How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 6)

[Crackie]

alfie2244 said:

The Dangerous Elk said:

Helicopter123 said:

Good post.

You should try making one (even if you cannot recognise this one as completely flawed)

Good post.

[youngsyr]

Vanden Saab said:

youngsyr said:

You obviously can't be a member of a club and simply disregard all of its rules.

However, holding a position within the club does give you significant influence. Ever noticed that we don't have the Euro and aren't members of the Schengen area?

The EU isn't the British Empire, we don't get to dictate the rules. We do get significant benefits and a significant say in what rules are passed and apply to us though by being members and compromising with other members.

Why not every other EU Country does...

Do you honestly believe that every other EU country ignores every single EU role? Surely not.

So what is your point? Are you frustrated that since member countries ignore some of the rules?

If so, do you recognise that we ignore some pretty big ones too?

Do you not feel that membership is worth the compromises?

[FiF]

youngsyr said:

ash73 said:

youngsyr said:

Murph7355 said:

The above is not only possible but the key players have stated it as a potential outcome.

The Irish government has stated categorically they will not put a hard border there under ANY circumstances including No Deal. The UK government the same. The EU obviously hasn't been quite so strident, but then that would utterly undermine the biggest card they have invented.

There is no issue. It's manufactured bks. It is a political card and we have allowed ourselves to be played by it.

BBC not exactly known to be pro-Leave : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46546295

Haven't heard anyone mention it despite trying to keep up to date with the discussion - who has mentioned it, would like to hear what they think about it.

Seems to me that this is where we're going to end up - it can only end in a game of brinksmanship and seeing who blinks first, only the UK can't concede, because there is no consensus on what we want. Any concession is unacceptable to the majority.

That leaves only hard brexit with no deal or a very appealing deal for the UK on the table. Nothing else is acceptable to the UK, not just in the political sense, but in the legal sense. Anything else simply won't get passed into law.

As bad as no deal would be for the UK (and I've no doubt it will be terrible), it will also be very bad for the EU, so they will want to avoid it.

Norway already has a virtual land border with the EU (Sweden)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41412561

Norway also has freedom of movement though too, doesn't it? Something that we have said we won't accept and the EU has said they require for us to be on the same trading terms as members.

As I understand it, Norway is essentially part of the EU without having any say in the laws that the EU passes, so not a viable option for us.

This (bold) was discussed many times over the years and is not true, simply is repeated by those who don't understand how it works or simply want to post things to discredit the setup.

http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement

Click on the three links on the right hand side if you want more detail on how the twin pillar system works and how the EFTA and EEA committees stand apart but work together throughout the drafting stages.

[mattmurdock]

gooner1 said:

Then it's probably not a good idea for the EU to install the infrastructure, yes?

Define " behave differently"

Choosing to ignore the past and the concerns of other people is fine on a personal level, but believing the rest of the world should submit to your view is precisely what you are accusing the EU of doing in the first place.

You are trying to frame the discussion as a simple 'if we won't do it, they won't do it and therefore there is no longer a problem' which is a wilful dismissal of the history of Ireland, and the concerns of those living there.

If the UK does not have any control over the border between it and the EU, then anything (people, goods) can freely move between the two countries, which defeats the purpose of Brexit.

Simplistic example I know, but say the UK decides it wants more control over something in its internal market, so introduces regulation and tariffs to control imports from outside the UK. Whoops, due to no border controls, some 'dodgy foreigner' can simply drive a crate-load of non-compliant (but EU acceptable) products over the border without paying any tariffs, and then send them wherever they like within the UK for sale. Not only that, but he can be paid in cash by some local dodgy person for the goods despite being in the country 'illegally'.

Yes, the current systems do not prevent that from happening completely, and yes we have internal infrastructure in the UK to police this already, but the scale of it could increase dramatically if there are two separate regimes without a controlled border.

