More post brexit referendum good news!!!!

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:04 pm

Why are people mentioning all these other places that DON'T have a land border with the EU?

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:05 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I'm guessing that even the most devout Unionist can see the economic benefits from that, and its not like they are not skilled at asking the govt for even more money to sweeten the deal.

Scotland is going to be going "Hang on a sec, what about us?"

Nicola Sturgeon is said to be frantically organising explosives for the Scottish borders and giant oars to row the highland nation across the Irish sea...

The SNP leader is thought to be funding the project by taking funds from the Scottish school budget, as it's not one of their prime concerns.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:06 pm

Because "the will of the people" in those areas voted "remain".

Don't you believe in democracy?

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:17 pm

Sidney1st wrote:Why are people mentioning all these other places that DON'T have a land border with the EU?

Why do you think land borders are the issue here?

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:17 pm

Worth giving Gibraltar a shout out here, too.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:22 pm

Not being funny, but if I wanted to be sneaky and keep the Uk in the customs union and the single market, this is how I'd start.

RocketLawnChair · Post by **RocketLawnChair** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:56 pm

Is anyone else getting the feeling that in reality-not a reyt lots going to change like it never really does.

Countless threads opinions and links, loads of BS from both sides and all it boils down to is what it always boils down to in politics,,, drop us a few bob and we can make sure that happens

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:59 pm

Bacchus wrote:Why do you think land borders are the issue here?

Clearly it is, or there would be a whole host of border related negotiations to do before talks can continue.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:21 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Not being funny, but if I wanted to be sneaky and keep the Uk in the customs union and the single market, this is how I'd start.

Spot on.

Suspect this will make May fall. Maybe the Government too. Too many Brexiteers will now not trust her.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:27 pm

But she's raised the stakes.

She falls now if the DUP withdraw their support, and its an election, which lab will win.

DUP don't want that, Brexiteers can't trust him to do Brexit and your average Conservative couldn't cope with that.

She is basically saying the the uber-brexiteers - you've got Brexit, but not the one you want. Keep wanting that one, and you won't get it this time, but hang in there, and you never know. Back me to keep out Labour and who knows? Don't back me and Corbyn gets in.

Its playing high stakes poker with a pair of sixes, but all the other players have actually not got anything better (apart from the EU, who have a royal flush)

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:31 pm

Sidney1st wrote:Clearly it is, or there would be a whole host of border related negotiations to do before talks can continue.

Its nothing to do with land borders. It's about the point at which goods move to / from the EU. There has to be a hard border somewhere, obviously historical tensions mean that Ireland isn't a great place to put one. The fact that it would have been a land border is irrelevant (otherwise we'd be having the same discussion about Gibraltar.)

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:37 pm

Many Brexiteers are Labour MPs or voters. Corbyn getting in is a given if the Govt doesnt deliver either full Brexit (full, not hard) or social mobility / reduced inequality.

I voted Tory (this time) and I wouldn't vote for them again if that eventuality happened, regardless of the Corbyn angle.

This was always going to happen of course. We've been saying it on here for 18 months.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:41 pm

70% of Lab voters are remain, and all but four or five MPs (don't have the exact figures as its from memory so apologies if slightly wrong)

She's basically saying to the hard right of Brexiteers and the DUP. "Back me, or Corbyn gets in and we don't leave".

She's basically had enough of the hard brexiteers trying to railroad through their agenda, which isn't backed as heavily as is being portrayed.

Gutsy, but she should have done this when she had a lot more clout.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:59 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:So if reports are to be believed, the UK government has conceded that Northern Ireland will effectively have to stay in the single market and customs union to avoid a hard border.

The DUP aren't likely to take that well.

Also, If Northern Ireland get an exemption from a hard Brexit, then Scotland, the City of London, Lincolnshire, Cornwall and anyone else who doesn't want a hard Brexit will be demanding the same.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

The Mayor of London has tweeted this:

Huge ramifications for London if Theresa May has conceded that it's possible for part of the UK to remain within the single market & customs union after Brexit. Londoners overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU and a similar deal here could protect tens of thousands of jobs.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:01 pm

I think we're giving May a bit too much credit here. She's been as guilty as anyone of relentless, vacuous tubthumping over the last 12 months and has ultimately caved into EU demands at every stage. She's wasted the better part of half of a 2 year period to negotiate our future arrangements (after firing the starting gun herself when she clearly wasn't ready) and has nothing to show for it. The reason? Nothing to do with a high stakes gamble to bring the Brextremists into line, and everything to do with the fact that what she and her government have been promising is (and always was) fundamentally undeliverable. Now she's relying on her MPs putting party first (what got us into this position in the first place) to try and limit the damage.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:02 pm

But she is at least doing that, rather than taking us into a disastrous no deal brexit?

