Brexit - was it worth it? (Vol. 2)
Discussion
powerstroke said:
Yes , I would have preferred a WTO Brexit but we had to indulge the spineless !!!
WTO would have been the most spineless of actions. It's not brave to spit your dummy out and refuse to deal with others because you're not the one that would be most affected by it. Doing a deal and owning the consequences rather than blaming others takes much more backbone 
Edited by roger.mellie on Friday 5th March 08:40
JeffreyD said:
So Johnson was wrong to recommend his deal then?
What was he frightened of that led him to recommend such a turd?
The FTA and the WA are two seperate things.What was he frightened of that led him to recommend such a turd?
There is plenty within the WA to sort these issues with trade flows to NI out. That can be done the easy or hard way, both legally.
The easy way needs both parties to be pragmatic, the hard way involves unilateral action and politicians using the press to willy wave and wind people up.
JeffreyD said:
loafer123 said:
It would have helped because it would have called the EU’s bluff about their fictional border issue.
NI would have had no trade barriers with the rest of the U.K., by far its largest trading partner, and the EU would have had to accept that local rules would apply for trade between NI and Eire, which the WTO confirmed would be fine.
So Johnson was wrong to recommend his deal then?NI would have had no trade barriers with the rest of the U.K., by far its largest trading partner, and the EU would have had to accept that local rules would apply for trade between NI and Eire, which the WTO confirmed would be fine.
What was he frightened of that led him to recommend such a turd?
jsf said:
The now infamous Art16 is whats coming from the UK side shortly based on the EU response to temporary measures signalled ahead for the end of March.
Perhaps this is actually what the EU wants? - to have the UK trigger A16? Then they can say that it's not only the EU that has triggered the article, and that the EU rescinded their triggering after a few hours, whereas the UK didn't etc etc. In other words playing politics with NI so as to deflect from their own massive miscalculation?loafer123 said:
If the EU were willing to learn lessons on the ground and flex the implementation to make it work, the deal is fine. Having just listened to Arlene Foster on Today saying the EU's answer on the committee to the problem was "more protocol", it is clear they have no interest in making it work in the real world.
Obviously Arlene is biased, but aren't we all. Almost every other political leader in NI would not agree with her current stance.Just listened to Jonathan Powell on GMU and he remade the obvious point that there's no getting away from. The reason we are where we are is because nobody managed to suggest a more workable realistic option. Nobody's claiming the protocol's perfect but nobody has managed to suggest a better option that would work in the real world either.
loafer123 said:
If the EU were willing to learn lessons on the ground and flex the implementation to make it work, the deal is fine. Having just listened to Arlene Foster on Today saying the EU's answer on the committee to the problem was "more protocol", it is clear they have no interest in making it work in the real world.
At least the fact that EU control our internal borders is now clear to us all. roger.mellie said:
loafer123 said:
If the EU were willing to learn lessons on the ground and flex the implementation to make it work, the deal is fine. Having just listened to Arlene Foster on Today saying the EU's answer on the committee to the problem was "more protocol", it is clear they have no interest in making it work in the real world.
Obviously Arlene is biased, but aren't we all. Almost every other political leader in NI would not agree with her current stance.Just listened to Jonathan Powell on GMU and he remade the obvious point that there's no getting away from. The reason we are where we are is because nobody managed to suggest a more workable realistic option. Nobody's claiming the protocol's perfect but nobody has managed to suggest a better option that would work in the real world either.
The problem you have is that the real world effects of this sanctity are starting to impact on the real people in the north and south of Ireland, and they won't stand for it just to preserve the pride of some failed politician in the Berlaymont.
JeffreyD said:
loafer123 said:
If the EU were willing to learn lessons on the ground and flex the implementation to make it work, the deal is fine. Having just listened to Arlene Foster on Today saying the EU's answer on the committee to the problem was "more protocol", it is clear they have no interest in making it work in the real world.
At least the fact that EU control our internal borders is now clear to us all. andymadmak said:
Perhaps this is actually what the EU wants? - to have the UK trigger A16? Then they can say that it's not only the EU that has triggered the article, and that the EU rescinded their triggering after a few hours, whereas the UK didn't etc etc. In other words playing politics with NI so as to deflect from their own massive miscalculation?
As far as the EU is concerned that never happened, only the UK do bad things.jsf said:
JeffreyD said:
So Johnson was wrong to recommend his deal then?
What was he frightened of that led him to recommend such a turd?
The FTA and the WA are two seperate things.What was he frightened of that led him to recommend such a turd?
There is plenty within the WA to sort these issues with trade flows to NI out. That can be done the easy or hard way, both legally.
The easy way needs both parties to be pragmatic, the hard way involves unilateral action and politicians using the press to willy wave and wind people up.
andymadmak said:
Perhaps this is actually what the EU wants? - to have the UK trigger A16? Then they can say that it's not only the EU that has triggered the article, and that the EU rescinded their triggering after a few hours, whereas the UK didn't etc etc. In other words playing politics with NI so as to deflect from their own massive miscalculation?