[Crackie]

amusingduck said:

Pity chopper doesn't know what that meaning is, his "status quo" is early june 2016

Helicopter has posted many times suggesting the status quo is a deal negotiated by Thatcher ( and sometimes Major ). This disingenuously ignores any subsequent EU treaty changes; you cannot debate with someone who's point of reference is decades out of date...……..unless you're a gammon

Edited by Crackie on Tuesday 18th December 14:08

[amusingduck]

youngsyr said:

amusingduck said:

Quoted from said thread, thanks jsf

That argument doesn't stack up though, did it?

You're claiming that illegal immigration is controlled by it being illegal and holding up the US as an example of where this system is effectively controlling illegal immigration.

However, illegal immigration is (at least perceived) to be a huge problem in the Southern United States and in the Southern EU states, routinely making headline news. Do I need to link the stories for you?

The reality is that illegal immigration is a problem even with closed borders in both the EU and the USA. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be a problem in the UK too.

Why are they waiting at Calais instead of hopping over to Ireland and in through the back door? They can do that right now, and we're not proposing any change to that.

If we cut out the middle of this argument and skip to the end, the logical conclusion of your argument is "I thought we voted to take back control - why are we taking back control and changing nothing?".

To which the answer is "everyone is happy with the current arrangements so why change them?".

[SpeckledJim]

youngsyr said:

amusingduck said:

Quoted from said thread, thanks jsf

That argument doesn't stack up though, did it?

You're claiming that illegal immigration is controlled by it being illegal and holding up the US as an example of where this system is effectively controlling illegal immigration.

However, illegal immigration is (at least perceived) to be a huge problem in the Southern United States and in the Southern EU states, routinely making headline news. Do I need to link the stories for you?

The reality is that illegal immigration is a problem even with closed borders in both the EU and the USA. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be a problem in the UK too.

Calm down a bit, I think you're arguing from a false assumption, and it's making you look a bit flappy.

Johnnie French comes on holiday to the UK, and once he's out of the arrival hall we have no idea where he is, and no practical way of finding him. That's the case today, and will still be the case post-Brexit.

Today, though, Johnnie French is fully entitled to get a job and a house and stay forever. That's the bit that will change. Not the bit at the border/airport.

[youngsyr]

FiF said:

youngsyr said:

ash73 said:

youngsyr said:

Murph7355 said:

The above is not only possible but the key players have stated it as a potential outcome.

The Irish government has stated categorically they will not put a hard border there under ANY circumstances including No Deal. The UK government the same. The EU obviously hasn't been quite so strident, but then that would utterly undermine the biggest card they have invented.

There is no issue. It's manufactured bks. It is a political card and we have allowed ourselves to be played by it.

BBC not exactly known to be pro-Leave : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46546295

Haven't heard anyone mention it despite trying to keep up to date with the discussion - who has mentioned it, would like to hear what they think about it.

Seems to me that this is where we're going to end up - it can only end in a game of brinksmanship and seeing who blinks first, only the UK can't concede, because there is no consensus on what we want. Any concession is unacceptable to the majority.

That leaves only hard brexit with no deal or a very appealing deal for the UK on the table. Nothing else is acceptable to the UK, not just in the political sense, but in the legal sense. Anything else simply won't get passed into law.

As bad as no deal would be for the UK (and I've no doubt it will be terrible), it will also be very bad for the EU, so they will want to avoid it.

Norway already has a virtual land border with the EU (Sweden)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41412561

Norway also has freedom of movement though too, doesn't it? Something that we have said we won't accept and the EU has said they require for us to be on the same trading terms as members.

As I understand it, Norway is essentially part of the EU without having any say in the laws that the EU passes, so not a viable option for us.

This (bold) was discussed many times over the years and is not true, simply is repeated by those who don't understand how it works or simply want to post things to discredit the setup.

http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement

Click on the three links on the right hand side if you want more detail on how the twin pillar system works and how the EFTA and EEA committees stand apart but work together throughout the drafting stages.

Before I read up in detail about a Norway style deal, is it not true that it would include freedom of movement, which rules it out completely before we even start?

[youngsyr]

amusingduck said:

youngsyr said:

amusingduck said:

Quoted from said thread, thanks jsf

That argument doesn't stack up though, did it?