Some credit there, even if she's just belated realised that the actual support for that is minimal.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:03 pm

There's no need for a physical hard border anyway. Is it suggested that the millions of cars will be physically sent through Ireland just to avoid the customs posts? Nonsense.

Most customs work is done electronically nowadays. If the EU want a hard border, they can have one, but they don't. The UK has already said they doen't want a hard border and aren't going to have one, so that's not an issue. But electronically, when all the customs forms are filled in, that will be a hard virtual border; and if it does turn out that vast quantities of goods are being driven up to Ireland, an internal UK check on the boats coming across from Belfast will find them.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:06 pm

Bacchus wrote:I think we're giving May a bit too much credit here. She's been as guilty as anyone of relentless, vacuous tubthumping over the last 12 months and has ultimately caved into EU demands at every stage. She's wasted the better part of half of a 2 year period to negotiate our future arrangements (after firing the starting gun herself when she clearly wasn't ready) and has nothing to show for it. The reason? Nothing to do with a high stakes gamble to bring the Brextremists into line, and everything to do with the fact that what she and her government have been promising is (and always was) fundamentally undeliverable. Now she's relying on her MPs putting party first (what got us into this position in the first place) to try and limit the damage.

It's irrelevant when she pushed the button to start the process. Negotiations haven't started yet because the EU refuses to start them. Now that the EU have got the money they asked for, they're using Ireland as a reason not to start negotiating. There isn't going to be a deal; there never was going to be a deal; and in a large part it's because the EU doesn't want one. Certainly not a deal that would be worth the UK signing up for, anyway.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:09 pm

"In the absence of agreed solutions the UK will ensure that continued regulatory alignment with those rules of the internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, support North South cooperation and the protection of the Good Friday Agreement"

This is the wording,nothing to do with staying in the sm or cu so mayor khan't and wee jimmie krankie can pipe down. Also there is already regulatory alignment in many area's on the island of Ireland, like the energy market for example.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:11 pm

dsr wrote:It's irrelevant when she pushed the button to start the process. Negotiations haven't started yet because the EU refuses to start them. Now that the EU have got the money they asked for, they're using Ireland as a reason not to start negotiating. There isn't going to be a deal; there never was going to be a deal; and in a large part it's because the EU doesn't want one. Certainly not a deal that would be worth the UK signing up for, anyway.

It's been the Tories messing about with this, 100%.

Clueless.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:17 pm

dsr wrote:It's irrelevant when she pushed the button to start the process. Negotiations haven't started yet because the EU refuses to start them. Now that the EU have got the money they asked for, they're using Ireland as a reason not to start negotiating. There isn't going to be a deal; there never was going to be a deal; and in a large part it's because the EU doesn't want one. Certainly not a deal that would be worth the UK signing up for, anyway.

In a situation where we had 2 years to negotiate a deal, we knew in advance what many of the red lines were, we didn't know what we wanted ourselves and it was entirely within our power to start the clock ticking you're trying to argue that it was irrelevant when May triggered A50?

As for the rest of your post, you're basically admitting that this whole process was a bad idea. About time we agreed on something.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:19 pm

claretandy wrote:"In the absence of agreed solutions the UK will ensure that continued regulatory alignment with those rules of the internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, support North South cooperation and the protection of the Good Friday Agreement"

This is the wording,nothing to do with staying in the sm or cu so mayor khan't and wee jimmie krankie can pipe down. Also there is already regulatory alignment in many area's on the island of Ireland, like the energy market for example.

How does maintaining regulatory alignment with the EU play out with the whole Taking Back Control mantra, Andy? Of course there's a lot of alignment already. Care to take a guess at why that might be?

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:21 pm

Bacchus wrote:Its nothing to do with land borders. It's about the point at which goods move to / from the EU. There has to be a hard border somewhere, obviously historical tensions mean that Ireland isn't a great place to put one. The fact that it would have been a land border is irrelevant (otherwise we'd be having the same discussion about Gibraltar.)

