What's in the news?

[Alf Bentley]

36 minutes ago, MattP said:

We don't check those things anyway now, the DUP have spoken in the past of how smuggling still goes on, but the solution has to be some sort of collection of customs tariffs based on estimation of goods, that should be achievable.

 

The point is though whatever happens there will not be a hard border, the British government won't do it, the Irish won't and the EU has insisted it wouldn't - so people should either tell us who is lying on the subject or stop saying it could happen. 

 

Obviously, there is no country on earth where there is no smuggling, counterfeiting or other dodgy trade. That will happen to some extent whether we Leave or Remain.

 

But with UK & RoI both in the Single Market and Customs Union, the scope for that in Ireland is minimized. With Brexit, under either May's deal or No Deal, the plan is that we'd be leaving the SM and CU - and "taking back control" of our own external tariffs, product standards, regulations etc. I suppose we could "take back control" and just mirror EU tariffs, standards and regulations forever, but that would be a bit pointless. The plan is for divergence, even if that doesn't happen immediately. That will create a lot more scope for illicit trade and smuggling - and a lot more need to control cross-border trade.

 

Not everything would require border control. Technology and systems exist for computerised monitoring of many products traded by large firms and others who comply with the law.....but a lot of cross-border trade is done by small farmers and other small traders, many of whom would lack the technology, money, expertise or inclination to operate such systems - and divergent tariffs/standards would attract illicit traders/smugglers, people passing off cheap imports from the developing world as British or EU goods.

 

I haven't got the time to go into the "nobody will put up a hard border" argument now, but I seem to recall that the WTO requires countries/blocs operating different customs regimes to do border checks? The rest of the EU wouldn't be happy about Ireland having no meaningful border with a "third country" operating different external tariffs and product standards either. I'm sure none of the parties WANT there to be a hard border - and they might do everything to avoid one, even if we have No Deal. But will they be able to avoid one?

 

Did you see this? https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/psni-appeals-for-more-riottrained-police-officers-from-rest-of-uk-ahead-of-brexit-report-37674824.html

....Northern Irish police wanting riot-trained police from England, Scotland & Wales to be on standby to support the PSNI in the event of civil disorder post-Brexit.

Can you begin to imagine how it will go down with Republicans if British police are shipped into N. Ireland to handle riots? 

Dissident Republicans will be rubbing their hands with glee. 

Edited 4 January 2019 by Alf Bentley

[Guest MattP]

40 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Obviously, there is no country on earth where there is no smuggling, counterfeiting or other dodgy trade. That will happen to some extent whether we Leave or Remain.

 

But with UK & RoI both in the Single Market and Customs Union, the scope for that in Ireland is minimized. With Brexit, under either May's deal or No Deal, the plan is that we'd be leaving the SM and CU - and "taking back control" of our own external tariffs, product standards, regulations etc. I suppose we could "take back control" and just mirror EU tariffs, standards and regulations forever, but that would be a bit pointless. The plan is for divergence, even if that doesn't happen immediately. That will create a lot more scope for illicit trade and smuggling - and a lot more need to control cross-border trade.

 

Not everything would require border control. Technology and systems exist for computerised monitoring of many products traded by large firms and others who comply with the law.....but a lot of cross-border trade is done by small farmers and other small traders, many of whom would lack the technology, money, expertise or inclination to operate such systems - and divergent tariffs/standards would attract illicit traders/smugglers, people passing off cheap imports from the developing world as British or EU goods.

 

I haven't got the time to go into the "nobody will put up a hard border" argument now, but I seem to recall that the WTO requires countries/blocs operating different customs regimes to do border checks? The rest of the EU wouldn't be happy about Ireland having no meaningful border with a "third country" operating different external tariffs and product standards either. I'm sure none of the parties WANT there to be a hard border - and they might do everything to avoid one, even if we have No Deal. But will they be able to avoid one?

 

Did you see this? https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/psni-appeals-for-more-riottrained-police-officers-from-rest-of-uk-ahead-of-brexit-report-37674824.html

....Northern Irish police wanting riot-trained police from England, Scotland & Wales to be on standby to support the PSNI in the event of civil disorder post-Brexit.

Can you begin to imagine how it will go down with Republicans if British police are shipped into N. Ireland to handle riots? 

Dissident Republicans will be rubbing their hands with glee. 

The British government simply couldn't agree to that, political suicide.

