Politics, politics, politics

[r-u-s-x]

"Dude", Like means like - as in - a willingness to compromise. I can be no clearer than that, and if you cant see why then...

Why didnt they take the opportunity to force FOM onto Canada?

And why, if we are outside of the bloc, should free movement be essential? When all was want is trade - IE financial transaction?

Because they didn't want to -Pretty much the same in every negotiation for Canada they believe the long term benefits to them outweigh the long term costs - they don't think this is the case for the UK proposals and prefer no deal to this - they say this is due to keeping the integrity of the EU together and offering the UK a Canada +++ deal is not conducive to this, it may be this reason or another.

 

[DTA]

[

Its the most obvious solution, from my understanding, Im yet to work out quite why the DUP are so against it.

There are separate currencies already, implement a system whereby people cant take residence etc without being qualified to do so and you then have all the border you need at the coast.

The DUP are soo against it as it moves NI closer to the Republic and further away from the UK.

And the opposite is actually there reason for breathing.

 

[the dza]

Barnier actually only kicked back the technical tariff collection proposal, not the principle of keeping goods-only SM access

Solve that and then it'll all get done. Right?

 

[Gutter Boy]

So border on the the Irish Sea then?

There already is. You might be able get a dingy across unchecked, but otherwise you can't get through Holyhead port or Manchester airport without documentation.

The argument is about goods regulations - mainly to do with dairy farming - not people.

 

[Parklaner81]

[


The DUP are soo against it as it moves NI closer to the Republic and further away from the UK.

And the opposite is actually there reason for breathing.

But aren't the DUP missing a trick here? If they could proactively bring about a solution that leverages some kind of special status for NI as a part of both the UK and the EU, couldn't that weaken the argument for Irish reunification and thereby work in their best long-term (as opposed to immediate-term) interests?

 

[DTA]

"Dude", Like means like - as in - a willingness to compromise. I can be no clearer than that, and if you cant see why then...




Why didnt they take the opportunity to force FOM onto Canada?

"Benefits of EU membership" is an interesting point though, and I think its worth pointing out - it will mean different things to different people.

One of the benefits we want, is trade. In fact - thats the only one.

Other benefits include free movement of people, for some at least - take the influx from poorer eastern nations coming west to make money.
Subsidy - 23 (I think?) - actually take out more from the EU that they put in.
Infrastructure - the divorce bill nicely illustrates all the major projects countries are benefiting from across europe
There are plenty of others, Im sure you would find many if you shifted your perspective to each nation and saw what they got from it.

The point is though - trade is far from the only benefit. Getting free trade is not the same as getting "The benefits of being a member".

And why, if we are outside of the bloc, should free movement be essential? When all was want is trade - IE financial transaction?

You can have like.... But can't have better. Like can be worse.

You definitely can have a worse deal that is 'like' the Canada deal. If you want that… I'm sure the EU 27 will oblige.

As for compromise... Sure there can be compromise. But the amount of compromise each side gives is directly based on their relative sizes and importance to each other.

 

[DTA]

But aren't the DUP missing a trick here? If they could proactively bring about a solution that leverages some kind of special status for NI as a part of both the UK and the EU, couldn't that weaken the argument for Irish reunification and thereby work in their best long-term (as opposed to immediate-term) interests?

You know what I actually agree with that. It will also see a massive amount of investment in to NI which really does need it.

 

[the dza]

But aren't the DUP missing a trick here? If they could proactively bring about a solution that leverages some kind of special status for NI as a part of both the UK and the EU, couldn't that weaken the argument for Irish reunification and thereby work in their best long-term (as opposed to immediate-term) interests?

I'm not sure there's much hope in asking the DUP tub-thumpers to think a little differently.

 

[Gutter Boy]

But aren't the DUP missing a trick here? If they could proactively bring about a solution that leverages some kind of special status for NI as a part of both the UK and the EU, couldn't that weaken the argument for Irish reunification and thereby work in their best long-term (as opposed to immediate-term) interests?

They aren't that smart.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Solve that and then it'll all get done. Right?

