Insurance3 mins ago
New Eu Referendum Would Break Faith With Britons, May To Warn Mps
I first thought that Mrs May was living in Cloud Cuckooo Land but now I genuinely believe she takes the electorate for complete fools. By betraying the result of the referendum in attempting to cling to the EU by the skin of her teeth if necessary, regardless of the cost to the country, she's already broken faith with Britons. Who would trust her? Lies, lies, and more lies.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"It should go without saying that keeping the border as it is now, while simultaneously wanting to keep control of our borders, is such a glaring and obvious contradiction..."
Not quite so, Jim and you misrepresent the choice. The choice is between choosing to control your borders as you see fit and having them controlled by another organisation. The UK controlled its borders before joining the EEC and part of that control was allowing a common travel area between the UK, Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. This arrangement existed in one form or another for fifty years or so before the UK joined the EEC and all that both parties want is a return to that arrangement. It's scarcely the fault of either party that the EU has created a cumbersome construction that makes that continuation unacceptable to them.
I can't be bothered to look up whether both parties have stated that they will not impose a hard border or whether that is simply a "wish". I think it could be said with some certainty that the UK will not do so and I would be quite willing to gamble that Ireland will not do so either. It's simply a non-issue which the EU has used as a weapon to exert leverage in the negotiations and a non-issue which the UK should simply have dismissed as such at an early stage because at the end of the day nobody will install a hard border under any circumstances.
Not quite so, Jim and you misrepresent the choice. The choice is between choosing to control your borders as you see fit and having them controlled by another organisation. The UK controlled its borders before joining the EEC and part of that control was allowing a common travel area between the UK, Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. This arrangement existed in one form or another for fifty years or so before the UK joined the EEC and all that both parties want is a return to that arrangement. It's scarcely the fault of either party that the EU has created a cumbersome construction that makes that continuation unacceptable to them.
I can't be bothered to look up whether both parties have stated that they will not impose a hard border or whether that is simply a "wish". I think it could be said with some certainty that the UK will not do so and I would be quite willing to gamble that Ireland will not do so either. It's simply a non-issue which the EU has used as a weapon to exert leverage in the negotiations and a non-issue which the UK should simply have dismissed as such at an early stage because at the end of the day nobody will install a hard border under any circumstances.
"What would you say after it turns out that "Project Fear" was right, or that the freedom to choose new trade deals merely allows new countries to impose harsh conditions that we don't like? "Ah, well, never mind."?"
In such an unlikely scenario we will cope & improve as we always have done. Build again. WTO rules are fine until we arrange something better. You seem to lack faith in our traders and merchants. That class are able to look after themselves (if they are any good at trading at all).
All change can be described as reckless if it goes wrong, and inspired if it goes well. One either has the courage to make change for the better and take control, or remain stuck dancing to another's tune for evermore.
In such an unlikely scenario we will cope & improve as we always have done. Build again. WTO rules are fine until we arrange something better. You seem to lack faith in our traders and merchants. That class are able to look after themselves (if they are any good at trading at all).
All change can be described as reckless if it goes wrong, and inspired if it goes well. One either has the courage to make change for the better and take control, or remain stuck dancing to another's tune for evermore.
No-one will install a hard border under any circumstances because No Deal isn't going to happen, rather than because the border issue is non-existent. Yes, the EU has made the most out of it, but it was recognised (and then, of course, ignored by Brexiteers) before the referendum, that one could not simultaneously exit a customs union and maintain an open border.
It's no good saying that "ah well no-one will make a hard border". If we insist on leaving the CU next year, then there must, perforce, be border controls on Ireland as a result, which, in turn, violates the Good Friday Agreement. There is no avoiding this dilemma, and there is no sense in pretending that it's made-up.
It's no good saying that "ah well no-one will make a hard border". If we insist on leaving the CU next year, then there must, perforce, be border controls on Ireland as a result, which, in turn, violates the Good Friday Agreement. There is no avoiding this dilemma, and there is no sense in pretending that it's made-up.