Is there any evidence yet that our tariffs would even deviate that much? There is obviously some theories about the Tories wanting a "Singapore Britain" but I think that's very far fetched - if they did it they'll be out of power very quickly as the desire to see lower taxes on big business in the country is about as popular as a closing down the NHS - the Tories might want low taxation, but they want power and government more.

 

Regarding the WTO - I'm pretty sure they can't enforce two countries to put a border up, if they can then that's an absurd amount of power for an external body to have. I think the answer to the question is actually in the bit you have written though, if anyone does do this it will be the European Commission, the British or Irish governments aren't going to when they have an electorate to they are accountable, the commission doesn't have that issue and if it suits them you can be in no doubt they'll be telling the Irish what they have to do or they'll be punished, that's how it works. Would be a huge fall out from that and it's exactly why now they should be doing everything to make sure this deal is as smooth as possible with solutions found along the lines of Switzerland or Norway/Sweden.

I'm actually with Bertie Ahern on the issue, even in the event of someone trying to erect a hard border I think the people wouldn't let it happen, would then the Irish government or the EU order it's security forces onto the people? I just can't envisage it. - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43713178

[Alf Bentley]

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

The British government simply couldn't agree to that, political suicide.

Is there any evidence yet that our tariffs would even deviate that much? There is obviously some theories about the Tories wanting a "Singapore Britain" but I think that's very far fetched - if they did it they'll be out of power very quickly as the desire to see lower taxes on big business in the country is about as popular as a closing down the NHS - the Tories might want low taxation, but they want power and government more.

 

Regarding the WTO - I'm pretty sure they can't enforce two countries to put a border up, if they can then that's an absurd amount of power for an external body to have. I think the answer to the question is actually in the bit you have written though, if anyone does do this it will be the European Commission, the British or Irish governments aren't going to when they have an electorate to they are accountable, the commission doesn't have that issue and if it suits them you can be in no doubt they'll be telling the Irish what they have to do or they'll be punished, that's how it works. Would be a huge fall out from that and it's exactly why now they should be doing everything to make sure this deal is as smooth as possible with solutions found along the lines of Switzerland or Norway/Sweden.

I'm actually with Bertie Ahern on the issue, even in the event of someone trying to erect a hard border I think the people wouldn't let it happen, would then the Irish government or the EU order it's security forces onto the people? I just can't envisage it. - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43713178

 

 

The WTO certainly couldn't force a country to erect a border, but I presume that it could downgrade our status or even expel us from the WTO. Whether it would do so, I've no idea.

 

The European Commission wouldn't decide to enforce a hard border as its role is to propose and implement legislation. The political decisions are taken by the Council (i.e. elected leaders of EU nations) and/or European Parliament (directly elected MEPs). Though I'm sure that dishonest people with a dodgy populist / extreme right agenda will continue to spew out lies about Brussels / the unelected Commission taking the decisions, so as to promote extreme forms of English nationalism. Again, whether Merkel, Macron, Varadkar & co or the MEPs would enforce a hard border, I've no idea.

 

None of us can foretell the future re. the divergence of tariffs - or regulations, standards etc. But plenty of Brexiteers have argued for the UK to cut tariffs to boost trade with non-EU countries, or even to eliminate tariffs altogether so as to obtain cheap food imports from Africa (thereby bankrupting much of British agriculture). I also think there's an absolute logical connection between Brexit and deregulation/cutting corporate tax etc. How else will a medium-sized economy and nation be able to compete with major trading blocs and powers like the EU, Asian trading blocs, USA, China etc? We'll have less political power, fewer economies of scale and poorer trade agreements, if any....are we suddenly going to develop expertise and competitiveness unavailable to the rest, when we've not done so before, when our trading conditions and international relationships were more favourable? 

 

Yes, I've seen plenty of comments about Irish people pulling down any hard border infrastructure. How the UK, Ireland, the EU and the WTO would respond if that resulted in an open border between different customs regimes, again I've no idea.

 

As for the request for British police reinforcements to be on standby to be shipped to N. Ireland....would the govt even have the power to stop that? Presumably it could legislate, but wouldn't it be deemed an operational decision in the first instance - and one under the political control of the elected Police Commissioners, if anything? Govt might try to prevent such reinforcements by leaning on senior police bods, but that would be pretty controversial.... Then there's the whole matter of what would happen if they did prevent such reinforcements, the PSNI couldn't cope and violence in N. Ireland got out of control....would GB just leave NI (part of the UK) to burn? At the extreme end of expectations, would it allow a Bosnia-type situation to develop? I'm sure, on the sly, whisper-whisper, plenty of English nationalists wouldn't give a shit about a load of Paddies killing one another, but decent opinion in the GB would be outraged, as would opinion worldwide - and the potential for a resumption of terrorism impacting GB is obvious, even if some care only about Eng-er-land. 