It doesn't work like that though. The EU defined the bar for both triggering A16 and also on the need to notify the other parties. The UK action is consistent with the EU's low bar, particularly as we've not gone as far as A16.
loafer123 said:
It would have helped because it would have called the EU’s bluff about their fictional border issue.
NI would have had no trade barriers with the rest of the U.K., by far its largest trading partner, and the EU would have had to accept that local rules would apply for trade between NI and Eire, which the WTO confirmed would be fine.
So the Republic of Ireland has no input to this then?NI would have had no trade barriers with the rest of the U.K., by far its largest trading partner, and the EU would have had to accept that local rules would apply for trade between NI and Eire, which the WTO confirmed would be fine.
loafer123 said:
With the desire to not extend the CTA to a CT&TA, and to preserve the sanctity of the Single Market at all costs, I agree with you.
The problem you have is that the real world effects of this sanctity are starting to impact on the real people in the north and south of Ireland, and they won't stand for it just to preserve the pride of some failed politician in the Berlaymont.
Politics is the art of the achievable. Given the EU/IE red lines on a border and the fact that Ireland were not going to agree limitations on their own EU membership to appease the UK that wasn't ever a goer. So I agree but would not frame it the same way.The problem you have is that the real world effects of this sanctity are starting to impact on the real people in the north and south of Ireland, and they won't stand for it just to preserve the pride of some failed politician in the Berlaymont.
Many solutions were proposed and failed e.g. the technology border with no technology to do it, so we ended up with the least worst compromise option given the UK's decision to go for a hard brexit.
The biggest fallacy is any suggestion that a border didn't have to go somewhere. That simply doesn't stand up against any real world facts and is probably my biggest bugbear with the DUP's strategic failings, they were all guns blazing for a hard brexit and helped to kill any softer options, right up to the point they realised where that border was going to go. At least they're not only blaming the EU and are blaming the UK too, but they lack the political honesty to admit their own culpability in the situation.
Bandit said:
jsf said:
JeffreyD said:
So Johnson was wrong to recommend his deal then?
What was he frightened of that led him to recommend such a turd?
The FTA and the WA are two seperate things.What was he frightened of that led him to recommend such a turd?
There is plenty within the WA to sort these issues with trade flows to NI out. That can be done the easy or hard way, both legally.
The easy way needs both parties to be pragmatic, the hard way involves unilateral action and politicians using the press to willy wave and wind people up.
Iminquarantine said:
loafer123 said:
It would have helped because it would have called the EU’s bluff about their fictional border issue.
NI would have had no trade barriers with the rest of the U.K., by far its largest trading partner, and the EU would have had to accept that local rules would apply for trade between NI and Eire, which the WTO confirmed would be fine.
So the Republic of Ireland has no input to this then?NI would have had no trade barriers with the rest of the U.K., by far its largest trading partner, and the EU would have had to accept that local rules would apply for trade between NI and Eire, which the WTO confirmed would be fine.
Bandit said:
The way I saw this was that if Boris had had to renegotiate the WA once he was voted in, we would NEVER have ended up leaving the EU. Best course of action was to push through the existing WA and come back and fix it later ....as you are seeing happening now.
Thereby using Northern Ireland as a political football and campaigning in bad faith.Looking good in the polls though
loafer123 said:
Iminquarantine said:
loafer123 said:
It would have helped because it would have called the EU’s bluff about their fictional border issue.
NI would have had no trade barriers with the rest of the U.K., by far its largest trading partner, and the EU would have had to accept that local rules would apply for trade between NI and Eire, which the WTO confirmed would be fine.
So the Republic of Ireland has no input to this then?NI would have had no trade barriers with the rest of the U.K., by far its largest trading partner, and the EU would have had to accept that local rules would apply for trade between NI and Eire, which the WTO confirmed would be fine.
The UK red line was clear that it would leave the SM. Therefore there has to be a full customs border some the one land border. Its either on the border or in the sea. BJ agreed the sea border between GB and NI. Its seems his great deal with no paperwork was not such a great deal and will involve a lot of paperwork. That was obvious from day one but BJ found it easier to lie.
@Murph someone may have been reading your comments 
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/susan-mckay-dup...
In other words, the DUP has decided chaos is the best plan. Wilson even explained why. When the party’s former faux ally Jacob Rees-Mogg, leader of the House of Commons, suggested unionists should use democratic processes to oppose the protocol, which comes up for review in 2024, Wilson said that unionism could not do this because, well, basically, it would lose the vote.
ETA, the article is obviously very biased but it's not wrong on the absolute s
t show the DUP are making of the protocol issues. They're determined to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/susan-mckay-dup...
In other words, the DUP has decided chaos is the best plan. Wilson even explained why. When the party’s former faux ally Jacob Rees-Mogg, leader of the House of Commons, suggested unionists should use democratic processes to oppose the protocol, which comes up for review in 2024, Wilson said that unionism could not do this because, well, basically, it would lose the vote.
ETA, the article is obviously very biased but it's not wrong on the absolute s
t show the DUP are making of the protocol issues. They're determined to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.Edited by roger.mellie on Friday 5th March 11:05
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff