advertisement


Oh Britain, what have you done (part ∞+24)?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe this is worst case and highlights there are often different suppliers.

Potential suppliers, like 'new' friends, tend to pick/choose based on past conduct.
This is why the desperate often end up with the deplorable.

Do you really believe our friends in Europe wish to slide into recession?

istm you are asking the wrong question.
Recessions happen: is UK out of EU likely to fare better or worse in the next recession?
 
Well, we should find out in a couple of months how the EU manages a no-deal Brexit in Ireland and Gibraltar.

I suspect the UK will go zero-tariff WTO (and open all borders) so they can blame the EU for the physical border infrastructure. Of course that means feck the farmers and manufacturing, but I suspect most no-dealers don't know that, don't care or think they can actively profit from it. I assume this would kill the need for trade deals on goods, though.

Will they fly in porta-cabins? Most of the Irish border buildings are houses now!

Actually, this scenario might be the best for the Republic, as exports to the UK would become less expensive. We'd be fooked of course, paying WTO tariffs for exports.

The alternative would be full-fat WTO—but the UK would have to erect border controls as well then and it'd be harder to blame the EU for the increase in costs.

This would still damage UK agriculture—but also hit the Republic hard as well. But I know that for some Brexitteers, that is part of the mission anyhow.

My brain hurts.

Stephen
 
Do you think we will have more say, or less, when we negotiate trade deals with the USA or China?

Hint: the powerful USA agriculture lobby is already saying that agriculture must be part of any trade deal, which means we’ll be required to accept US food and animal welfare standards, which are lower than our current EU standards.

In what way is this example of ‘taking back control’ preferable to the sort of influence we currently have in EU decision making, coupled with the power of the EU to resist those sort of demands from the USA?
I don't believe we will leave without a deal, or that our friends in the EU will want or can afford not to trade but if needs must we need to do other trade deals, after all the US has given us a much better bargaining position with the EU.
 
I don't believe we will leave without a deal, or that our friends in the EU will want or can afford not to trade but if needs must we need to do other trade deals, after all the US has given us a much better bargaining position with the EU.

To believe this you must have an answer to the backstop. Please tell us what it is!

(Please don't say 'alternative arrangements' or 'electronic means' or 'it doesn't matter.' It's something that has to be in place in November and deal with free movement as well.)

How has the US helped? Nancy Pelosi says no UK-US trade deal if Brexit risks Irish peace. Bolton is not a trade negotiator nor in control of Congress. If anything, I suspect this strengthens the EU position.

Stephen
 
Do you think we will have more say, or less, when we negotiate trade deals with the USA or China?

Hint: the powerful USA agriculture lobby is already saying that agriculture must be part of any trade deal, which means we’ll be required to accept US food and animal welfare standards, which are lower than our current EU standards.

In what way is this example of ‘taking back control’ preferable to the sort of influence we currently have in EU decision making, coupled with the power of the EU to resist those sort of demands from the USA?
Not to mention the strings attached to any future trade deal with the EU and the subsequent re-entry conditions once the Brexit demographic dies off and the “special relationship” turns out to be an asset stripping one way street.
 
I don't believe we will leave without a deal, or that our friends in the EU will want or can afford not to trade but if needs must we need to do other trade deals, after all the US has given us a much better bargaining position with the EU.
No one can afford ‘no deal’ or rather no one needs this Brexit nonsense but some will be able to afford it better than others. You've seen the maths. - the pain isn’t equally distributed.
 
Potential suppliers, like 'new' friends, tend to pick/choose based on past conduct.
This is why the desperate often end up with the deplorable.



istm you are asking the wrong question.
Recessions happen: is UK out of EU likely to fare better or worse in the next recession?
As you say recessions happen and we are probably due one shortly leave or not, but a slowdown in trading will not help.
 
What a bizarrely twisted view you have deluded yourself into...
Look, pull back and look rationally.
Why would they cripple Ireland? Why would he cripple Ireland?

They've crippled Ireland before to save the Euro project, read my earlier post. They'll be doing it again soon to save the entire EU project. Tax harmonisation of the EZ will be the next stop.

