But that was my point? So far it's basically been the Uk coming to the EU with (useless) solutions and the EU saying no. Rinse and repeat. The EU need to step it up here and offer alternatives. I'm not a fan of this approach as for me the UK don't deserve alternatives but ultimately the border is more important than that and we all know this UK gove is too incompetent and rubbish to reach a logical agreement themselves.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I didn't mind her when she became PM, it was only when she started having to defend Brexit when she started coming off as incompetent and rudderless. She's clearly never believed in it and it shows, whether she intends it or not.
She could of course have let someone else take over, but who? She's probably doing us all a favour by making sure non of the main Brexiteers take over. Boris could of had the job if he wanted it, he knows what a shit-show is coming though... It has to be the worse job in British post-war political history, whoever has the reigns can only lose.
The alternative is the one the UK are leaving because they don't want common rules. It's crazy that in 2018 people are still not integrating that basic thing, the UK entire issue is the common rules and collective decision making.
I'm no constitutional expert (so don't crucify me for this notion … that's all it is!)
I think after the constitutional (but legally, only advisory) vote went against the obvious wishes of the currently elected sitting government a general election should have been immediately called fought on the grounds of BREXIT.
Why? We're leaving - they have no desire to change the status quo and don't need to budge because they're the more powerful party here. Even if there's an argument it'd be helpful in some regards, from what perspective do the EU benefit by caving in to the demands of a country that's leaving? They've set out their fundamental principles and wants in this negotiation and don't intend to move from that. They'll be fine, or at least are at less risk of struggling than us, and so we need to work around them as a result. As was always going to be the case.
The EU offered numerous options at the very start which May rejected due to her stupied red lines. They aren't going to change the rules for us, no matter how hard we stamp our feet and hold our breath.
An election immediately afterwards is a decent idea in principle, but it wouldn't have stopped Brexit since no party would've probably had the balls to stand on a unified platform against it right after the vote. And doing so would've been terrible optics. Remember, much as it was seen as a shambles even back then, the extent to which it was going to be shambolic wasn't really yet known, and there remained hope for a lot of people. Even plenty of people on the Remain side thought it might turn out somewhat okay, even if it wasn't their preference.
You have changed your prediction about 10 times mate. Maybe next year eh
In the end it's simple the Island of Ireland is indivisible and needs to be in one of the two blocks, I don't think that this reality has been hammered enough. There is no magical solution.
You have changed your prediction about 10 times mate. Maybe next year eh
When?
Which puts us where we are right now … a bunch of people refusing to ratify anything because the fairy tale is impossible. But at least that way politicians (the people we elect to speak for us) would have been forced to admit that to the electorate in their election pledges in late 2016 and we could have moved on from a more realistic standpoint … instead of guiding us into a darkness they don't even believe in collectively so they can have a few extra days on the entry as PM or as the party in power on Wikipedia.
This
My original post made all this clear. Because of Ireland. The EU need to accept that Ireland and the border will have a very negative effect on a country that will still be in the EU should a deal not be reached. I don't disagree with what you're saying, the UK deserve to crash and burn for their stupidity but my country does not.
Look, it won't happen, unless the UK cave there will be a hard border, the EU won't budge on it, clearly. I just hope they're prepared for the consequences and don't leave us out on our arse.
Dont make me go through the whole thread but last year she'd be gone by autumn iirc
And that's why the EU proposed that NI stays in the EU, that way Ireland is in the same block. The issue with that is that one of the UK's red line is that NI can't be separated from the rest of the UK.
I can't understand what is the fuss really. The UK and the EU should agree to the withdrawal agreement were bills are settled there and then. Afterwards there will be plenty of time to negotiate a future trade deal.
Its not the EU's job to bail Brexit Britain out.
Its not the EU's job to bail Brexit Britain out.
Yes I'm fully aware how that works.
And that's why I'm baffled, the only alternative has been offered by the EU and was rejected, it was also a solution that respected the fact that NI voted to remain. As long as NI choose to stay with the UK and the UK rejects any option that would divide the Union, there is no solution that the EU can offer. The other solution only concerns the Republic of Ireland, they can decide to join the UK in a new block.
The UK can't afford to suddenly have no trade deals in place. It absolutely has to make arrangements in time to transition into them. That's why they refuse to agree the deal until at least a framework for trade is also agreed.
I don't remember that but if I did and you mean this autumn I've still got 3 months left.
End 2019 is the very latest, it could be long before then.
But maybe your memory is playing tricks.
That's not really the EU problem isn't it?
Look, there's obviously no real solution to the issue that doesn't involve the UK remaining in the customs union and CTA, they have to. I'm hoping they will, but I think they'll need a push from the EU and some concessions in other areas to do that, which is what I was alluding to, not some magical scenario that I've plucked out of nowhere that solves the border issue, I mean, what do you think I am, a Brexiteer?
It's not exactly helpful to the EU either, considering how much trade there is between the two.
What type of concessions do you have in mind?Look, there's obviously no real solution to the issue that doesn't involve the UK remaining in the customs union and CTA, they have to. I'm hoping they will, but I think they'll need a push from the EU and some concessions in other areas to do that, which is what I was alluding to, not some magical scenario that I've plucked out of nowhere that solves the border issue, I mean, what do you think I am, a Brexiteer?