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

The WTO certainly couldn't force a country to erect a border, but I presume that it could downgrade our status or even expel us from the WTO. Whether it would do so, I've no idea.

 

The European Commission wouldn't decide to enforce a hard border as its role is to propose and implement legislation. The political decisions are taken by the Council (i.e. elected leaders of EU nations) and/or European Parliament (directly elected MEPs). Though I'm sure that dishonest people with a dodgy populist / extreme right agenda will continue to spew out lies about Brussels / the unelected Commission taking the decisions, so as to promote extreme forms of English nationalism. Again, whether Merkel, Macron, Varadkar & co or the MEPs would enforce a hard border, I've no idea.

 

None of us can foretell the future re. the divergence of tariffs - or regulations, standards etc. But plenty of Brexiteers have argued for the UK to cut tariffs to boost trade with non-EU countries, or even to eliminate tariffs altogether so as to obtain cheap food imports from Africa (thereby bankrupting much of British agriculture). I also think there's an absolute logical connection between Brexit and deregulation/cutting corporate tax etc. How else will a medium-sized economy and nation be able to compete with major trading blocs and powers like the EU, Asian trading blocs, USA, China etc? We'll have less political power, fewer economies of scale and poorer trade agreements, if any....are we suddenly going to develop expertise and competitiveness unavailable to the rest, when we've not done so before, when our trading conditions and international relationships were more favourable? 

 

Yes, I've seen plenty of comments about Irish people pulling down any hard border infrastructure. How the UK, Ireland, the EU and the WTO would respond if that resulted in an open border between different customs regimes, again I've no idea.

 

As for the request for British police reinforcements to be on standby to be shipped to N. Ireland....would the govt even have the power to stop that? Presumably it could legislate, but wouldn't it be deemed an operational decision in the first instance - and one under the political control of the elected Police Commissioners, if anything? Govt might try to prevent such reinforcements by leaning on senior police bods, but that would be pretty controversial.... Then there's the whole matter of what would happen if they did prevent such reinforcements, the PSNI couldn't cope and violence in N. Ireland got out of control....would GB just leave NI (part of the UK) to burn? At the extreme end of expectations, would it allow a Bosnia-type situation to develop? I'm sure, on the sly, whisper-whisper, plenty of English nationalists wouldn't give a shit about a load of Paddies killing one another, but decent opinion in the GB would be outraged, as would opinion worldwide - and the potential for a resumption of terrorism impacting GB is obvious, even if some care only about Eng-er-land. 

We are getting into such extreme hypotheticals here it's a bit silly, a Bosnia type situation occuring? you are talking about mass-genocide with that comparison. As for plenty of English nationalists not caring whether a load of "paddies" kill each other? That's just a horrible accusation based on nothing I can see, I've met plenty of people who would be described as "English Nationalists" and not a single one of them has ever given an indication they would want to see that sort of things returning.

It's bad enough going to a Christmas market now and seeing the barricades up knowing you could be mowed down without also having to fear being turned to ash in a shopping centre or blown up having a pint in a city centre. I have a firm belief that the Irish situation, whilst delicate, isn't going to descend back into the scenes we saw as 1) There appears to be no desire for it from anyone in Ireland and 2) I don't for one minute believe the people over there are just going to start killing each other again because of a political decision taken across the channel.
 

The European Commission is what has been insisting on the backstop being UK wide, they are in charge of the negotiations so they are playing a role in the border issue, you don't need populism or the "extreme right" to make up lies about that, even if the Commission wouldn't directly be ordering the erection of a hard border you would have to be pretty naive to assume it wouldn't be involved.  - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-44954286 The Commission has serious form for getting involved the the internal affairs of other nations as proven here, of course they'll be part of this process. - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46203605
 

Who are these Brexiteers who have argued to cut tariffs on African imports to bankrupt much of British agriculture? I've heard very little of this, I've heard them advocating the removal of tariffs for fruit and veg we don't produce but I've not heard them calling for the removal of tariffs on things we do mass produce?

[Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Is there any evidence yet that our tariffs would even deviate that much? There is obviously some theories about the Tories wanting a "Singapore Britain" but I think that's very far fetched - if they did it they'll be out of power very quickly as the desire to see lower taxes on big business in the country is about as popular as a closing down the NHS - the Tories might want low taxation, but they want power and government more.

 

Regarding the WTO - I'm pretty sure they can't enforce two countries to put a border up, if they can then that's an absurd amount of power for an external body to have. I think the answer to the question is actually in the bit you have written though, if anyone does do this it will be the European Commission, the British or Irish governments aren't going to when they have an electorate to they are accountable, the commission doesn't have that issue and if it suits them you can be in no doubt they'll be telling the Irish what they have to do or they'll be punished, that's how it works. Would be a huge fall out from that and it's exactly why now they should be doing everything to make sure this deal is as smooth as possible with solutions found along the lines of Switzerland or Norway/Sweden.
 

 

The WTO can't enforce a border but MFN means you either have an Irish border or you have no borders. If something crosses the Irish border unchecked into the UK, but is checked on a rival from elsewhere at ports then that could be classed as discrimination and a legal challenge could be filed by xyz country (might not win it off). So that means creating an Irish border or having no control of borders, the former as noted people don't want to do, the latter couldn't possibly be considered the Brexit people voted for. Essentially xyz country will use Ireland as the route into UK for its goods and there'd be very little the UK could realistically do about it.

[Guest MattP]

51 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

The WTO can't enforce a border but MFN means you either have an Irish border or you have no borders. If something crosses the Irish border unchecked into the UK, but is checked on a rival from elsewhere at ports then that could be classed as discrimination and a legal challenge could be filed by xyz country (might not win it off). So that means creating an Irish border or having no control of borders, the former as noted people don't want to do, the latter couldn't possibly be considered the Brexit people voted for. Essentially xyz country will use Ireland as the route into UK for its goods and there'd be very little the UK could realistically do about it.

Does MFN status mean you can have a border down the Irish Sea or could that end up in the courts? 

 

(I know the DUP would try and block that of course)

[Kopfkino]

19 minutes ago, MattP said:

Does MFN status mean you can have a border down the Irish Sea or could that end up in the courts? 

 

(I know the DUP would try and block that of course)

 

You'd assume there would be a challenge, whether successful or not is something I doubt many know. If, for simplicity, NZ beef/lamb only went to GB and none went to NI but with Irish beef/lamb going unchecked into NI then NZ could argue discrimination as there'd be checks on all NZ beef/lamb into the UK but not all Irish beef/lamb into the UK is checked. I think there was talk about the possibility of waivers (there is a national security waiver in WTO law) which could be applied to the island of Ireland with an Irish Sea border. So I suspect an Irish Sea border would require some kind of WTO agreement. 

 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

We are getting into such extreme hypotheticals here it's a bit silly, a Bosnia type situation occuring? you are talking about mass-genocide with that comparison. As for plenty of English nationalists not caring whether a load of "paddies" kill each other? That's just a horrible accusation based on nothing I can see, I've met plenty of people who would be described as "English Nationalists" and not a single one of them has ever given an indication they would want to see that sort of things returning.

It's bad enough going to a Christmas market now and seeing the barricades up knowing you could be mowed down without also having to fear being turned to ash in a shopping centre or blown up having a pint in a city centre. I have a firm belief that the Irish situation, whilst delicate, isn't going to descend back into the scenes we saw as 1) There appears to be no desire for it from anyone in Ireland and 2) I don't for one minute believe the people over there are just going to start killing each other again because of a political decision taken across the channel.
 

The European Commission is what has been insisting on the backstop being UK wide, they are in charge of the negotiations so they are playing a role in the border issue, you don't need populism or the "extreme right" to make up lies about that, even if the Commission wouldn't directly be ordering the erection of a hard border you would have to be pretty naive to assume it wouldn't be involved.  - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-44954286 The Commission has serious form for getting involved the the internal affairs of other nations as proven here, of course they'll be part of this process. - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46203605
 

Who are these Brexiteers who have argued to cut tariffs on African imports to bankrupt much of British agriculture? I've heard very little of this, I've heard them advocating the removal of tariffs for fruit and veg we don't produce but I've not heard them calling for the removal of tariffs on things we do mass produce?

 

The Commission would be "part of the process" - it implements political decisions taken by the Council/European Parliament. I'm not naive. I'm sure its opinions have influence over decisions, too - proposing legislation is part of its role, after all. But it doesn't take the decisions. May's withdrawal agreement and declaration on future relations were approved at a meeting of the Council by the EU27 heads of state/government......not at a meeting of the Commission.