I mean, you are swallowing something hook, line sinker here, and it is so removed from reality and facts that I can't conceive what it might be.
Talk to people who know about the Irish border.
Listen to people who know about the limited possibilities of electronic borders, not tory blowhards who have zero acquaintance with facts.

What exactly is it that I've said that is so removed from reality and facts?

As for the Irish border, even the EU has started to concede the possibilites of away from border, electronic and trusted trader arrangements. They anyway already exist, the border already constitutes a tax, excise duty and VAT border. As regards people, the Irish already need to do something about their external borders, the country has become the preferred conduit for Albanian illegal immigrant smuggling gangs.
 
To believe this you must have an answer to the backstop. Please tell us what it is!

(Please don't say 'alternative arrangements' or 'electronic means' or 'it doesn't matter.' It's something that has to be in place in November and deal with free movement as well.)

How has the US helped? Nancy Pelosi says no UK-US trade deal if Brexit risks Irish peace. Bolton is not a trade negotiator nor in control of Congress. If anything, I suspect this strengthens the EU position.

Stephen
I think it’s more of a case he read in the DM, the EU will blink first, they always negotiate at the last minute, they’re not serious about Ireland, they’ll sell them down the river as quickly as Johnson and the Gammon would.
 
No one can afford ‘no deal’ or rather no one needs this Brexit nonsense but some will be able to afford it better than others. You've seen the maths. - the pain isn’t equally distributed.

As each nation in the red bus with £350 mllion a week on the side drives over the cliff edge, they will be comforted by those words 'it will hurt you more than me'.
 
Accept that people with personal experience, or who live there, or are elected politicians there, might just have a better grasp of the facts than whatever crazy "sources" you have been exposing yourself to.
And similarly for Europe and the EU.
As I've said before in the face of the massive assault on legality, morality and democracy we are undergoing in the UK, banging on about people who are honest, are serving the interests of those who elected them well, and are competent at their jobs is not a good look.

There has been a systematic assault taking place on Irish democracy from a political establishment that seems to suffer from blind Europhilia for many years. Consider the following;

The 1937 Constitution sets out that sovereignty, law and governmental authority reside with, and are derived from, the people. Therefore, should there be any proposed change to that Constitution, the people have first to be consulted by referendum. The 1972 EEC Accession Treaty entailed that law emanting from the European Treaties would override any conflicting provisions in Irish law. Both the main parties, which carried an easy majority of the vote and which had dominated Irish politics for decades were pro-EEC, whilst Sinn Fein, the Labour Party and the Unions were against. As in the UK, there was little real appreciation of the real connotations of joining a supranationalist bloc, and proposal to join was agreed by the people in the May 1972 Accession Referendum. Similar referenda took place to permit the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty, the Nice, Lisbon Treaties and the Eurozone Stability Treaties to be ratified. However, each of these later referenda were characterised by unconstitutional behaviour, deception and duplicity on the part of successive pro-EEC/EU governments.

In the case of the 1986 Single European Act, the government first attempted to railroad the treaty through the Oireachtas by majority vote, but the Supreme Court ruled (Crotty, 1987) that the SEA entailed a further surrender of sovereignty, and that it therefore had to obtain the consent of the people within whom that sovereignty resided. The Haughey government responded by spending public money only on the 'Yes' campaign, something that had never previously happened, and which was ruled 'undemocratic, unconstitutional and unfair' (McKenna 1995) by the Supreme Court in subsequent campaigns, and (in regard of one-sided allocation of free radio broadcasting time) 'illegal and unconstitutional' (Coughlan 2000). Although the Supreme Court found that these earlier campaigns had been carried by means that were variously unconstitutional, undemocratic, unfair and illegal, it did not invalidate the results of the referendums.