You're claiming that illegal immigration is controlled by it being illegal and holding up the US as an example of where this system is effectively controlling illegal immigration.

However, illegal immigration is (at least perceived) to be a huge problem in the Southern United States and in the Southern EU states, routinely making headline news. Do I need to link the stories for you?

The reality is that illegal immigration is a problem even with closed borders in both the EU and the USA. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be a problem in the UK too.

[b]Why are they waiting at Calais instead of hopping over to Ireland and in through the back door?[b] They can do that right now, and we're not proposing any change to that.

If we cut out the middle of this argument and skip to the end, the logical conclusion of your argument is "I thought we voted to take back control - why are we taking back control and changing nothing?".

To which the answer is "everyone is happy with the current arrangements so why change them?".

That is precisely what they're doing...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/06/irelan...

[amusingduck]

youngsyr said:

amusingduck said:

youngsyr said:

amusingduck said:

Quoted from said thread, thanks jsf

That argument doesn't stack up though, did it?

You're claiming that illegal immigration is controlled by it being illegal and holding up the US as an example of where this system is effectively controlling illegal immigration.

However, illegal immigration is (at least perceived) to be a huge problem in the Southern United States and in the Southern EU states, routinely making headline news. Do I need to link the stories for you?

The reality is that illegal immigration is a problem even with closed borders in both the EU and the USA. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be a problem in the UK too.

[b]Why are they waiting at Calais instead of hopping over to Ireland and in through the back door?[b] They can do that right now, and we're not proposing any change to that.

If we cut out the middle of this argument and skip to the end, the logical conclusion of your argument is "I thought we voted to take back control - why are we taking back control and changing nothing?".

To which the answer is "everyone is happy with the current arrangements so why change them?".

That is precisely what they're doing...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/06/irelan...

So how is it a Brexit specific issue?

[youngsyr]

SpeckledJim said:

youngsyr said:

amusingduck said:

Quoted from said thread, thanks jsf

That argument doesn't stack up though, did it?

You're claiming that illegal immigration is controlled by it being illegal and holding up the US as an example of where this system is effectively controlling illegal immigration.

However, illegal immigration is (at least perceived) to be a huge problem in the Southern United States and in the Southern EU states, routinely making headline news. Do I need to link the stories for you?

The reality is that illegal immigration is a problem even with closed borders in both the EU and the USA. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be a problem in the UK too.

Calm down a bit, I think you're arguing from a false assumption, and it's making you look a bit flappy.

Johnnie French comes on holiday to the UK, and once he's out of the arrival hall we have no idea where he is, and no practical way of finding him. That's the case today, and will still be the case post-Brexit.

Today, though, Johnnie French is fully entitled to get a job and a house and stay forever. That's the bit that will change. Not the bit at the border/airport.

What's with the patronisation and insults? Can we not just keep on topic?

The point is that one of the "benefits" we've been promised is the ability to control our borders. How will we be able to do that if "we have no idea where [Johnnie French] is, and no practical way of finding him" even after Brexit?

You also seem to be arguing that illegal immigration is controlled by the mere fact of it being illegal, but I'd suggest there are a lot of southern Italians, Spaniards and Americans with practical experience who would disagree.

Edited by youngsyr on Tuesday 18th December 14:42

[youngsyr]

amusingduck said:

youngsyr said:

amusingduck said:

youngsyr said:

amusingduck said:

Quoted from said thread, thanks jsf

That argument doesn't stack up though, did it?

You're claiming that illegal immigration is controlled by it being illegal and holding up the US as an example of where this system is effectively controlling illegal immigration.

However, illegal immigration is (at least perceived) to be a huge problem in the Southern United States and in the Southern EU states, routinely making headline news. Do I need to link the stories for you?

The reality is that illegal immigration is a problem even with closed borders in both the EU and the USA. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be a problem in the UK too.

[b]Why are they waiting at Calais instead of hopping over to Ireland and in through the back door?[b] They can do that right now, and we're not proposing any change to that.