 

The border issue might not lead to any violence - or to very little. It might also lead to escalating and serious violence. There were serious riots there in the summer and there's heightened tension due to the collapse of Stormont. Within my memory, N. Ireland had a low-level sectarian civil war in which thousands were killed. I wish that I could share your absolute confidence that nothing like that could happen again but I don't. Might happen, might not....but not worth taking a risk. A Bosnia situation is at the extreme end of expectations, as I said, but only somebody who wilfully learned nothing from history would exclude the prospect or casually take even a slight risk of it happening. Bosnia seemed unthinkable to most people....until it happened. Likewise, Rwanda....Likewise Hitler's Germany. Extreme examples, yes, but what gives you the confidence that "it could never happen here"? Do you see the British/Irish as somehow culturally superior to Bosnians, Serbs, Croats, Tutsis, Hutus, Germans etc? Like you, I cannot imagine any such conflagration happening immediately in response to a border decision....but I could imagine it starting with isolated incidents and then escalating. Within my lifetime, people have been getting killed or burned out of their homes for being from the wrong sect, Catholic or Protestant, Unionist or Republican.

 

On English nationalists not caring about peace in Ireland, a good opinion article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/19/brexiters-theresa-may-northern-ireland

It links to a recent survey showing that 83% of Leave voters (10% of Remain) believe "the unravelling of the Irish peace process would be worth it to take back control": 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/oct/08/labour-and-tory-mayors-unite-to-demand-they-take-back-control-of-regional-spending-after-brexit-politics-live?page=with:block-5bbb76f0e4b0fe77b41b05ed#block-5bbb76f0e4b0fe77b41b05ed

 

That survey also shows that 75% of Leave voters (48% of Remain) think no English tax should be distributed to N. Ireland. Also, most Leave voters would see Scotland leaving the UK as another price worth paying for "taking back control". I remember you were happy with the idea of Scotland leaving when it had the Indy Ref, as it would mean a Tory-run England in perpetuity.

 

Re. African food imports, here's Patrick Minford of Economists for Brexit and other Brexit economists talking about cutting tariffs on cheese, beef, dairy products & chicken, all of which we produce:  https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1016251/brexit-cheap-food-price-cuts-farming-ecomony

Here's Policy Exchange think tank calling for zero tariffs on American and Argentine meat imports: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/01/post-brexit-britain-phase-out-tariffs-food-thinktank

Can't remember who else was proposing such ideas, but there were others. Incidentally, I didn't say they argued for it "to bankrupt much of British agriculture". I said "(bankrupting much of British agriculture)".....my prediction, not their declared intent.

 

 

15 minutes ago, MattP said:

Does MFN status mean you can have a border down the Irish Sea or could that end up in the courts? 

 

(I know the DUP would try and block that of course)

 

I'm not knowledgeable about WTO rules but the EU proposed a deal with a partial "border in the Irish Sea" - regular checks on food/animals exported from GB to NI plus internal checks within NI on other stuff. The UK Govt rejected this after DUP objections. I presume that the EU would not have proposed it if they thought it would be in breach of WTO rules....though they might have been wrong about that, of course.

[Guest MattP]

18 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

On English nationalists not caring about peace in Ireland, a good opinion article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/19/brexiters-theresa-may-northern-ireland

It links to a recent survey showing that 83% of Leave voters (10% of Remain) believe "the unravelling of the Irish peace process would be worth it to take back control": 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/oct/08/labour-and-tory-mayors-unite-to-demand-they-take-back-control-of-regional-spending-after-brexit-politics-live?page=with:block-5bbb76f0e4b0fe77b41b05ed#block-5bbb76f0e4b0fe77b41b05ed

 

That survey also shows that 75% of Leave voters (48% of Remain) think no English tax should be distributed to N. Ireland. Also, most Leave voters would see Scotland leaving the UK as another price worth paying for "taking back control". I remember you were happy with the idea of Scotland leaving when it had the Indy Ref, as it would mean a Tory-run England in perpetuity.

 

Re. African food imports, here's Patrick Minford of Economists for Brexit and other Brexit economists talking about cutting tariffs on cheese, beef, dairy products & chicken, all of which we produce:  https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1016251/brexit-cheap-food-price-cuts-farming-ecomony

Here's Policy Exchange think tank calling for zero tariffs on American and Argentine meat imports: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/01/post-brexit-britain-phase-out-tariffs-food-thinktank

Can't remember who else was proposing such ideas, but there were others. Incidentally, I didn't say they argued for it "to bankrupt much of British agriculture". I said "(bankrupting much of British agriculture)".....my prediction, not their declared intent.

I think my tongue was in my cheek when I was "supporting" Scotland leaving the Union - there would certainly be benefits to the English taxpayer but I was delighted on the night they had rejected the idea Salmond had put forward for them and decided to remain. I regard myself as British before English.

I'm not actually surprised at those polling results, if you genuinely believe the destiny of the country lies outside of the European Union you can't support staying in because of the threat of violence in a part of the country, if you do that it's the terrorists in charge of the future of the nation rather than the politicians, that doesn't mean you want it to happen or wouldn't do everything you can to stop it happening.

I would expect you to feel the same if it was the other way, if I told you there was a realistic chance we would see serious violence if we didn't leave the EU I wouldnt all of sudden imagine Remain supporters to back departing, you have to do what you always think is right - electing Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister could cause problems in Northern Ireland as well, I wouldn't expect you not to vote for him because of the risk of it though.

[Izzy]

Not sure which thread to put this but a really interesting read (and from the Guardian )

 

Pretty much sums up my approach to not drinking anymore and well worth a read if you’re doing Dry January

 

@Suzie the Fox and others 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jan/04/freak-out-conquer-foma-fear-of-missing-alcohol?CMP=fb_gu

[Suzie the Fox]

25 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Not sure which thread to put this but a really interesting read (and from the Guardian )

 

Pretty much sums up my approach to not drinking anymore and well worth a read if you’re doing Dry January

 

@Suzie the Fox and others 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jan/04/freak-out-conquer-foma-fear-of-missing-alcohol?CMP=fb_gu

Excellent read and sums up my thoughts entirely. Watching City play and not opening a bottle was my 1st test but armed with my strawberry infused bottle of water i got thru it (helped loads we won.) Its been 5 days now and tbh for the average people thats nothing, but i cannot remember the last time i went 3 days without any booze let alone 5. Im still ultra positive i can do it, i need to prove to myself more than anything i'm not an alcoholic and to top it all off i've lost 5lbs!

 

I really hope i can update this post in a weeks time to say i'm still on the wagon.

 

Onwards and upwards as they say and thanks for sending the link. 

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Izzy said:

Not sure which thread to put this but a really interesting read (and from the Guardian )

 

Pretty much sums up my approach to not drinking anymore and well worth a read if you’re doing Dry January

 

@Suzie the Fox and others 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jan/04/freak-out-conquer-foma-fear-of-missing-alcohol?CMP=fb_gu

 

33 minutes ago, Suzie the Fox said:

Excellent read and sums up my thoughts entirely. Watching City play and not opening a bottle was my 1st test but armed with my strawberry infused bottle of water i got thru it (helped loads we won.) Its been 5 days now and tbh for the average people thats nothing, but i cannot remember the last time i went 3 days without any booze let alone 5. Im still ultra positive i can do it, i need to prove to myself more than anything i'm not an alcoholic and to top it all off i've lost 5lbs!

 

I really hope i can update this post in a weeks time to say i'm still on the wagon.

 

Onwards and upwards as they say and thanks for sending the link. 

 

I'm not meaning to preach or be offensive but it's quite noticeable that most aggressive and dickhead posts on here come at the weekends, particularly in the evenings.

 

Sometimes, I can tell when certain posters have had a drink, simply by the apparent change in their mood. It really is a crap drug.

[Countryfox]

4 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

I'm not meaning to preach or be offensive but it's quite noticeable that most aggressive and dickhead posts on here come at the weekends, particularly in the evenings.

 

Sometimes, I can tell when certain posters have had a drink, simply by the apparent change in their mood. It really is a crap drug.

 

Rubbish !!! ....     my dickhead posts can come at anytime of day thank you ....       

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Countryfox said:

 

Rubbish !!! ....     my dickhead posts can come at anytime of day thank you ....       

 

Well, duh.

 

I was talking about seemingly sane people...

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, Suzie the Fox said:

Excellent read and sums up my thoughts entirely. Watching City play and not opening a bottle was my 1st test but armed with my strawberry infused bottle of water i got thru it (helped loads we won.) Its been 5 days now and tbh for the average people thats nothing, but i cannot remember the last time i went 3 days without any booze let alone 5. Im still ultra positive i can do it, i need to prove to myself more than anything i'm not an alcoholic and to top it all off i've lost 5lbs!