Following McKenna the government established the Referendum Commission, and charged it with ensuring that in future referendum campaigns the public were properly informed as to what effect the proposals would have on the Constitution, and of the arguments both for and against the proposals. A properly-informed public then rejected the Nice Treaty in 2001. When the EU Commission and the Irish government attempted a second stab at an unchanged Nice the following year, the Ahern government fast-tracked an amendment to the Referendum Act 1998 removing the Commission's role in informing the public of the Yes/No arguments on the last day of the Oireachtas sitting before the Christmas holiday, with just one day's prior notice to the opposition. There had also been an issue over the possibility of joining a future European Defence Pact, which would contravene Ireland's neutrality, and this was neutered by coupling the Nice Treaty to an undertaking to put any future engagement in a European Defence Pact to a referendum, the two put forward as a joint proposal to which the public could vote either Yes or No to the whole rather than either part, and meaning that anyone who voted No would also be voting to reject a referendum should there be a future proposal for Ireland to join a Euro Army. You could call this chicanery, or sleight of hand. I'll settle for either.

And so it goes on, through Lisbon, to Brexit. I've already mentioned the disaster that the 'honest, competent people who were serving the interests of the people who elected them' imposed upon Ireland when they frogmarched it into the Euro, or stripped it of its once vast fishing industry, or threw away its neutrality.

But this is utterly futile, and I'm becoming bored.
 
There has been a systematic assault taking place on Irish democracy from a political establishment that seems to suffer from blind Europhilia for many years. Consider the following;

The 1937 Constitution sets out that sovereignty, law and governmental authority reside with, and are derived from, the people. Therefore, should there be any proposed change to that Constitution, the people have first to be consulted by referendum. The 1972 EEC Accession Treaty entailed that law emanting from the European Treaties would override any conflicting provisions in Irish law. Both the main parties, which carried an easy majority of the vote and which had dominated Irish politics for decades were pro-EEC, whilst Sinn Fein, the Labour Party and the Unions were against. As in the UK, there was little real appreciation of the real connotations of joining a supranationalist bloc, and proposal to join was agreed by the people in the May 1972 Accession Referendum. Similar referenda took place to permit the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty, the Nice, Lisbon Treaties and the Eurozone Stability Treaties to be ratified. However, each of these later referenda were characterised by unconstitutional behaviour, deception and duplicity on the part of successive pro-EEC/EU governments.

In the case of the 1986 Single European Act, the government first attempted to railroad the treaty through the Oireachtas by majority vote, but the Supreme Court ruled (Crotty, 1987) that the SEA entailed a further surrender of sovereignty, and that it therefore had to obtain the consent of the people within whom that sovereignty resided. The Haughey government responded by spending public money only on the 'Yes' campaign, something that had never previously happened, and which was ruled 'undemocratic, unconstitutional and unfair' (McKenna 1995) by the Supreme Court in subsequent campaigns, and (in regard of one-sided allocation of free radio broadcasting time) 'illegal and unconstitutional' (Coughlan 2000). Although the Supreme Court found that these earlier campaigns had been carried by means that were variously unconstitutional, undemocratic, unfair and illegal, it did not invalidate the results of the referendums.

Following McKenna the government established the Referendum Commission, and charged it with ensuring that in future referendum campaigns the public were properly informed as to what effect the proposals would have on the Constitution, and of the arguments both for and against the proposals. A properly-informed public then rejected the Nice Treaty in 2001. When the EU Commission and the Irish government attempted a second stab at an unchanged Nice the following year, the Ahern government fast-tracked an amendment to the Referendum Act 1998 removing the Commission's role in informing the public of the Yes/No arguments on the last day of the Oireachtas sitting before the Christmas holiday, with just one day's prior notice to the opposition. There had also been an issue over the possibility of joining a future European Defence Pact, which would contravene Ireland's neutrality, and this was neutered by coupling the Nice Treaty to an undertaking to put any future engagement in a European Defence Pact to a referendum, the two put forward as a joint proposal to which the public could vote either Yes or No to the whole rather than either part, and meaning that anyone who voted No would also be voting to reject a referendum should there be a future proposal for Ireland to join a Euro Army. You could call this chicanery, or sleight of hand. I'll settle for either.

And so it goes on, through Lisbon, to Brexit. I've already mentioned the disaster that the 'honest, competent people who were serving the interests of the people who elected them' imposed upon Ireland when they frogmarched it into the Euro, or stripped it of its once vast fishing industry, or threw away its neutrality.

But this is utterly futile, and I'm becoming bored.

I can sympathise. It must be tedious doing all that cutting and pasting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top