Brexit!

[WigstonWanderer]

3 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

If we leave with no deal there really will be a border.  This is a compromise, and a sensible one - people can move freely, but goods will have to have either pre-registered or stop off in a customs clearance centre.  If you can explain why essentially no restrictions on people movement within the Island of Ireland should be a problem then I would welcome that explanation.  

The problem is all the extra red tape that will ensnare business, particularly small business. Not to mention that it will endanger the GFA.

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

If we leave with no deal there really will be a border.  This is a compromise, and a sensible one - people can move freely, but goods will have to have either pre-registered or stop off in a customs clearance centre.  If you can explain why essentially no restrictions on people movement within the Island of Ireland should be a problem then I would welcome that explanation.  

 

- There are about 300 border crossings between North and South

- Official stats show that, in 2016, there were 758,000 deliveries from North to South

- Of those deliveries, 74% were made by small or micro-businesses (many small traders / farmers)

https://fullfact.org/europe/irish-border-trade-checks/ (pie chart near bottom)

 

That sounds like a monumentally difficult task to make that work.

- How many customs clearance centres would be set up and how far would traders need to travel to visit one?

- Would most small traders/farmers be able to handle (presumably computerised) pre-registration of goods?

- Smuggling would be an issue once different tariffs, standards and regulations were applicable - how would you avoid smuggling with 300 open crossings?

 

Then, there's the central risk of customs clearance centres becoming a target for dissident republican terrorists. They do not accept the validity of the border, but it is now invisible for all purposes. Customs clearance centres would be a less obvious target than border posts, but still likely to be a symbolic target, representing an "unjust" division of the country....with the clear risk of retaliation  and escalation if such attacks took place.

 

The free movement of people within the island isn't a problem - or a minimal issue, anyway. In theory, I suppose that migrants from other EU states could use free movement to enter the Irish Republic, then cross into GB, looking for work on the black market or whatever.....but it would be easy for them to enter via Dover/Heathrow as holidaymakers or students, then look for work, I imagine? Migrants from outside the EU wouldn't be an issue as the Irish Republic isn't in Schengen.

 

A question for you, @Jon the Hat.....

If you see Boris' customs clearance centres in N. Ireland as no problem, would the same apply in England?

Get rid of all Customs controls at Dover, Harwich, maybe even Heathrow, and set up English customs clearance centres?

There's all this angst about traffic bottlenecks at Dover.....that would eliminate the problem (except on the French side), wouldn't it?  

[Voll Blau]

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

I'm pretty sure you already have to show ID to get from NI into GB mainland.

You do when flying, yeah - although only at the gate and not to border/customs officials. A driving licence is acceptable.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Brexit the musical?

 

 

[Legend_in_blue]

Now I'm reading that there is contradiction in what Bojo offered yesterday and what he has said today.  Surprise, surprise.

 

Should the EU reject this deal, which I expect them to do, what worries me is the fallout when Bojo jumps on the "Let's blame the EU" bandwagon which I'm sure he will do at some point in the next week or so.  He's setting this up for one almighty fallout.  

Edited 3 October 2019 by Legend_in_blue

[HappyHamza]

Amusing watching brexiteers excitedly trying to convince everybody that Boris' deal will pass through the House when his proposals won't even get through the EU.

[Guest MattP]

38 minutes ago, HappyHamza said:

Amusing watching brexiteers excitedly trying to convince everybody that Boris' deal will pass through the House when his proposals won't even get through the EU.

He's not expecting everything to get through - the document is the basis for a negotiation.

 

The EU now has to choose what they'll allow or they can genuinely risk us leaving on no deal - which should have been the starting point from our side in this.

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, HappyHamza said:

Amusing watching brexiteers excitedly trying to convince everybody that Boris' deal will pass through the House when his proposals won't even get through the EU.

Well remainers and th EU have been asking for hard proposals that could pass through the the house, and now they have them.  Not sure why that is funny.

[Charl91]

14 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Well remainers and th EU have been asking for hard proposals that could pass through the the house, and now they have them.  Not sure why that is funny.

 

Because we need realistic proposals. The EU have been asking for proposals that respect their own red lines. This isn't. 

 

There is absolutely no point in proposing stuff that we know is certain to not get accepted. The EU will not accept this, or even close to it - their response is essentially "We don't want to reject it outright, because we don't want to be painted as the villains for no-deal, so we'll just say that it needs some work".  I think Boris also knows the EU won't accept it. He just wants to be able to claim that the EU has turned down his "very reasonable" proposal, but the EU are wise to his game. 

 

It's ok to say that this is just the basis for the beginning of negotiations. But during what time? Even if this was the beginning of a new negotiated deal, there's no chance this would get done before the 31st of October (I suppose it actually has to be much sooner, so we can implement the legislation). And secondly, even if it was the basis for the beginning of negotiations, I don't think there is a middle ground to be found here - either it changes so much that it won't get through the house, or it doesn't change and the EU won't accept it.