 

I really hope i can update this post in a weeks time to say i'm still on the wagon.

 

Onwards and upwards as they say and thanks for sending the link. 

Wow, 5lbs already - that's awesome 

Best of luck staying dry Suze. The first few weeks are the most difficult but once the toxins are fully out of your system, you'll feel great. They say it can take 3 weeks to 3 months to change a habit so take it a day at a time and celebrate the victories along the way (with a soft drink!) 

 

 

44 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I'm not meaning to preach or be offensive but it's quite noticeable that most aggressive and dickhead posts on here come at the weekends, particularly in the evenings.

 

Sometimes, I can tell when certain posters have had a drink, simply by the apparent change in their mood. It really is a crap drug.

I was definitely guilty of that when I first joined FT and was drinking. My one and only ban came from posting something completely out of character when I was pissed one evening and I look back on it now and cringe.

[Buce]

9 minutes ago, Izzy said:

I was definitely guilty of that when I first joined FT and was drinking. My one and only ban came from posting something completely out of character when I was pissed one evening and I look back on it now and cringe.

 

 

Link, please.

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

I'm not meaning to preach or be offensive but it's quite noticeable that most aggressive and dickhead posts on here come at the weekends, particularly in the evenings.

 

Sometimes, I can tell when certain posters have had a drink, simply by the apparent change in their mood. It really is a crap drug.

I wish I could blame my posts on alcohol but I can't. I don't even realise that they are aggressive and insulting.

 

Good on ya Suzie.

[Buce]

1 minute ago, FIF said:

I wish I could blame my posts on alcohol but I can't. I don't even realise that they are aggressive and insulting.

 

Good on ya Suzie.

 

I have never had a problem with your posts, FIF.

[Izzy]

4 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Link, please.

 "Look back on it" as in remember it well. My posts were deleted and rightly so. Luckily the evidence has been destroyed 

[Facecloth]

1 minute ago, Izzy said:

 "Look back on it" as in remember it well. My posts were deleted and rightly so. Luckily the evidence has been destroyed 

I'm sure they're in a secret FT vault somewhere!

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I have never had a problem with your posts, FIF.

 

We must live in an alternate universe Buce as apart from an odd post too many conversing on the topic of Cambiasso or Mahrez, I've never really understood what I've been doing wrong. However, I have almost 2 years worth of suspensions in total and this annoying post limit that drives me crazy. 

 

Edit: SL will probably come on here now and tell me but he's on ignore. 

Edited 5 January 2019 by Guest

[bovril]

26 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Wow, 5lbs already - that's awesome 

Best of luck staying dry Suze. The first few weeks are the most difficult but once the toxins are fully out of your system, you'll feel great. They say it can take 3 weeks to 3 months to change a habit so take it a day at a time and celebrate the victories along the way (with a soft drink!) 

 

 

I was definitely guilty of that when I first joined FT and was drinking. My one and only ban came from posting something completely out of character when I was pissed one evening and I look back on it now and cringe.

A good joke? 

[Izzy]

1 minute ago, bovril said:

A good joke? 

[Alf Bentley]

4 hours ago, MattP said:

I think my tongue was in my cheek when I was "supporting" Scotland leaving the Union - there would certainly be benefits to the English taxpayer but I was delighted on the night they had rejected the idea Salmond had put forward for them and decided to remain. I regard myself as British before English.

I'm not actually surprised at those polling results, if you genuinely believe the destiny of the country lies outside of the European Union you can't support staying in because of the threat of violence in a part of the country, if you do that it's the terrorists in charge of the future of the nation rather than the politicians, that doesn't mean you want it to happen or wouldn't do everything you can to stop it happening.

I would expect you to feel the same if it was the other way, if I told you there was a realistic chance we would see serious violence if we didn't leave the EU I wouldnt all of sudden imagine Remain supporters to back departing, you have to do what you always think is right - electing Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister could cause problems in Northern Ireland as well, I wouldn't expect you not to vote for him because of the risk of it though.

 

Fair dos if your Scotland comments were tongue in cheek. I got the impression they fitted in with quite an English nationalist stance at the time, but that was several years ago and your views seem to have mellowed a bit since then - maybe you've matured and shifted from Far Right to Extreme Right . It's interesting that Remain voters seem to care more about the Union than Leavers, though (N. Ireland apart).

