[Politics] Brexit

[Baldseagull]

Expecting individuals to come up with solutions to incredibly complicated and technical diplomatic/trade/sovereignty/border issues always seemed a bit silly to me. A bit like me continually insisting individual reluctant remain voters post a blueprint of how we stay in the EU but avoid all the bits we don't like (eg ever closer union). No one on NSC or in the wider country fully understands all the intricacies and how much politics is in play exploiting the threat of Terrorism/undermining the GFA as an excuse to rule out different pathways. Despite constant misrepresentations by tedious bellends on here, my only specific point about NI and Brexit was that the people of Northern Ireland have a democratic path to accept or change the deal if they don't like it . They currently have this option in the Brexit deal but a vote is years away. The Northern Ireland protocol is obviously causing problems on both sides and not working as envisaged so I would suggest bringing forward a vote to see if the people of NI want it changed.

I thought we had sorted this out earlier? All we had to do was vote Remain.
It was agreed that there was nothing that committed Britain to ever closer union, and just to make it clear they would have added it explicitly into the treaties had we voted to remain. You will also recall that there was the European Union Act 2011, ensuring any significant change in the EU treaties affecting EU UK relationship would have to be ratified by a referendum. The only reason to vote leave on this matter then, is if you want to deny the democratic wishes of a future population, probably one after you are dead, that might want to take a step towards closer union.
I believe we have been through all the concerns on this thread, and it turns out most of them were not valid.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I thought we had sorted this out earlier? All we had to do was vote Remain.
It was agreed that there was nothing that committed Britain to ever closer union, and just to make it clear they would have added it explicitly into the treaties had we voted to remain. You will also recall that there was the European Union Act 2011, ensuring any significant change in the EU treaties affecting EU UK relationship would have to be ratified by a referendum. The only reason to vote leave on this matter then, is if you want to deny the democratic wishes of a future population, probably one after you are dead, that might want to take a step towards closer union.
I believe we have been through all the concerns on this thread, and it turns out most of them were not valid.

But it has fortuitously managed to go off at a complete tangent and miss the question which was actually

To be clear, I'd be interested to know what the likes of you, Westdene, JCFG, Pastafarian (and so on) think the solution should be to this problem. I am not going to namecheck the simpletons but you must know they are, as much as you know the couple of cretin remainers.

There appears to be no solution to Ireland beyond membership of the CU at a minimum. If there is, I'm all ears.

To which the answer from this post

Expecting individuals to come up with solutions to incredibly complicated and technical diplomatic/trade/sovereignty/border issues always seemed a bit silly to me. A bit like me continually insisting individual reluctant remain voters post a blueprint of how we stay in the EU but avoid all the bits we don't like (eg ever closer union). No one on NSC or in the wider country fully understands all the intricacies and how much politics is in play exploiting the threat of Terrorism/undermining the GFA as an excuse to rule out different pathways. Despite constant misrepresentations by tedious bellends on here, my only specific point about NI and Brexit was that the people of Northern Ireland have a democratic path to accept or change the deal if they don't like it . They currently have this option in the Brexit deal but a vote is years away. The Northern Ireland protocol is obviously causing problems on both sides and not working as envisaged so I would suggest bringing forward a vote to see if the people of NI want it changed.

can be deduced

No, I have no ideas of any alternative solution to my preferred Northern Ireland Protocol, which I voted for, and now agree isn't working.

I'm not sure what giving the people of NI a vote on something that is not working with no alternative achieves Although you can see why Unionists across the UK are pissed off with people who wanted and voted for this solution.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I thought we had sorted this out earlier? All we had to do was vote Remain.
It was agreed that there was nothing that committed Britain to ever closer union, and just to make it clear they would have added it explicitly into the treaties had we voted to remain. You will also recall that there was the European Union Act 2011, ensuring any significant change in the EU treaties affecting EU UK relationship would have to be ratified by a referendum. The only reason to vote leave on this matter then, is if you want to deny the democratic wishes of a future population, probably one after you are dead, that might want to take a step towards closer union.
I believe we have been through all the concerns on this thread, and it turns out most of them were not valid.