If we cut out the middle of this argument and skip to the end, the logical conclusion of your argument is "I thought we voted to take back control - why are we taking back control and changing nothing?".

To which the answer is "everyone is happy with the current arrangements so why change them?".

That is precisely what they're doing...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/06/irelan...

So how is it a Brexit specific issue?

Because Brexit has been sold to us as a cure to illegal immigration, when at best it won't impact on it at all and at worst could make it significantly worse.

[gooner1]

mattmurdock said:

Choosing to ignore the past and the concerns of other people is fine on a personal level, but believing the rest of the world should submit to your view is precisely what you are accusing the EU of doing in the first place.

You are trying to frame the discussion as a simple 'if we won't do it, they won't do it and therefore there is no longer a problem' which is a wilful dismissal of the history of Ireland, and the concerns of those living there.

If the UK does not have any control over the border between it and the EU, then anything (people, goods) can freely move between the two countries, which defeats the purpose of Brexit.

Simplistic example I know, but say the UK decides it wants more control over something in its internal market, so introduces regulation and tariffs to control imports from outside the UK. Whoops, due to no border controls, some 'dodgy foreigner' can simply drive a crate-load of non-compliant (but EU acceptable) products over the border without paying any tariffs, and then send them wherever they like within the UK for sale. Not only that, but he can be paid in cash by some local dodgy person for the goods despite being in the country 'illegally'.

Yes, the current systems do not prevent that from happening completely, and yes we have internal infrastructure in the UK to police this already, but the scale of it could increase dramatically if there are two separate regimes without a controlled border.

What have I accused the EU of and where do I suggest the rest of the World submits to my views? Was it down to me that the EU allowed Greece to become a member state while knowing full well that it didn't meet the EU's own criteria, and will it be my fault if the EU
erect a hard border? Seems to me that you are the one who wants me and others to bend
to the EU's views. That isn't going to happen. Sorry.

[amusingduck]

youngsyr said:

amusingduck said:

youngsyr said:

amusingduck said:

youngsyr said:

amusingduck said:

Quoted from said thread, thanks jsf

That argument doesn't stack up though, did it?

You're claiming that illegal immigration is controlled by it being illegal and holding up the US as an example of where this system is effectively controlling illegal immigration.

However, illegal immigration is (at least perceived) to be a huge problem in the Southern United States and in the Southern EU states, routinely making headline news. Do I need to link the stories for you?

The reality is that illegal immigration is a problem even with closed borders in both the EU and the USA. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be a problem in the UK too.

[b]Why are they waiting at Calais instead of hopping over to Ireland and in through the back door?[b] They can do that right now, and we're not proposing any change to that.

If we cut out the middle of this argument and skip to the end, the logical conclusion of your argument is "I thought we voted to take back control - why are we taking back control and changing nothing?".

To which the answer is "everyone is happy with the current arrangements so why change them?".

That is precisely what they're doing...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/06/irelan...

So how is it a Brexit specific issue?

Because Brexit has been sold to us as a cure to __illegal__ immigration, when at best it won't impact on it at all and at worst could make it significantly worse.

Has it? That's never been my understanding.

Controlled regular immigration, sure.

[alfie2244]

youngsyr said:

Because Brexit has been sold to us as a cure to illegal immigration, when at best it won't impact on it at all and at worst could make it significantly worse.

Was it really?

[SpeckledJim]

youngsyr said:

SpeckledJim said:

youngsyr said:

amusingduck said:

Quoted from said thread, thanks jsf

That argument doesn't stack up though, did it?

You're claiming that illegal immigration is controlled by it being illegal and holding up the US as an example of where this system is effectively controlling illegal immigration.

However, illegal immigration is (at least perceived) to be a huge problem in the Southern United States and in the Southern EU states, routinely making headline news. Do I need to link the stories for you?

The reality is that illegal immigration is a problem even with closed borders in both the EU and the USA. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be a problem in the UK too.

Calm down a bit, I think you're arguing from a false assumption, and it's making you look a bit flappy.

Johnnie French comes on holiday to the UK, and once he's out of the arrival hall we have no idea where he is, and no practical way of finding him. That's the case today, and will still be the case post-Brexit.

