Brexit - the next steps

[Aruntraveller]

That parrots back again.

You know the one. The one that learnt all its language in Nigel Farage's living room.

[SteveH]

And regardless of what happens with brexit this will simply not be allowed under the international legal obligations of the Good Friday Agreement.

So if there is a no deal brexit the UK and RofI will be required rapidly under their international obligations to put in place a solution that returns to a position of no hard border. And the only thing that could be done immediately would be to, in effect, trigger the backstop. So rather than eliminate the back stop a no deal brexit will ensure it has to be immediately implemented.

Why can't the two countries just agree not to have a hard border? Am I missing something?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Udayana,

https://inews.co.uk/news/britain-brexit-europe-boris-johnson-paid-budget-150m-week-ons-638866

Quote
Britain’s contribution to the EU budget was £150m a week, significantly lower than the £350m cited by pro-Brexit campaigners in the 2016 referendum campaign, according to the Office of National Statistics.

Figures published yesterday showed that the UK’s net outgoings to Brussels were as low as £7.8bn a year on average over the past five years, once the rebate and other payments were taken into account.

That's the lie by commission, More significant though is the lie by omission - that is, in exchange for no longer paying what we currently pay what's the net loss in reduced economic activity by stepping outside the single market? It's a bit like paying £20 to go to a car boot sale every Sunday, and deciding you wanted to be £20 by no longer going. You'd be £20 better off all right in the sense of no longer paying it, but you'd be (say) net £180 worse off because you were no longer at the market to make your weekly profit of £200. The £200 equivalent part is what was left off the side of the bus.

Funny that.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

Why can't the two countries just agree not to have a hard border? Am I missing something?

Yes. The EU has a common external tariff - that is, there's a hard border wherever you bring goods from outside the EU to the EU. Once you're inside though (ie, past the external border checks) the concept of free circulation applies so there are effectively no more border formalities between Member States.

If you did away with hard border on the island if Ireland, goods could enter the Republic from the North with no checks. Once in the Republic, they would therefore appear to be within the EU even though the external border formalities had not been completed, duty had not been paid etc. Then in principle they could move to any other Member State with no further checks when they arrived in France, Germany etc. It's a smugglers' charter in other words.     

[jeremyp]

I can't believe it. Boris is doubling down

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49891899

It was a lie before. It's a lie now. This man needs to go to prison.

[Aruntraveller]

I can't believe it. Boris is doubling down

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49891899

It was a lie before. It's a lie now. This man needs to go to prison.

You sound surprised.

He's a liar. It's what he is and what he does.

Lied to his wife, his mistress, his boss. Surely you worked out he would lie to us?

I know that question was rhetorical.

[jeremyp]

Can't think of where I have said or implied that I've got some fear of foreigners, I have said something like having to many immigrants come crashing over a cliff here into the UK in such vast apparently uncontrolled numbers isn't that desirable.

Why don't you try reading your own posts. You know: the ones where you bemoan immigration and think it's OK to tell foreigners they should go home.

I then went on to say: 'the views of remainers are of no interest to me', to which your response was: 'That's unfortunate because it is looking very much like they are right; well again we could be going around in circles on that one, great, fine you go ahead, just don't involve me.

Nice to see you conceding my point.

The views of remainers should be of interest to you. If you shut them out, you'll never know if you are right or wrong.

Similarly the views of Brexiteers are definitely of interest to me. I'd love to know how anybody is going to be better off after this fiasco has concluded. Well, I know how Boris and his chums will be better off, but I don't know how the ordinary people without loads of cash stashed in offshore tax havens are going to be better off. And the worst thing about it is that the ordinary people who voted for Brexit have no idea how they are going to be better off either.

That's the only conclusion I can draw from the fact that people like you refuse to engage with me on the subject. For fuck's sake Ippy, grows a pair and tell us how our lives are going to be better on November 1st.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to help out, he has an obvious tell for when he is lying, he speaks.

[jeremyp]

Just to help out, he has an obvious tell for when he is lying, he speaks.

But it's so fucking blatant. How is anybody being taken in?

[Nearly Sane]

But it's so fucking blatant. How is anybody being taken in?

They don't care, or he's being stitched up, or it's for the best. See Trump.

[bluehillside Retd.]

It’s much worse than that. Whatever the true weekly cost is, it’s a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of being outside the single market. Our contribution is in significant part the membership fee for being part of that market. It’s fucking tragic that this is consistently missed.

[Bramble]

But it's so fucking blatant. How is anybody being taken in?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/30/europe-populist-lie-shamelessly-salvini-johnson

[jeremyp]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/30/europe-populist-lie-shamelessly-salvini-johnson

I'm not sure I agree with the article's thesis. I think the key sentence is

The defiant line, found nestling in most populist party manifestos, used to be: “We’re only saying what everyone is thinking.”