Yes we have been over this several times and it always ends with you disappearing when I point out both the French and the Dutch voted against more 'ever closer union' (the EU constitution) in a referendum ... how did that work out for them?

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

 

[Baldseagull]

But it has fortuitously managed to go off at a complete tangent and miss the question which was actually



To which the answer from this post
is actually

No, I have no alternative solution to my preferred Northern Ireland Protocol, which I wanted, voted for, and now agree isn't working.

I'm not sure what giving the people of NI a vote on something that is not working with no alternative achieves Although you can see why Unionists across the UK are pissed off with people who wanted and voted for this solution.

It baffled me why it was unacceptable for Theresa May to sign up to an agreement that put a border down the Irish sea, but fine for Johnson to do it. I think maybe its like when Zaha goes down easily (TM seen as a remainer) and we all agree that it's unacceptable cheating, but if Connolly does it, it's just part of the modern game (BJ seen as a Brexiteer), i.e. it isn't so much the act itself, as which team the player is playing for, or nominally playing for, as in BJ's case, he is playing for BJ.

 

[Simster]

Yes we have been over this several times and it always ends with you disappearing when I point out both the French and the Dutch voted against more 'ever closer union' (the EU constitution) in a referendum ... how did that work out for them?

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

Thanks for replying earlier. It is clear you have no clue what to do about Ireland. The problem is, nobody does. And now we risk violence in NI and beyond.

Surely the answer is to be out of the EU as far as possible within the constraints of remaining in the CU and SM. If we paid a fee to enable that but ensuring freedom of movement was restricted and maybe one or two other things, surely that would satisfy most whilst respecting the result of a very tight vote.

Your point on France and Netherlands is well made, but I wonder if anything has happened since those referendums that those electorates disapprove of? Certainly in France, the next PM was voted in on the ticket of getting changes to the EU and explicitly NOT holding a referendum to ratify it, and that is what happened.

 

[Baldseagull]

Yes we have been over this several times and it always ends with you disappearing when I point out both the French and the Dutch voted against more 'ever closer union' (the EU constitution) in a referendum ... how did that work out for them?

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

No they didn't, they voted against a particular amendment to the treaties, for numerous reasons. In France there was a very pro EU group supporting a no vote, in order to have a renegotiation, it was not a vote against closer Union, it was a vote against the terms in that version of treaty changes.

In any case, neither country had an act in law requiring there to be a referendum to make a change, in the UK, there could not be a referendum on one version and just a parliamentary vote on the next version of treaty changes, as there was in France. It's a false argument, which makes no logical sense.

You should have used the Ireland example, where one referendum rejecting a version of the treaties was followed with one accepting a different version, like when an employer puts a pay proposal to a Union and the members reject it, they are not voting to lose their jobs, they are voting for an improved contract, one they can agree to.

Pretty sure we have done this before on the thread too, I really can't remember backing off or disappearing from you on the thread, ever.

 

[ManOfSussex]

It baffled me why it was unacceptable for Theresa May to sign up to an agreement that put a border down the Irish sea, but fine for Johnson to do it. I think maybe its like when Zaha goes down easily (TM seen as a remainer) and we all agree that it's unacceptable cheating, but if Connolly does it, it's just part of the modern game (BJ seen as a Brexiteer), i.e. it isn't so much the act itself, as which team the player is playing for, or nominally playing for, as in BJ's case, he is playing for BJ.

Back then you also had the ERG playing the union card and citing The DUP's opposition to May's agreement as to why they were against it, then they happily threw them under a bus by backing Johnson's. Baffling as you say.

 

[vegster]

Back then you also had the ERG playing the union card and citing The DUP's opposition to May's agreement as to why they were against it, then they happily threw them under a bus by backing Johnson's. Baffling as you say.

The moment Johnson got his 80 seat majority the DUP ceased to have any influence or power, they were thrown under the bus in the desperate scramble to get some sort of deal over the line by 31st Dec 2020. No common sense or deeper thoughts were allowed to delay that deadline, a global Covid crisis and the obvious insoluble problem of an EU/NI border were both ignored in the suicidal scramble to " Get Brexit Done".