Today, though, Johnnie French is fully entitled to get a job and a house and stay forever. That's the bit that will change. Not the bit at the border/airport.

What's with the patronisation and insults? Can we not just keep on topic?

The point is that one of the "benefits" we've been promised is the ability to control our borders. How will we be able to do that if "we have no idea where [Johnnie French] is, and no practical way of finding him" even after Brexit?

You also seem to be arguing that illegal immigration is controlled by the mere fact of it being illegal, but I'd suggest there are a lot of southern Italians, Spaniards and Americans with practical experience who would disagree.

Edited by youngsyr on Tuesday 18th December 14:42

Did you think Brexit would mean we'd be patrolling the coastline at night looking for blue and white stripy dinghies smelling of garlic?

It never meant that we would know exactly who was exactly where, and the idea that you thought it was supposed to, after three years talking about it, is depressing.

Stop thinking about freedom of movement, because it's not that at all, and start thinking about free movement of labour.

[gooner1]

youngsyr said:

Do you not feel that membership is worth the compromises?

Snipped for brevity.

17+ million voters have already answered the above.

[youngsyr]

Vanden Saab said:

Helicopter123 said:

No Border = GFA Intact = No Problem.

Leave the EU = Border = Problem.

Does that help?

Perfect just so us idiots understand could you quote the section in the GFA which says that if a border is put in place then the agreement is in any way altered or null and void Thanks

It's not specifically quoted in the GFA, but this article talks about the issue in depth:

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/good-friday-agreement-why-it-...

These bits in particular seems to sum it up:

[quote]Northern Ireland only works on the basis of sharing and interdependence. Yet Brexit, in particular a hard Brexit, entails new division, barriers and friction...

Borders are emotional and psychological. Any border down the Irish Sea would be seen by many as a fragmentation of the UK, even though there is already some degree of economic friction between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

In turn, any new border across the island would be seen as a reversal of the gains of peace under the Good Friday Agreement. This point is broader than the enhanced security risk posed by a physical border as articulated by the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, amongst others.

Rather it is a recognition that the implementation of the Agreement has seen a demilitarisation of the border, and many people would see any checks even if efficient and unobtrusive as a step backwards. It is the principle and symbolism of the checks themselves that is the issue.

[youngsyr]

amusingduck said:

youngsyr said:

amusingduck said:

youngsyr said:

amusingduck said:

youngsyr said:

amusingduck said:

Quoted from said thread, thanks jsf

That argument doesn't stack up though, did it?

You're claiming that illegal immigration is controlled by it being illegal and holding up the US as an example of where this system is effectively controlling illegal immigration.

However, illegal immigration is (at least perceived) to be a huge problem in the Southern United States and in the Southern EU states, routinely making headline news. Do I need to link the stories for you?

The reality is that illegal immigration is a problem even with closed borders in both the EU and the USA. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be a problem in the UK too.

[b]Why are they waiting at Calais instead of hopping over to Ireland and in through the back door?[b] They can do that right now, and we're not proposing any change to that.

If we cut out the middle of this argument and skip to the end, the logical conclusion of your argument is "I thought we voted to take back control - why are we taking back control and changing nothing?".

To which the answer is "everyone is happy with the current arrangements so why change them?".

That is precisely what they're doing...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/06/irelan...

So how is it a Brexit specific issue?

Because Brexit has been sold to us as a cure to __illegal__ immigration, when at best it won't impact on it at all and at worst could make it significantly worse.

Has it? That's never been my understanding.

Controlled regular immigration, sure.

Ok, for the sake of argument I'll concede that Brexit was only ever sold on the basis of increasing controls over regular immigration.

You've admitted yourself above that it won't even do that, so where does that leave your argument?

[alfie2244]

youngsyr said:

Ok, for the sake of argument I'll concede that Brexit was only ever sold on the basis of increasing controls over regular immigration.

You've admitted yourself above that it won't even do that, so where does that leave your argument?

So you made that bit up.............where does that leave your arguments?