// One either has the courage to make change for the better and take control, or remain stuck dancing to another's tune for evermore. //
The nature of trade deals is that we are bound to have to dance to other people's tunes, to some extent, in order to secure the deal. At least, being inside the EU, we were playing our part in writing that tune as well.
The nature of trade deals is that we are bound to have to dance to other people's tunes, to some extent, in order to secure the deal. At least, being inside the EU, we were playing our part in writing that tune as well.
Consider this.
"" The EU is based on a Napoleonic, pre-ordained rules based system, and the UK favours a pragmatic, negotiated, case-based approach. The two are completely incompatible and always have been.
We think we can negotiate - the existing rules and directives mean that the EU essentially can’t.
There is no halfway house here and the only sensible outcome is for the UK to leave quickly on a zero-tariff basis - no WTO, no tariffs of any kind.
This will not force the EU to change their position, because the rules prevent that. Instead there will be short term pandemonium on both sides, but very quickly the UK will start to adapt and experience the benefits of tariff-free trading (and in most cases that won’t mean buying from the EU!).
We are a 75%+ service-based economy. Our deal with the EU has never allowed for that fact, rather bending over backwards to favour German car manufacturers and grossly inefficient French farmers. We can’t do worse than the nothing we have at present.
The Irish border question is a complete diversion - the situation on the border is exactly whatever the Irish and UK governments want it to be, starting one would have thought with the century-old Common Travel Area. It’s not good enough for the Irish Government to hide behind the EU on this point and try and use it as a blunt object to beat the UK with.So, the EU threatening us with anything is a non-starter, but even if it was, I’d say, “Go for it and see where it gets you”.""
"" The EU is based on a Napoleonic, pre-ordained rules based system, and the UK favours a pragmatic, negotiated, case-based approach. The two are completely incompatible and always have been.
We think we can negotiate - the existing rules and directives mean that the EU essentially can’t.
There is no halfway house here and the only sensible outcome is for the UK to leave quickly on a zero-tariff basis - no WTO, no tariffs of any kind.
This will not force the EU to change their position, because the rules prevent that. Instead there will be short term pandemonium on both sides, but very quickly the UK will start to adapt and experience the benefits of tariff-free trading (and in most cases that won’t mean buying from the EU!).
We are a 75%+ service-based economy. Our deal with the EU has never allowed for that fact, rather bending over backwards to favour German car manufacturers and grossly inefficient French farmers. We can’t do worse than the nothing we have at present.
The Irish border question is a complete diversion - the situation on the border is exactly whatever the Irish and UK governments want it to be, starting one would have thought with the century-old Common Travel Area. It’s not good enough for the Irish Government to hide behind the EU on this point and try and use it as a blunt object to beat the UK with.So, the EU threatening us with anything is a non-starter, but even if it was, I’d say, “Go for it and see where it gets you”.""
We spent decades inside the EU, playing our part, trying to change things for the better, with very limited success. What we got was PM after PM signing up to more EU control. There comes a point when you have to stop banging your head against the brick wall.
WTO, tariff free, something else, whatever works best.
WTO, tariff free, something else, whatever works best.
Good. Then consider this as well.
""Divorce Bill? There is no divorce bill. There is no divorce. We are just leaving the EU, as we are entitled to do. There is no requirement for the UK to pay a thing. To see how absurd is the idea that we owe the EU money, consider this. Suppose Poland left. As a net recipient, by the same EU logic, the EU would be offering to pay Poland a departure fee.
Oh and a divorce entitles both parties to a share of the assets. The EU doesn’t regard the UK’s share of EU assets as a consideration. How strange… Consider it a goodwill gesture.
The UK has been a net contributor of billions of pounds a year for four decades. We've subsidised French farms, Bulgarian roads and the like. You're welcome. To say that leaving means we owe them money is quite laughable.
There is the possibility of a goodwill payment to ease the blow of the loss of our income. However, that depends on the EU negotiating in good faith, something they are failing to do at present.
Let's not deceive ourselves here, the objectives of the UK and the EU are fundamentally incompatible. The UK is seeking the mutual benefit of the UK and the EU. The EU on the other hand, is seeking to harm the UK. With such objectives in mind, “no deal” (which implies “no payment”) is looking increasingly likely.
This will poison relationships for a decade or more, which in itself shows how short sighted and self defeating the EU’s strategy is. Honestly, the delusional behaviour of the EU, which is acting as if it is somehow a model of democratic governance with widespread support, would be hilarious were it not so serious.
The UK’s best strategy in this instance is to look after its own. We will crash out of the EU with no deal. This will be close to an emergency situation for the UK. We can prepare for it but the transitional effects would be very serious indeed, for both parties. The EU may try to block UK exports entering but if so, we’ll take them to court and win. We will also take deep economic reforms to restore our competitiveness like reforming our tax model, our fiscal model and our regulatory model - even declaring unilateral free trade (like Singapore did). Over time, these are likely to lead to strong economic growth, which will far outperform the EU.
Within 10 years everybody will probably be marvelling at the UK economic miracle. A situation more likely to destroy the EU, it is hard to imagine. People will say, “you tried so hard to destroy that little country to the north for exercising its democratic right and it backfired spectacularly”. The EU will rue the day it turned down an offer to share in the proceeds.""
""Divorce Bill? There is no divorce bill. There is no divorce. We are just leaving the EU, as we are entitled to do. There is no requirement for the UK to pay a thing. To see how absurd is the idea that we owe the EU money, consider this. Suppose Poland left. As a net recipient, by the same EU logic, the EU would be offering to pay Poland a departure fee.
Oh and a divorce entitles both parties to a share of the assets. The EU doesn’t regard the UK’s share of EU assets as a consideration. How strange… Consider it a goodwill gesture.
The UK has been a net contributor of billions of pounds a year for four decades. We've subsidised French farms, Bulgarian roads and the like. You're welcome. To say that leaving means we owe them money is quite laughable.
There is the possibility of a goodwill payment to ease the blow of the loss of our income. However, that depends on the EU negotiating in good faith, something they are failing to do at present.
Let's not deceive ourselves here, the objectives of the UK and the EU are fundamentally incompatible. The UK is seeking the mutual benefit of the UK and the EU. The EU on the other hand, is seeking to harm the UK. With such objectives in mind, “no deal” (which implies “no payment”) is looking increasingly likely.
This will poison relationships for a decade or more, which in itself shows how short sighted and self defeating the EU’s strategy is. Honestly, the delusional behaviour of the EU, which is acting as if it is somehow a model of democratic governance with widespread support, would be hilarious were it not so serious.
The UK’s best strategy in this instance is to look after its own. We will crash out of the EU with no deal. This will be close to an emergency situation for the UK. We can prepare for it but the transitional effects would be very serious indeed, for both parties. The EU may try to block UK exports entering but if so, we’ll take them to court and win. We will also take deep economic reforms to restore our competitiveness like reforming our tax model, our fiscal model and our regulatory model - even declaring unilateral free trade (like Singapore did). Over time, these are likely to lead to strong economic growth, which will far outperform the EU.
Within 10 years everybody will probably be marvelling at the UK economic miracle. A situation more likely to destroy the EU, it is hard to imagine. People will say, “you tried so hard to destroy that little country to the north for exercising its democratic right and it backfired spectacularly”. The EU will rue the day it turned down an offer to share in the proceeds.""
It's equally perverse to say "...then there must, perforce, be border controls on Ireland as a result," because I'll ask again then, Jim, "Who then is going to do it?". All parties deny that they will but some parties say that they must. That is a far bigger dichotomy than the one you mention. If nobody is going to impose a hard border (and it seems fairly certain that is so) then why bother with a solution to prevent it?
It depends which of the two scenarios you prefer. There is "somebody will have to do it" preferred by you or "nobody will do it" preferred by me.
It depends which of the two scenarios you prefer. There is "somebody will have to do it" preferred by you or "nobody will do it" preferred by me.
// ... because I'll ask again then, Jim, "Who then is going to do it?". //
Hopefully, nobody. But, as I said earlier, there is a key difference between staying you *won't* do something, and stating that you *don't want to*. Glossing over this, as you did earlier, is very dishonest.