Edited 3 October 2019 by Charl91

[Guest MattP]

My word, this is what we are up against. 

 

 

[Mike Oxlong]

Not quite on point but Priti Patel’s odious IMO 

[bovril]

22 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Not quite on point but Priti Patel’s odious IMO 

She is, yes. Maybe I'm missing something but a politician with a known authoritarian streak shouting that she'll "take control" and end freedom of movement doesn't fill me with great joy. 

[st albans fox]

7 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

Don't know, but there passport checks when i went to crete this year and i'm fairly sure that crete is in the EU.

Crete is in the EU but n Ireland is the same nation as England, Wales and Scotland ! Perhaps  the residents of n Ireland are happy to show ID to enter the British mainland given their land border with the EU.  Bit surprised if that’s the case 

[Jon the Hat]

31 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Not quite on point but Priti Patel’s odious IMO 

Priti Patel has majority views on most issues.  I don’t agree with all but the polls mostly do.

[HappyHamza]

 

3 hours ago, MattP said:

He's not expecting everything to get through - the document is the basis for a negotiation.

 

The EU now has to choose what they'll allow or they can genuinely risk us leaving on no deal - which should have been the starting point from our side in this.

 

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Well remainers and th EU have been asking for hard proposals that could pass through the the house, and now they have them.  Not sure why that is funny.

What is it about brexit that causes people to lose their critical faculties?

[Jon the Hat]

15 minutes ago, HappyHamza said:

 

 

What is it about brexit that causes people to lose their critical faculties?

Good question - the May deal is ridiculously bad for us, we rejected it, this is a compromise, the alternative is no deal.  Very simple really.

[Leicester_Loyal]

People wanted a deal, Boris has put together a deal

[UpTheLeagueFox]

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Good question - the May deal is ridiculously bad for us, we rejected it, this is a compromise, the alternative is no deal.  Very simple really.

 

15 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

People wanted a deal, Boris has put together a deal

Remoaners don't want a deal and don't want 'no deal'.

Brexiteers now seem more willing to compromise for a deal.

One side seems to be able to compromise.

 

[I voted remain ... and obviously was on the losing side.]

[RobHawk]

As a remainder, I've said since we voted to leave I'd be happy with a 'soft brexit' deal. 

 

I value my right to move freely throughout Europe and will be disappointed to lose this.

 

All the deals so far have gone far too far for me to get behind. 

 

As for boris' deal, it's a lame duck imho. It's never getting past the EU and he knows it. It's all about setting things up for a blame game election.

[Charl91]

9 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

 

Remoaners don't want a deal and don't want 'no deal'.

Brexiteers now seem more willing to compromise for a deal.

One side seems to be able to compromise.

 

[I voted remain ... and obviously was on the losing side.]

That's not true at all though, is it. A lot of MP's who voted for remain also voted for Theresa May's deal. In fact, if you look at who rejected Theresa May's deal from a Tory perspective (because as the opposition, Labour were always going to vote against it), a lot of it was the ERG (especially in the first 2 votes, but even in the last one) - those who want a hard brexit, and only a hard brexit, and wouldn't vote for it because it wasn't Brexity enough.

 

As a remainer, I do not want Brexit. But I accept that staying in at this point is pretty untenable, and I'd be able to accept a soft'ish Brexit, which would be the best form of compromise. I would even grudgingly accept Theresa May's deal at this point. But a "hard Brexit" is not a compromise and quite frankly it's pretty disingenuous to try and portray the deals, especially the absurd proposition that Boris is proposing, as such. A EFTA/Norway style model? Now that might have been fair for all parties, but the red lines that Theresa May set out from the start have skewed the starting position so much in favour of leavers, that it has made it near impossible to find any such mutual ground with remainers and Brexiteers.

 

It's like when you're arguing about the heating in the house; one person wants to leave the heating off, and the other wants to turn it on. In this scenario, the remainers are the ones who want to leave it as it is, while the Brexiteers have just turned the Thermostat all the way to 29, but are now yelling that they've definitely compromised, because what they really wanted is the Thermostat at 30.

 

So tell me again, where is it this compromise that Brexiteers have shown?

 

(And this is before we even get into the debate that this new fantasy deal isn't something the EU would ever accept anyway)

 

 

Edit: I also find it a tad weird that you're calling people who voted remain "remoaners", especially as you claimed to vote remain (which I find difficult to believe, but ok). Not particularly the language of compromise, is it? 

 

Edited 4 October 2019 by Charl91

[Charl91]

8 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

People wanted a deal, Boris has put together a deal

 

Great. Let me propose a deal of my own.  The EU will pay us ONE TRILLION POUNDS every year. Sounds brilliant, I'm sure everyone would get behind that.

 

The problem with deals, is that the other party has to accept them.