 

Your second point is largely fair comment. Though most Brexit voters - and presumably most of those polled - aren't as politicized as you are, so their preparedness to countenance a breakdown of the peace process seems significant to me. I take your point from the perspective of a highly-politicized Brexit supporter.

 

Funny enough, I'm almost the opposite of what you suggest in your third point. I believe that remaining in the EU would be right, but I might be happier with a Soft Brexit deal than with another referendum, precisely because of the toxic division that I'd expect a referendum to cause - though I think we're destined to be a divided nation for the foreseeable future regardless, unless a miracle worker takes over. It's not so much the violence that concerns me, more the long-term bitter division. I presume any violence if Brexit were cancelled would not develop into some extreme Bosnia situation - maybe a few riots, pitched battles, the odd death, not ideal but manageable. But, to me, some compromise would be worth it to avoid living forever in a bitterly divided nation. You seem to be suggesting that neither Brexiteers nor Remainers should compromise at all....a recipe for bitter US-style polarisation, I'd say.

 

As for Corbyn, I reckon the reaction would depend on real policy initiatives if he is ever PM - similar with, say, Boris on the other side. Sure, Unionist supporters would much prefer the Tories, just as Sinn Fein would prefer Labour, but it wouldn't go much beyond grumbling unless dramatic policy changes were made. If Corbyn tried to push through a United Ireland any time soon, that would obviously provoke serious problems, but I can't imagine him being that stupid or being allowed to do it by his party - and the likes of Varadkar would surely oppose it as massively premature and stupid, anyway. For that matter, I cannot imagine myself voting Labour if they adopted that policy - and am sure plenty of others would share that view.

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, Izzy said:

Not sure which thread to put this but a really interesting read (and from the Guardian )

 

Pretty much sums up my approach to not drinking anymore and well worth a read if you’re doing Dry January

 

@Suzie the Fox and others 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jan/04/freak-out-conquer-foma-fear-of-missing-alcohol?CMP=fb_gu

 

Good article, Izzy. Infinitely better than most such articles about non-drinking. Particularly the "How to beat fear of missing alcohol" recommendations (mainly the first 3).

 

I'd add:

- Combine recommendations 1 and 2: don't just beware "euphoric recall", actively challenge it when it comes into your mind (and it will). Yes, it might be true that you felt good and had a great laugh that time you got pissed, but what happened later that night or on a different night.....that wasn't so good, was it? And what impact did it have the next day or for the rest of the week/year? On work, relationships, friendships, reputation, money....Was it worth it?

- On the positive side, I've always found it important that I can clearly see benefits from not drinking, otherwise not drinking can seem like a pointless denial and life can seem grey, a risk for relapse. For me, that positive is all the satisfying or enjoyable things that I do and wouldn't have done if drinking, so I have to make the effort to do such things. Drifting and becoming a bored couch potato is another potential risk.

- Also, actively registering the benefits of feeling better physically and in your mood, lack of stress, more relaxed etc. Then there are relationships and finances that mainly improve, too - worth actively registering that, not taking it for granted.

 

 

3 hours ago, Suzie the Fox said:

Excellent read and sums up my thoughts entirely. Watching City play and not opening a bottle was my 1st test but armed with my strawberry infused bottle of water i got thru it (helped loads we won.) Its been 5 days now and tbh for the average people thats nothing, but i cannot remember the last time i went 3 days without any booze let alone 5. Im still ultra positive i can do it, i need to prove to myself more than anything i'm not an alcoholic and to top it all off i've lost 5lbs!

 

I really hope i can update this post in a weeks time to say i'm still on the wagon.

 

Onwards and upwards as they say and thanks for sending the link. 

 

If you're anything like me - and your drinking patterns sound very similar - then 5-10 days could be an important moment. I never used to drink every day, but fairly heavily about every other day - and rarely more than 2 days without booze.

Each time I stopped (numerous occasions), at about 5 days off I'd feel much better physically and in better mood....but it could be a risky moment as I'd feel almost too energetic, brimming with positivity - and, unless I was careful, that energy and euphoria could lead me to booze again.....

 

If I got through that moment of temptation, I'd mostly be unlikely to relapse for about 2-4 months.....when the issue of complacency came into play. It had been such a long time since I'd been boozing that memories of the negatives were less acute, so if life got a bit grey and I didn't challenge "euphoric recall" (great concept), I'd be at high risk of relapse. Over 30 years of mainly boozing, sometimes stopping, I often relapsed at 2-6 months. Good luck - and good thinking!