Brexit (Old)

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

This deal might have been acceptable had we not seen evidence of the bad faith and bullying of the EU. We can't trust them to negotiate in true good faith via the weasel words "best endeavours".\contained in the political protocol.

There are apologists for the EU on this thread who defend the obvious intention of the EU to squeeze the most out of Brexit that they can at the UK's expense rather than supporting a campaign to stand up to the EU and send them into a spin over the 39 billion etc.

It is very clear to me that it has been the EU's plan, at the behest of the perfidious Irish government, to carve Ulster out of the UK. The Draft Agreement does little to thwart that.

Out of curiosity, what do you feel the Irish position should have been during these negotiations, considering the history between the Uk and Ireland and Ireland’s position in the EU?

[Angua]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Out of curiosity, what do you feel the Irish position should have been during these negotiations, considering the history between the Uk and Ireland and Ireland’s position in the EU?

Not forgetting the singular failure of the DUP and Sinn Fein to actually run the NI government in Stormont for far too long now.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

This deal might have been acceptable had we not seen evidence of the bad faith and bullying of the EU. We can't trust them to negotiate in true good faith via the weasel words "best endeavours".\contained in the political protocol.

There are apologists for the EU on this thread who defend the obvious intention of the EU to squeeze the most out of Brexit that they can at the UK's expense rather than supporting a campaign to stand up to the EU and send them into a spin over the 39 billion etc.

It is very clear to me that it has been the EU's plan, at the behest of the perfidious Irish government, to carve Ulster out of the UK. The Draft Agreement does little to thwart that.

Curious about your use of 'apologists on this thread'.

The European Union is a rational actor in a capitalist system. It's not particularly difficult to predict it's motivations or it's actions.

The fact that Britain voted for Brexit without a clear agreement on what that is isn't the fault of the European Union.
The fact the Cameron Government made no preparations for a Leave vote isn't the fault of the European Union.
The fact Britain voted for a hung Parliament giving no clear mandate for a type of Brexit isn't the fault of the European Union.
The fact our Prime Minister could be toppled because the Conservative party can't agree on Brexit isn't the fault of the European Union.
The fact that Britain has no contingency plans for No Deal isn't the fault of the European Union.

If the shoe was on the other foot we would do exactly the same thing. Indeed, much of the 'we hold all the cards' rhetoric implied we would have the EU on their knees begging the UK for a deal.

If Scotland voted for independence do you think England would make it as easy and cheap as possible to secede from the UK? Of course not. England would want what it was due. Scotland would (if outside the EU then) have to negotiate trade deals like any other country.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Angua

Not forgetting the singular failure of the DUP and Sinn Fein to actually run the NI government in Stormont for far too long now.

It takes two to tango, and Sinn Fein have tossed their toys out of the pram. They won't sort this out without some sort of major concession that is not going to be made, just as they refuse to let their MPs attend Parliament.

Letting their constituents down big time, I say.

[techguyone]

I like the Aussies for straight no nonsense thinking, perhaps our lot would do well to consider this little piece.

Aussie (ex PM) Tony Abbott sums it up beautifully!-----

It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.

Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get.

The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.

But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?

A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.

Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are.

Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers.

Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain.

Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.

Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere).

UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum.

As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it.

Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by techguyone

I like the Aussies for straight no nonsense thinking, perhaps our lot would do well to consider this little piece.

Aussie (ex PM) Tony Abbott sums it up beautifully!-----

It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.

Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get.

The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.

But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?

A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.

Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are.

Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers.

Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain.

Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.

Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere).

UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum.

As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it.

Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015

Thank you for posting this, techguyone. At last, a considered response justifying the 'no deal' scenario. I think I will take these words and put them in a frame in my hall to be read compulsorily by all visitors!

[jfman]

That's quite sad really. No grasp of the real world consequences. The exact kind of delusional mindset that led us to this point.

Originally Posted by jfman

That's quite sad really. No grasp of the real world consequences. The exact kind of delusional mindset that led us to this point.

The only "delusion" I see is your ridiculous assertion right here.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mick

The only "delusion" I see is your ridiculous assertion right here.

On the contrary, if no deal and not paying in £39bn led to this glorious future of no consequences then we wouldn't be sitting looking at this fudge right now. We wouldn't have so much disagreement over the type of Brexit to have.

The UK maintaining product standards with the Irish Republic means adhering to EU rules, and would have consequences on our ability to trade with countries who insist on different standards.

This bit might be my favourite

Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain.