People have biased beliefs and pandering to them reinforces them. If Ippy suspects that we can't cope with the number of immigrants, then telling him "immigrants are flooding in to the country" reinforces a belief he already has.

[Nearly Sane]

Westminster voting intention: CON: 34% (+1) LDEM: 23% (+2) LAB: 21% (-1) BREX: 12% (-1) GRN: 5% (-) via

@YouGov

Chgs. w/ 27 Sep

[Bramble]

People have biased beliefs and pandering to them reinforces them. If Ippy suspects that we can't cope with the number of immigrants, then telling him "immigrants are flooding in to the country" reinforces a belief he already has.

Perhaps the mistake is to assume that most people are primarily interested in facts. What if most folk operate mainly at the level of feelings and prefer to have these validated rather than challenged? Changing your beliefs can be unsettling, even painful. If we prioritise facts then we might feel obliged to defer to experts - and we've had enough of those elitists telling us what to do (think Gove). But everyone is equal in having feelings and personal opinions based on them. If you feel in your gut that we're overrun with immigrants then studies that contradict this conviction might have little influence on you. Instead they might just reinforce your belief that the kind of people who come up with such nonsensical ideas are never to be trusted and you double down on your anti-immigrant sentiments. If the people you associate with in daily life and the news sources you go to share these sentiments then your sense of righteousness would likely become almost unshakeable.

[ippy]

Why don't you try reading your own posts. You know: the ones where you bemoan immigration and think it's OK to tell foreigners they should go home.
Nice to see you conceding my point.

The views of remainers should be of interest to you. If you shut them out, you'll never know if you are right or wrong.

Similarly the views of Brexiteers are definitely of interest to me. I'd love to know how anybody is going to be better off after this fiasco has concluded. Well, I know how Boris and his chums will be better off, but I don't know how the ordinary people without loads of cash stashed in offshore tax havens are going to be better off. And the worst thing about it is that the ordinary people who voted for Brexit have no idea how they are going to be better off either.

That's the only conclusion I can draw from the fact that people like you refuse to engage with me on the subject. For fuck's sake Ippy, grows a pair and tell us how our lives are going to be better on November 1st.

In your post you seem to want to plant this on me: 'Why don't you try reading your own posts. You know: the ones where you bemoan immigration and think it's OK to tell foreigners they should go home'.

It's not worth trying to deny these lines of yours, they have nothing to do with me and the rest of your post, so much of it amounts to juggling with semantics what would be the point of trying to answer?

Regards, ippy.

[Udayana]

Westminster voting intention: CON: 34% (+1) LDEM: 23% (+2) LAB: 21% (-1) BREX: 12% (-1) GRN: 5% (-) via

@YouGov

Chgs. w/ 27 Sep

With those %'s we'd get a Con govt. with a large majority - which would confirm a no-deal brexit.

[Nearly Sane]

With those %'s we'd get a Con govt. with a large majority - which would confirm a no-deal brexit.

The biq question is that if Johnson extends and the election follows what the reaction of people who wanted No Deal Brexit would be be - it could increase the Brexit party vote at the cost of the Tory vote. If say they dropped 8% points to them, it could be desperately messy.

[ippy]

With those %'s we'd get a Con govt. with a large majority - which would confirm a no-deal brexit.

Sounds good to me, Udayana the cheque's in the post thank you very much.

Regards, ippy.

[ProfessorDavey]

With those %'s we'd get a Con govt. with a large majority - which would confirm a no-deal brexit.

Weirdly I don't think that is what would happen. The reason why the Tories are driving towards no deal is because they are terrified of the brexit wing. Were they to win a big majority I think we'd actually see a pragmatic deal pushed through. Firstly because I think most tory MPs (not the ERG obviously) actually recognise that no deal would be a disaster. And secondly because having a big majority would allow the PM to stick 2 fingers up to the ERG and Nigel Farage.

[Nearly Sane]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/02/raising-hopes-and-denying-gropes-tory-conference-leaves-no-fantasy-untouched

[Nearly Sane]

Moderator Note as per the rules, we don't allow large copy and pastes from unknown sources, so ippy's post and replies have been removed, and a request to find a suitable link has been sent to ippy.

[Stranger]

Please note all I've done is pass this on

Perhaps you should have at least done some basic fact checking before even considering passing it on? Much of it is obvious nonsense and it took me all of a minute to find out that most of it is:

There’s a lot wrong with this viral list about the Lisbon Treaty

Factcheck 26 questions on EU

If you're basing your views on this sort of bullshit, perhaps you should think again.

[SteveH]

A number of posts seem to have been deleted: one from Ippy, rehashing a mendacious load of scaremongering from the internet, and my and Professor Davey's replies.
P.S.: just seen NS's explanation.

[Nearly Sane]

Moderator
 As Stranger's post has a link to a something that includes all of ippy's cut and paste, albeit a critique of it,  we are leaving that post up.