The EU could see the looming problems ahead and offered an extension to the Transition Period but to no avail, we are where we are with a " Deal " that was never a solution merely a fudge to get past the deadline, a deal that Johnson has now had to break in order to fulfil his lies.

It's just incredible to read Johnson's charge sheet of ****ups, lies, betrayal's and incompetence over the past year yet see them polling as they are. It seems that the public are as incompetent as the government they elected.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Thanks for replying earlier. It is clear you have no clue what to do about Ireland. The problem is, nobody does. And now we risk violence in NI and beyond.

Surely the answer is to be out of the EU as far as possible within the constraints of remaining in the CU and SM. If we paid a fee to enable that but ensuring freedom of movement was restricted and maybe one or two other things, surely that would satisfy most whilst respecting the result of a very tight vote.

Your point on France and Netherlands is well made, but I wonder if anything has happened since those referendums that those electorates disapprove of? Certainly in France, the next PM was voted in on the ticket of getting changes to the EU and explicitly NOT holding a referendum to ratify it, and that is what happened.

As I said, I think it's a silly question to ask for the reasons previously stated. Also, not much point in arguing for something that isn't going to happen.

Yes the point being, referendum votes are in no way a guarantee (unless for leaving the EU) of preventing ever closer union no matter how much some people pretend otherwise. Speaking of which ..

No they didn't, they voted against a particular amendment to the treaties, for numerous reasons. In France there was a very pro EU group supporting a no vote, in order to have a renegotiation, it was not a vote against closer Union, it was a vote against the terms in that version of treaty changes.

In any case, neither country had an act in law requiring there to be a referendum to make a change, in the UK, there could not be a referendum on one version and just a parliamentary vote on the next version of treaty changes, as there was in France. It's a false argument, which makes no logical sense.

You should have used the Ireland example, where one referendum rejecting a version of the treaties was followed with one accepting a different version, like when an employer puts a pay proposal to a Union and the members reject it, they are not voting to lose their jobs, they are voting for an improved contract, one they can agree to.

Pretty sure we have done this before on the thread too, I really can't remember backing off or disappearing from you on the thread, ever.

Bollox ...

They even mentioned it in the question. The question asked in France ...

“Do you approve the bill authorizing the ratification of the treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe?”

.... numerous issues get drawn into a referendum and parties take sides for all sorts of reasons but to pretend it wasn't about accepting or rejecting the EU constitution (another step towards ever closer union) is clearly false.

Netherlands - Dutch say 'devastating no' to EU constitution

The project for greater European integration was today facing crisis after Dutch voters rejected the constitution spelling out the conditions of unity.

....Jan Peter Balkenende, the prime minister, swiftly conceded defeat and acknowledged the gap between politicians and the electorate. "The idea of Europe has lived for the politicians, but not the Dutch people," he said. "That will have to change."

The French president, Jacques Chirac, said the Dutch vote - which came just three days after France rejected the EU constitution - had exposed "questions and concerns about the development of the European project".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jun/02/eu.politics

Even the French President and the Dutch PM acknowledged it was a rejection of the political drive for ever closer union. As we know it didn't take the politicians long to find a way of bypassing referendum results that gave the wrong answer.

I'm pretty sure the last time we did this I mentioned France/Netherlands in my final post and you didn't reply ...

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

But it has fortuitously managed to go off at a complete tangent and miss the question which was actually



To which the answer from this post
can be deduced

No, I have no ideas of any alternative solution to my preferred Northern Ireland Protocol, which I voted for, and now agree isn't working.

I'm not sure what giving the people of NI a vote on something that is not working with no alternative achieves Although you can see why Unionists across the UK are pissed off with people who wanted and voted for this solution.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...nflexibility-over-northern-ireland-dup-brexit
Regards
DF

 

[WATFORD zero]

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...nflexibility-over-northern-ireland-dup-brexit
Regards
DF

Just when I think somebody couldn't be more stupid, you manage to take it to a whole new level

I feel like I really should try and explain it to you but I genuinely wouldn't know where to start and at my age, I don't think I have long enough left

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Just when I think somebody couldn't be more stupid, you manage to take it to a whole new level

I feel like I really should try and explain it to you but I genuinely wouldn't know where to start and at my age, I don't think I have long enough left

I'm all ears crack on
Regards
DF

 

[Weststander]

The Albion are playing okay.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I'm all ears crack on
Regards
DF

I don't think that was ever in doubt. It's the bit between them that's questionable

The Albion are playing okay.