In practice the situation will never happen, not because neither side will install a hard border but because neither side will allow the situation where they'd have to. That's the point that you rather seem to be missing, or wilfully ignoring, when misquoting EU and UK leaders.
Hopefully, nobody. But, as I said earlier, there is a key difference between staying you *won't* do something, and stating that you *don't want to*. Glossing over this, as you did earlier, is very dishonest.
In practice the situation will never happen, not because neither side will install a hard border but because neither side will allow the situation where they'd have to. That's the point that you rather seem to be missing, or wilfully ignoring, when misquoting EU and UK leaders.
// That's the point that you rather seem to be missing, or wilfully ignoring, when misquoting EU and UK leaders. //
No Jim...… the point that you are missing and likewise the question yo assiduously avoid, is. If the "backstop" ( or is that backstab) option is never going to be used, or considered, ever again in future negotiations or developments. ...…..why does it need to be in the agreement? It is a pure and simple blackmail tool. Like keeping an old lovers compromising photographs as a lever for emotional dominance.
No Jim...… the point that you are missing and likewise the question yo assiduously avoid, is. If the "backstop" ( or is that backstab) option is never going to be used, or considered, ever again in future negotiations or developments. ...…..why does it need to be in the agreement? It is a pure and simple blackmail tool. Like keeping an old lovers compromising photographs as a lever for emotional dominance.
One could argue neither has to. But if the RoI wish to obey the EU demands then they have a problem when the UK leaves. (Whereas the UK can just leave the border open as they agreed.) Stopping the situation isn't under the RoI's control, so they have to decide what they want, and which agreement/relationship takes priority.
The Backstop is in the agreement because the Irish want it there too. They've made that clear several times -- no need to pretend that really the RoI are slaves to their EU masters. It might suit your agenda to portray it as such but that would be yet another dishonesty.
The Backstop is meant to ensure that, whatever happens, the terms of the Good Friday Agreement are respected. Since the UK decided to rush into Article 50 notification before it was ready to do so, since Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty imposed a rather artificial two-year limit on withdrawing after giving notification, and since both sides have generally decided that the "implementation" period will also be time-limited, one *needs* such an insurance policy in case negotiations are not completed.
Finally, since the EU has given and stuck to a red line that it will not agree to any Withdrawal Agreement without a backstop -- and, since No Deal is far too damaging to seriously contemplate, so that the UK is in practice obliged to seek some form of Deal before leaving -- then, yes, we need one because the EU says they want one. What was it people said at the beginning of this process? "The UK holds all the cards", or some such. Presumably that was a tacit admission that if we had some stick with which to beat the EU up and try and get what we wanted then we were not afraid to use it. Turns out that the EU holds quite a few cards, as well, and this is no doubt one of them. But it wouldn't have much power if the effects were not real, and there has been more than enough proper analysis by now to show that, yes, leaving the EU and trying to preserve an open Irish border are contradictory aims.
The Backstop is meant to ensure that, whatever happens, the terms of the Good Friday Agreement are respected. Since the UK decided to rush into Article 50 notification before it was ready to do so, since Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty imposed a rather artificial two-year limit on withdrawing after giving notification, and since both sides have generally decided that the "implementation" period will also be time-limited, one *needs* such an insurance policy in case negotiations are not completed.
Finally, since the EU has given and stuck to a red line that it will not agree to any Withdrawal Agreement without a backstop -- and, since No Deal is far too damaging to seriously contemplate, so that the UK is in practice obliged to seek some form of Deal before leaving -- then, yes, we need one because the EU says they want one. What was it people said at the beginning of this process? "The UK holds all the cards", or some such. Presumably that was a tacit admission that if we had some stick with which to beat the EU up and try and get what we wanted then we were not afraid to use it. Turns out that the EU holds quite a few cards, as well, and this is no doubt one of them. But it wouldn't have much power if the effects were not real, and there has been more than enough proper analysis by now to show that, yes, leaving the EU and trying to preserve an open Irish border are contradictory aims.
Latest Posts
News34 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles103 mins ago
ChatterBank109 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles133 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.