I don't think it's a million miles off. Both sides are already talking about an 'association agreement' aka Ukraine, aka Chequers. It's just the technological challenges of having a border that doesn't look like a border.

 

[the dza]

I don't think it's a million miles off. Both sides are already talking about an 'association agreement' aka Ukraine, aka Chequers. It's just the technological challenges of having a border that doesn't look like a border.

Well I genuinely hope so, because I don't want the "no-deal" scenario playing out with the potential chaos surrounding food and medicine. If May gets the Chequers deal, her reward will probably be the government being brought down by the hard-right of her party. I can also live with that.

 

[the dza]

Just as a little aside, I saw this in the Guardian comments section:

The man who wrote Article 50, Lord Kerr, speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today program, said:

"At any stage we can change our minds if we want to, and if we did we know that our partners would actually be very pleased indeed. The Brexiters create the impression that is because of the way Article 50 is written that having sent in a letter on 29 March 2017 we must leave automatically on 29 March, 2019 at the latest. That is not true. It is misleading to suggest that a decision that we are taking autonomously in this country about the timing of our departure, we are required to take by a provision of EU treaty law."

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

Just as a little aside, I saw this in the Guardian comments section:

The man who wrote Article 50, Lord Kerr, speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today program, said:

"At any stage we can change our minds if we want to, and if we did we know that our partners would actually be very pleased indeed. The Brexiters create the impression that is because of the way Article 50 is written that having sent in a letter on 29 March 2017 we must leave automatically on 29 March, 2019 at the latest. That is not true. It is misleading to suggest that a decision that we are taking autonomously in this country about the timing of our departure, we are required to take by a provision of EU treaty law."

He's been saying this for ages. I hope and suspect that he's broadly right, but if we wanted the deal that Cameron got - and the repatriation of the European Medicines Agency, say - we might have to do a little more footwork than simply revoking A50 and presenting the return to the status quo as a fait accompli.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Well I genuinely hope so, because I don't want the "no-deal" scenario playing out with the potential chaos surrounding food and medicine. If May gets the Chequers deal, her reward will probably be the government being brought down by the hard-right of her party. I can also live with that.

I think they may be bought off with the goods arrangement being time bound, perhaps with a reference to a future border poll. That and a green light to accede to the TPP

 

[LutonSpurs]

Do people still believe we will better off once we leave with or without a deal? Or have you accepted this is a clusterfudge of the highest order?

 

[the dza]

He's been saying this for ages. I hope and suspect that he's broadly right, but if we wanted the deal that Cameron got - and the repatriation of the European Medicines Agency, say - we might have to do a little more footwork than simply revoking A50 and presenting the return to the status quo as a fait accompli.

If the stuff about food and medicine comes to pass, then we will probably find out.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Do people still believe we will better off once we leave with or without a deal? Or have you accepted this is a clusterfudge of the highest order?

Medium-to-long term - much better off. It's a real opportunity to re-awaken and re-orientate ourselves. Create a fairer, happier and more sustainable country

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

If the stuff about food and medicine comes to pass, then we will probably find out.

That's more relevant to an extension, I think. An extension would need to be negotiated within the context of A50. There still needs to be a second referendum or a substantial political realignment for a revocation.

 

[the dza]

That's more relevant to an extension, I think. An extension would need to be negotiated within the context of A50. There still needs to be a second referendum or a substantial political realignment for a revocation.

I think I read the other day that an extension becomes likely in the event of a general election or 2nd referendum. So perhaps extension could then lead to revocation, if it came to it.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

He's been saying this for ages. I hope and suspect that he's broadly right, but if we wanted the deal that Cameron got - and the repatriation of the European Medicines Agency, say - we might have to do a little more footwork than simply revoking A50 and presenting the return to the status quo as a fait accompli.

Im unaware of the legalities involved, how much of a say to the EU have? Do they have to simply accept our decision or vote on it etc?

Ive always maintained (and given how they have leveraged their position so far) that they would likely want us "all in" if we decided to back out.

No Veto, into the €URO, the lot. Quite frankly, why wouldnt they?

Force us into full and committed participation, instead of the arms length attitude we have always maintained.