He's always posting in the Bear Pit when the Albion are playing. He doesn't go (when we could) or have any interest in them or football anymore. He'd rather hang around the race fishing threads in the Bear Pit



UK Statistics Authority rebukes Gove over Brexit figures

The Cabinet Office run by Michael Gove has been officially reprimanded by the UK Statistics Authority for using unpublished and unverifiable data in an attempt to deny that Brexit had caused a massive fall in volumes of trade through British ports.

The RHA wrote to Gove at the time saying: “Intelligence that we are collecting on an ongoing basis from international hauliers suggests that loads to the EU have reduced by as much as 68%, which can also be evidenced by the increased number of empty trailers which are not currently considered in the statistics.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/06/uk-statistics-authority-rebukes-gove-over-observers-brexit-figures

I see the Government are still lying about the impact of Brexit.

I really can't see how they can lie their way out of the NI protocol though. It was this Government's solution to the Irish Border problem, negotiated and signed off by them 10 weeks ago, and now they find that they can't actually implement what they negotiated. And what's the betting they won't be capable of putting any UK border controls in place when they have said they will in April and June ? Failing to do that will bring the WTO on board wanting us to offer the same 'light touch' to the rest of the world.

And this is the 'Good Brexit deal' that was negotiated ?

So the UK break International law, the EU starts legal proceedings and get fines and tariffs in place, what happens next

 

[WATFORD zero]

I see the Government are still lying about the impact of Brexit.

I really can't see how they can lie their way out of the NI protocol though. It was this Government's solution to the Irish Border problem, negotiated and signed off by them 10 weeks ago, and now they find that they can't actually implement what they negotiated. And what's the betting they won't be capable of putting any UK border controls in place when they have said they will in April and June ? Failing to do that will bring the WTO on board wanting us to offer the same 'light touch' to the rest of the world.

And this is the 'Good Brexit deal' that was negotiated ?

So the UK break International law, the EU starts legal proceedings and get fines and tariffs in place, what happens next

Silly me, I should have checked all the news headlines before I posted

Food scarcity fears prompt plan to ease post-Brexit checks on EU imports

Ministers are preparing to relax post-Brexit plans for border checks on food and other imports from the European Union because of fears that they will further damage trade and could lead to severe shortages in UK supermarkets.The Observer has been told by multiple industry sources that Boris Johnson’s new Brexit minister, Lord Frost, is considering allowing “lighter touch” controls on imports from 1 April than are currently planned, and scaling back plans for full customs checks, including physical inspections, which are due to begin on 1 July.

One source said he had been told that Frost was preparing to put the plans, which could mean imports being allowed in even if clerical errors have been made by European companies, before fellow cabinet ministers this week, as evidence grows of how Brexit has hit trade with the EU.

While a key claim of Brexiters was always that Brexit would mean “regaining control of our borders”, doing so has proved hugely problematic since the UK left the single market and customs union on 1 January. In order to give businesses time to adapt the government decided that imports into the UK from the EU could operate as normal until 1 April. From that date, under current plans, all items of animal origin such as meat, honey, milk or egg products, as well as regulated plants and plant products, will require full documentation and, where necessary, veterinary certificates to be sold in the UK. From 1 July, all companies exporting to the UK will be required to fill out full customs declarations and goods could be subjected to physical checks at new UK customs centres.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/06/food-scarcity-fears-prompt-plan-to-ease-post-brexit-checks-on-eu-imports

Taking back control with no real Import customs procedures. I wonder what parts of the 'Brexit Good Deal' we are actually capable of implementing

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Silly me, I should have checked all the news headlines before I posted

Food scarcity fears prompt plan to ease post-Brexit checks on EU imports

Ministers are preparing to relax post-Brexit plans for border checks on food and other imports from the European Union because of fears that they will further damage trade and could lead to severe shortages in UK supermarkets.The Observer has been told by multiple industry sources that Boris Johnson’s new Brexit minister, Lord Frost, is considering allowing “lighter touch” controls on imports from 1 April than are currently planned, and scaling back plans for full customs checks, including physical inspections, which are due to begin on 1 July.