So I'm assuming the EU will be pushing for negotiations about Dover/Calais to be sorted before any other negotiations can take place?
Or Portsmouth, Hull, *insert port here* ?

It's everything to do with a Land Border quite simply.
Anyone else will have to shush because they don't have a land border with the EU, especially that bell end of a London Mayor.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:21 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:It's been the Tories messing about with this, 100%.

Clueless.

We shall see what the next obstacle is after these have been dealt with.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:23 pm

Bacchus wrote:How does maintaining regulatory alignment with the EU play out with the whole Taking Back Control mantra, Andy? Of course there's a lot of alignment already. Care to take a guess at why that might be?

Only in certain sectors on the island of Ireland that help the GFA agreement, not to difficult to understand is it ?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:25 pm

Bacchus wrote:In a situation where we had 2 years to negotiate a deal, we knew in advance what many of the red lines were, we didn't know what we wanted ourselves and it was entirely within our power to start the clock ticking you're trying to argue that it was irrelevant when May triggered A50?

As for the rest of your post, you're basically admitting that this whole process was a bad idea. About time we agreed on something.

I'm certainly not saying the whole process is a bad idea. The negotiating process is a bad joke rather than a bad idea, and I have consistently believed since day 1 that there would be no trade deal. And the Tories appear to be slowly coming round to the idea that we should give the EU everything they ask for and expect nothing in return - but that wouldn't be improved if Labour got in because they would make the same "deal" a lot more quickly.

Instead of offering £50bn or whatever to start negotiations which will achieve nothing, they should have stood firm and insisted that it all gets discussed or none of it. And been ready to cope with it being none of it. Just because the EU is (as we always suspected) a rotten, self-serving organisation that cares more for its political existence than the wealth of its citizens is no reason to want to be in it. One of the reasons Ireland has historically hated the idea of being in the UK is because the UK never grasped that being nasty to someone doesn't make them like you. Spain has had the same problem with Gibraltar - they never grasped that spending years trying to drive someone into poverty does not make them want to join you and let them rule.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:26 pm

Sidney1st wrote:So I'm assuming the EU will be pushing for negotiations about Dover/Calais to be sorted before any other negotiations can take place?
Or Portsmouth, Hull, *insert port here* ?
r.

I thought we already had border controls at the ports you mention? No major difficulty here.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:27 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:I thought we already had border controls at the ports you mention? No major difficulty here.

Hence my comment about it being a land border issue which someone is disputing.

It's the only land border we've got with the EU, so why Khan is piping up I've no idea.
Same with anyone else.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:30 pm

Sidney1st wrote:So I'm assuming the EU will be pushing for negotiations about Dover/Calais to be sorted before any other negotiations can take place?
Or Portsmouth, Hull, *insert port here* ?

I'm not even sure where to start with this, but it's fairly obvious that border controls in Hull, Dover, Portsmouth etc. don't have the same political sensitivity as those in Northern Ireland. It's really nothing to do with the presence of boats.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:36 pm

Bacchus wrote:I'm not even sure where to start with this, but it's fairly obvious that border controls in Hull, Dover, Portsmouth etc. don't have the same political sensitivity as those in Northern Ireland. It's really nothing to do with the presence of boats.

You stated it's nothing, or little, to do with it being a Land Border, I've stated it is.

I'm well aware the politics in Ireland make it a difficult issue, my dad served over there and I was born there, but people like Khan piping up makes no sense and isn't helping the issue.

If N.Ireland was physically separated from the Republic then it wouldn't be as much of an issue.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:39 pm

Sidney1st wrote:Hence my comment about it being a land border issue which someone is disputing.

It's the only land border we've got with the EU, so why Khan is piping up I've no idea.
Same with anyone else.

Because the govt now seems to be acknowledging that the entire UK does not have to operate under the same trading agreement.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:45 pm

Welsh First Minister:

We cannot allow different parts of the UK to be more favourably treated than others. If one part of the UK is granted continued participation in the Single Market & Customs Union, then we fully expect to be made the same offer.

Scottish First Minister:

If one part of UK can retain regulatory alignment with EU and effectively stay in the single market (which is the right solution for Northern Ireland) there is surely no good practical reason why others can’t.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:52 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:Welsh First Minister:

Scottish First Minister:

Err, N Ireland isn't staying the SM or CU, otherwise, well done.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:54 pm

Just to annoy Breixteers, but its looking like three outcomes now

- No Brexit at all
- Brexit, but a Norway style one
- Brexit, but a complete clusterfuck in which the UK breaks up and we don't have a trade deal

Option 1) is vastly preferable to a majority of the country if the Brexiteers can't back up what they promised I'm afraid. And its becoming increasingly obvious that they cannot.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:54 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Because the govt now seems to be acknowledging that the entire UK does not have to operate under the same trading agreement.