So we will just seize EU assets in the UK? What a wonderful start.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

There are apologists for the EU on this thread who defend the obvious intention of the EU to squeeze the most out of Brexit that they can at the UK's expense rather than supporting a campaign to stand up to the EU and send them into a spin over the 39 billion etc.

I've not seen any EU apologists on this thread, just people seeking to help you better understand where the EU is coming from.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Out of curiosity, what do you feel the Irish position should have been during these negotiations, considering the history between the Uk and Ireland and Ireland’s position in the EU?

I don’t give a flying fart what the Irish position should have been. They are the cause of the problem and I wish people would cease looking at this through an EU lens other than to criticise them when they’re bullying us.

My real gripe is with the Remainist TM who never stood up to them early on.

The Irish border thing is a feint and not a good faith item; it is the EU playing the GFA and bugging up the risk of terrorism. But this is being done for the sake of the Irish economy. With that in the balance along with the 39 billion, we could have plaid stronger cards.



---------- Post added at 13:12 ---------- Previous post was at 13:08 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I've not seen any EU apologists on this thread, just people seeking to help you better understand where the EU is coming from.

You would say that. I don’t need Brits to explain to me from where the EU is coming.

A better debate to be had right now is whether or not staying in the EU is better than what is currently on the table. As I said before, can we trust the ‘best endeavours’ phrase or they weasel words (which I believe them to be given EU behaviour to date)?

[Gavin78]

Originally Posted by Mick

The only "delusion" I see is your ridiculous assertion right here.

I agree.

The only set back we have here is a remain PM trying to appease the remain side and set our country back into the dark ages.

She is not carrying out the wishes of those that wanted to leave the EU.

We need a clean break set back to WTO rules and then talk. The simple thing is the EU is either with us or against us it's their call then not ours.

The remain side really just need to keep their mouths out of our business. The vote was done and it was clear cut now they just need to crawl back into whatever cave they came from.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I don’t give a flying fart what the Irish position should have been. They are the cause of the problem and I wish people would cease looking at this through an EU lens other than to criticise them when they’re bullying us.

My real gripe is with the Remainist TM who never stood up to them early on.

The Irish border thing is a feint and not a good faith item; it is the EU playing the GFA and bugging up the risk of terrorism. But this is being done for the sake of the Irish economy. With that in the balance along with the 39 billion, we could have plaid stronger cards.

So do you feel that the Anglo/Irish Good Friday Agreement is irrelevant to the future UK/EU relationship or is it overplayed? What would have been the ideal compromise with the UK leaving while preserving the GFA or should we ditch the GFA?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Gavin78

I agree.

The only set back we have here is a remain PM trying to appease the remain side and set our country back into the dark ages.

She is not carrying out the wishes of those that wanted to leave the EU.

We need a clean break set back to WTO rules and then talk. The simple thing is the EU is either with us or against us it's their call then not ours.

The remain side really just need to keep their mouths out of our business. The vote was done and it was clear cut now they just need to crawl back into whatever cave they came from.

We have a Prime Minister who wants to set the country back to the dark ages? I think that's clearly untrue.

She is carrying out the wishes of those who wanted to leave the EU - she has went and got the best deal she can. It's now up to Parliament to decide whether to accept or explore other options.

We haven't done any of the preparatory work required to crash out on WTO terms. To do so threatens the very existence of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. To align ourselves with EU standards and not impose tariffs means we are restricted in the trade agreements we can make with the rest of the world.

In a democracy nobody should be silenced, one of the fundamental freedoms is to be able to disagree.

Your entire post is over sentimental drivel. I can accept that, the most bitter of Brexit supporters is seeing their dream crumble before their very eyes.

However, when you strip the emotion out of the situation the cold facts are the EU holds all the cards and we hold none.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

That's quite sad really. No grasp of the real world consequences. The exact kind of delusional mindset that led us to this point.

He is a former Prime Minister of Australia, and he seems to be making perfect sense. What is there in that article with which you disagree, and why?

Contrary to what you seem to believe, the world does not revolve around the EU.

I understand that you are a remainer, and that's fair enough. But to accuse people of being delusional when they post a factual piece like this tends to make me think that it is your mind that is closed to any information you receive that doesn't fit your preference.

I continue to listen to both sides of the argument but I have yet to hear a convincing argument that tells me that staying in is better than leaving. Maintaining frictionless trade is the most convincing of the remainer arguments, which is why I would prefer a deal, but Tony Abbott's article shows that a 'no deal' is not the end of the world, by any means!