One source said he had been told that Frost was preparing to put the plans, which could mean imports being allowed in even if clerical errors have been made by European companies, before fellow cabinet ministers this week, as evidence grows of how Brexit has hit trade with the EU.

While a key claim of Brexiters was always that Brexit would mean “regaining control of our borders”, doing so has proved hugely problematic since the UK left the single market and customs union on 1 January. In order to give businesses time to adapt the government decided that imports into the UK from the EU could operate as normal until 1 April. From that date, under current plans, all items of animal origin such as meat, honey, milk or egg products, as well as regulated plants and plant products, will require full documentation and, where necessary, veterinary certificates to be sold in the UK. From 1 July, all companies exporting to the UK will be required to fill out full customs declarations and goods could be subjected to physical checks at new UK customs centres.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/06/food-scarcity-fears-prompt-plan-to-ease-post-brexit-checks-on-eu-imports

Taking back control with no real Import customs procedures. I wonder what parts of the 'Brexit Good Deal' we are actually capable of implementing

No comment I see on DUP claims that the EU are making things difficult
Regards
DF

 

[A1X]

“You know who I trust? The DUP.”

- Nobody

 

[Randy McNob]

No comment I see on DUP claims that the EU are making things difficult
Regards
DF

Taking back control

 

[WATFORD zero]

And following on from yesterday's 'taking back control' with no customs import regulations,

British ports say they are not ready for Brexit customs checks
Construction only just started at the key livestock port of Portsmouth, while the facility at Dover is just ‘a muddy field’

A string of British ports are urging the government to delay the next wave of Brexit red tape, saying that border checkposts will not be ready for the July deadline, while inland customs facilities being built are also behind schedule.

Exports into the EU from the UK have been subject to controls since 1 January, but the British government decided to delay import controls until the summer to give traders time to prepare. From 1 July, however, ministers expect checks to take place at more than 30 designated border control posts (BCPs), where goods, plants and animals entering from the EU by sea, rail or air can be inspected. With less than four months to go, construction has only just begun at ports including Portsmouth, Purfleet on Thames in Essex, and Killingholme on the Humber.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/07/british-ports-say-they-are-not-ready-for-brexit-customs-checks

I hope nobody made the mistake from yesterday's news of thinking there was an element of political decision making, when it was obviously just more complete incompetence. At least Johnson hadn't signed up and committed to this legally ..............oh

If the EU were ready and introduced all this on Jan 1st I wonder why we weren't and didn't

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

And following on from yesterday's 'taking back control' with no customs import regulations,

British ports say they are not ready for Brexit customs checks
Construction only just started at the key livestock port of Portsmouth, while the facility at Dover is just ‘a muddy field’

A string of British ports are urging the government to delay the next wave of Brexit red tape, saying that border checkposts will not be ready for the July deadline, while inland customs facilities being built are also behind schedule.

Exports into the EU from the UK have been subject to controls since 1 January, but the British government decided to delay import controls until the summer to give traders time to prepare. From 1 July, however, ministers expect checks to take place at more than 30 designated border control posts (BCPs), where goods, plants and animals entering from the EU by sea, rail or air can be inspected. With less than four months to go, construction has only just begun at ports including Portsmouth, Purfleet on Thames in Essex, and Killingholme on the Humber.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/07/british-ports-say-they-are-not-ready-for-brexit-customs-checks

I hope nobody made the mistake from yesterday's news of thinking there was an element of political decision making, when it was obviously just more complete incompetence. At least Johnson hadn't signed up and committed to this legally ..............oh

A situation not wholly surprising when you make policy up on the back of a beer mat.