To be fair to May she has done one thing - by standing in the way of people like Johnson and Gove she has at least managed to turn down the heat on some of the rhetoric they would have been spouting for the past 2 years. I don't think Johnson or Gove would have achieved anything else with their approach in material terms as I think the EU would have handled them in the same way.
If Johnson or gove had been in power for the last couple of years they would have started to wind up the people about how unfair the EU was et etc and gradually would have gone further and further into the agenda of EDL and far right groups. We are already seeing higher levels of racist attacks and hate crimes but I think these would have sky-rocketed under Johnson or Gove.
The dangerous game of Boris, sorry Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson - is that he is stoking up animosity about taking back control, immigration etc with not a clue about how to achieve it and other more sinister people will feed of that.
She had no choice other than the tack she has taken in my opinion. She has no idea what the final result will be and what the country would think about a 2nd Referendum. Deep down she would probably want one. But she has to completely dismiss the possibility of one because if the EU get the slightest wind that is is on the agenda then they will stone-wall her completely. I know it looks like that now but there are still a lot of noises off about some compromises.
The problem is that every single permutation of Brexit crosses somebody's red line.
Something has to give.
The problem is that every single permutation of Brexit crosses somebody's red line.
Something has to give.
Settling our "bill" is the only real leverage the UK has. Its naive to think the UK would ever give that upwithout a deal.
Well it depends how you see it. If there's a disruption in trade then many UK based companies will be forced to move elsewhere, possibly to another EU country. That means more jobs and money from taxes to a EU countrie and less trade to a third country. Also if the UK is determined to lower tariffs then it won't really hurt the EU either.
a- because WTO rules doesn't allow you to discriminate between countries unless you first sign trade deals. We all know that trade deals take years to be signed
b- because if the UK is dead set to lower tariffs then the EU will be competing with many countries who will be selling that same products. Which means that the UK isn't that much of an important customer anymore
In easier terms, imagine yourself as a shop keeper that sells niche products. Now I've been a consistent customer for years, spending shitloads of money week in week out. At one point we decided to make a deal ie I only buy stuff from you and in return you give me a 40% discount. One fine day I come to your shop to tell you that I will be buying stuff from all over the world now through internet and instead of spending lets say 1k a month you'll be lucky if I spend 10-20 euros instead. Do you think you'll keep me on the privileged customer list after that?
true however if the UK refuse to pay its dues as per agreed then its reputation will go into ashes especially after previously showing the middle finger to a reliable partner such as the EU by leaving . I wonder whose on earth would trust the UK in trade deals after that. Not to forget that EU will be given the perfect casus belli to act as a cnut when the UK tries to negotiate with the WTO and other stuff like red tape all over the continent on products leaving the UK to the EU and grounding air planes going to main land Europe.
The last thing the UK needs at this point in time is that its an unreliable partner.
Last edited:
Hence why they're trying to force Britain's hand into a deal that'll ensure there is no border. Easing up on that won't necessarily help Ireland at all - it'll just convince May she can push for a deal more beneficial to the UK.
It's not beneficial to them, but not as harmful as it is to us. It's like us drowning and them stepping in a puddle. A mild inconvenience but by no means a disaster compared to what it could be for us depending on the path taken.
Maybe there should be a referendum in NI on the matter... Do the people of NI want to be included in the EU customs area or do they want hard Brexit. Doesn't have to be an United Ireland deal. The fear for May is that if that happened, Scotland would probably want the same.
Which is fair. While as a Scot I understand that the NI situation is more perilous due to the genuine threat of violence, I'd also expect our thoughts to be taken into account if individual UK countries are getting a say when it comes to this. Especially when campaigning during the 2014 referendum continually stated again and again that our only guarantee of EU membership was to vote against independence.
Of course, but it’s still damage they’d prefer to avoid if there’s a way of doing it that doesn’t involve threatening the stability of the union.
I never said ease up on the border, clearly it's the priority. I said ease up on other aspects to sort out the border.
Whatever ones will keep the UK happy? Maybe let them have their stricter immigration rules that they wanted in 2015? I'm not sure, that's for the EU and UK to figure out. I don't think the EU will budge (nor should they, really) so it's all pointless anyway.
It’s all a big ‘possible’ though, and trade isn’t zero sum. The EU don’t want to lose the U.K. as a reliable trade partner even temporarily, it’s just that isn’t enough to risk undermining the whole EU to prevent it.
That seems like an obvious step but I have to admit that I do not know the political and social climate of NI enough, there is a reason why it's not happening other than the economic arguments.
A UK & Irish Bloc with a Canada plus plus deal with the EU
I hear you but there's nothing more the EU can do. The EU had been quite generous in giving concessions to the UK just for it to remain in the EU. Despite all that it insisted on leaving the EU on issues (ex ECJ and EU immigrants from Eastern European countries) it had previously worked so hard in favour off. Even after Brexit there were plenty of deals on the table which would have avoided hard border but all of them were shot down by the UK. Instead all it offered is a half baked deal which would threaten the integrity of the single market and won't really sort the Irish border issue at all. Till the time of writing the EU insist to put the Irish border at the centre of the negotiations to the frustration of Brexiteers who seem cannot bother less about it.
Hard borders is not something the EU has control over especially when third countries are concerned. That's a prerequisite the WTO will demand. Do not take me wrong, the EU can and should help Ireland in everything it can. However it certainly can't force Britain's hand either
I think that the recent events showed that the UK is anything but reliable.