So when are we going to build a hard border around London?
I've no issue with that by the way.

Same with one for Scotland...

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:57 pm

Sidney1st wrote:So when are we going to build a hard border around London?
I've no issue with that by the way.

Same with one for Scotland...

What would be better is if they built a hard border around all the sh*thole backwaters which did vote for Brexit, and leave the proper places like the cities of London, Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Leeds etc to carry on a successful relationship with the EU.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:58 pm

Same way as the one we are going to have with the ROI Sid. Its not a hard border, can't be.

I agree that the ROI-NI border is a special case, but so are Scotland, Wales and England, and probably London.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:59 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Just to annoy Breixteers, but its looking like three outcomes now

- No Brexit at all
- Brexit, but a Norway style one
- Brexit, but a complete ---- in which the UK breaks up and we don't have a trade deal

Option 1) is vastly preferable to a majority of the country if the Brexiteers can't back up what they promised I'm afraid. And its becoming increasingly obvious that they cannot.

There is no good reason to join or rejoin or fail to leave the EU. Knowing what the EU is, and how it sees its future relationship with Britain, was possible reason would there be to join now if we weren't current members?

The only reason to remain now appears to be that they're going to do their damnedest to see us bankrupt if we go. Well, short term, maybe the country would be better if we went back and pleaded to be allowed to pay our billions to re-purchase our trade deficit. But long-term, it would be disastrous.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:01 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:What would be better is if they built a hard border around all the sh*thole backwaters which did vote for Brexit, and leave the proper places like the cities of London, Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Leeds etc to carry on a successful relationship with the EU.

Hate to break it to you but I've been to most of those cities and they've all got areas that are shitholes.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:01 pm

Why are all the brexiteers like dsr so paranoid?

The EU are not out to get us

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:02 pm

Sidney1st wrote:Hate to break it to you but I've been to most of those cities and they've all got areas that are shitholes.

Hate to break it to you but all the companies which make the UK its money are based in those cities.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:02 pm

Out of interest, if the Scots vote for independence from the UK after Brexit, will it be understood that England can place exactly the same objections to their land border?

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:03 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Same way as the one we are going to have with the ROI Sid. Its not a hard border, can't be.

I agree that the ROI-NI border is a special case, but so are Scotland, Wales and England, and probably London.

It probably won't be once all the posturing is out of the way.

I can't see how London can be a special case, it isn't a country.
Scotland has a potential case, don't know what the overall vote was in Wales.

Anyway, I wouldn't trust the government to set it all up properly for numerous places , they're struggling with just the one.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:03 pm

Knowing what you think the EU is, and what it actually is have been proven time and time again to be vastly different.

You cannot get the deal that your side promised the UK public. You are being found out, and its going to have an affect.

I'm being slightly mischievous with my above posts, but the realisation is growing that we lose from this, and that could (I stress the word "could")result in any possible outcome.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:05 pm

dsr wrote:Out of interest, if the Scots vote for independence from the UK after Brexit, will it be understood that England can place exactly the same objections to their land border?

They'd be Billy no mates and not in any customs union whatsoever.
We could literally build a wall for laughs.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:06 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Knowing what you think the EU is, and what it actually is have been proven time and time again to be vastly different.

You cannot get the deal that your side promised the UK public. You are being found out, and its going to have an affect.

I'm being slightly mischievous with my above posts, but the realisation is growing that we lose from this, and that could (I stress the word "could")result in any possible outcome.

My side?
You're making an assumption that's wrong.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:07 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:Hate to break it to you but all the companies which make the UK its money are based in those cities.

Probably not all of them.

Independence votes for them all then?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:08 pm

Thats because I'm not talking to you Sidney, I'm quoting and replying to Dsr!

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:09 pm

claretandy wrote:Only in certain sectors on the island of Ireland that help the GFA agreement, not to difficult to understand is it ?

For you, evidently it is.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:12 pm

Sidney1st wrote:Probably not all of them.

Independence votes for them all then?

Name me the FTSE 100 companies headquartered in Leave voting areas