[Alf Bentley]

9 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

People wanted a deal, Boris has put together a deal

 

The East Midlands wanted a football club. Derby County has put together a football club. 

 

9 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

 

Remoaners don't want a deal and don't want 'no deal'.

Brexiteers now seem more willing to compromise for a deal.

One side seems to be able to compromise.

 

[I voted remain ... and obviously was on the losing side.]

 

I voted Remain but then spent 3 years opposing a second referendum (and still oppose revocation).

A compromise Soft Brexit deal still seems the best solution to me & I've only reluctantly come round to a second referendum as a means of breaking the impasse.

 

Fact: The vast majority of Remainer MPs have voted for a range of Soft Brexit deals (via the indicative votes)

Fact: A significant number of Hard Brexit ERG/DUP MPs have never voted for any Brexit deal (though some are now saying they'll support Boris' deal)

 

May's Deal legislated for a very arm's-length EU-UK relationship with few guarantees about protection of rights & standards.

Johnson's plan does not improve that situation & creates problems in Ireland. It is designed to appeal to ERG/DUP MPs & Hard Brexit voters....no surprise that it doesn't appeal to Remainers.

 

We hear a lot about the 17.4 million Leavers. But there were also 16.1 million Remainers. An approach of "We won, we're going to do everything the 51.9% want & the 48.1% can fvck off" won't make for a happy nation. We all live here.

I mean, if you win the lottery, I'd happily compromise on you giving me 99% of your winnings, but that wouldn't be a reasonable expectation, would it?

 

Like @Charl91, I'm surprised that you use the mildly insulting "Remoaners" if you are one yourself.

The message from that word is: "You lost, so your opinions are just worthless moaning & you need to shut up & accept whatever we demand": i.e. it's a subtle attempt to shut down democratic debate to impose a hard-line solution

I habitually refer to Leave supporters as "Brexiteers" (a neutral term, I'd say). Would it help calm debate if I switched to "Brexshitters" instead?

 

Edited 4 October 2019 by Alf Bentley

[WigstonWanderer]

1 hour ago, Charl91 said:

That's not true at all though, is it. A lot of MP's who voted for remain also voted for Theresa May's deal. In fact, if you look at who rejected Theresa May's deal from a Tory perspective (because as the opposition, Labour were always going to vote against it), a lot of it was the ERG (especially in the first 2 votes, but even in the last one) - those who want a hard brexit, and only a hard brexit, and wouldn't vote for it because it wasn't Brexity enough.

 

As a remainer, I do not want Brexit. But I accept that staying in at this point is pretty untenable, and I'd be able to accept a soft'ish Brexit, which would be the best form of compromise. I would even grudgingly accept Theresa May's deal at this point. But a "hard Brexit" is not a compromise and quite frankly it's pretty disingenuous to try and portray the deals, especially the absurd proposition that Boris is proposing, as such. A EFTA/Norway style model? Now that might have been fair for all parties, but the red lines that Theresa May set out from the start have skewed the starting position so much in favour of leavers, that it has made it near impossible to find any such mutual ground with remainers and Brexiteers.

 

It's like when you're arguing about the heating in the house, and one person wants to leave the heating off, and the other wants to turn it on. In this scenario, the remainers are the ones who want to leave the heating off, and the Brexiteers have just turned the Thermostat all the way to 29, but are now yelling that they've definitely compromised, because they really wanted it at 30, so it must be the other person that is being unreasonable. 

 

So tell me again, where is it this compromise that Brexiteers have shown?

 

(And this is before we even get into the debate that this new fantasy deal isn't something the EU would ever accept anyway)

 

 

Edit: I also find it a tad weird that you're calling people who voted remain "remoaners", especially as you claimed to vote remain (which I find difficult to believe, but ok). Not particularly the language of compromise, is it? 

 

The leave campaign comes replete with these silly little slogans, “remoaners”, “project fear”, etc, presumably straight out of Dominic Cummings’ propaganda factory. Reminds me of the sheep in Animal Farm: “4 legs good, 2 legs bad...”.

[Guest MattP]

29 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

I voted Remain but then spent 3 years opposing a second referendum (and still oppose revocation).

A compromise Soft Brexit deal still seems the best solution to me & I've only reluctantly come round to a second referendum as a means of breaking the impasse.

A second referendum does nothing to solve anything, if Remain wins the Tories surely still go into the next general election promising to leave (I mean why would any leaver seriously respect the result of second referendum) and if Leave wins we still have the same mathematics in parliament.

 

The compromise is I think, the only way out of the impasse. Peter Hitchens brought up a very good point in the MoS that a hard no deal Brexit that is disastrous could lead to us rejoining on even worse terms, a lot of the people on my side of the arugment should also be concerned about that.

[Charl91]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

The compromise

 

Again, what compromise? 

 

You can't take an extreme position, and say "well it's a compromise because it could be even more extreme". That's not a compromise.