it or not, the sensible options that me and you advocate are being ignored for reasons that both you and me can't understand, and as a result the country is going to get f**ked.

Its profoundly depressing.