As you were, the DUP are having none of it.

[pullgees]

Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK, and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'

So back to the drawing board

[Ophelia]

"pullgees" wrote in message news:fade1f2e-ae6d-4eae-bcff-***@googlegroups.com...

Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK,
and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates
Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'

So back to the drawing board

===

Excellent:)) Noddy is sticking her oar in and whinging that if N.I. are
allowed to stay in the single market, that Scotland can too:)))

I wondered how long it would take her.

[Yellow]

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK,
and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates
Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board
===
Excellent:)) Noddy is sticking her oar in and whinging that if N.I. are
allowed to stay in the single market, that Scotland can too:)))
I wondered how long it would take her.

I am bemused that the UK government could have thought this was ever
going to be a go-er.

Perhaps they got caught up in the moment or they have some other play in
mind but yes, bemused is the only word I can come up with.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Yellow
I am bemused that the UK government could have thought this was ever
going to be a go-er.
Perhaps they got caught up in the moment or they have some other play in
mind but yes, bemused is the only word I can come up with.

For once I agree with you. The situation was absolutely 110%
predictable. I can't believe how naive and inept the PM is. As I have be
saying for ages, as things are at the moment there are only two
available solutions - and one or the other of the two will be not be
simultaneously acceptable to both 'sides'. But, of course, the
Brexiteers knew this when the voted in the referendum.

[Yellow]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 22:25:05 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Yellow
I am bemused that the UK government could have thought this was ever
going to be a go-er.
Perhaps they got caught up in the moment or they have some other play in
mind but yes, bemused is the only word I can come up with.

For once I agree with you. The situation was absolutely 110%
predictable. I can't believe how naive and inept the PM is. As I have be
saying for ages, as things are at the moment there are only two
available solutions - and one or the other of the two will be not be
simultaneously acceptable to both 'sides'.

I have no doubt this is solvable.

Post by Ian Jackson
But, of course, the
Brexiteers knew this when the voted in the referendum.

It being "too hard to leave" is not an acceptable excuse for not doing
so and further makes me as sure as ever we are doing the right thing,
leaving while we still can, just.

[James Harris]

Post by Yellow
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 22:25:05 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Yellow
I am bemused that the UK government could have thought this was ever
going to be a go-er.
Perhaps they got caught up in the moment or they have some other play in
mind but yes, bemused is the only word I can come up with.

For once I agree with you. The situation was absolutely 110%
predictable. I can't believe how naive and inept the PM is. As I have be
saying for ages, as things are at the moment there are only two
available solutions - and one or the other of the two will be not be
simultaneously acceptable to both 'sides'.

I have no doubt this is solvable.

Post by Ian Jackson
But, of course, the
Brexiteers knew this when the voted in the referendum.

It being "too hard to leave" is not an acceptable excuse for not doing
so and further makes me as sure as ever we are doing the right thing,
leaving while we still can, just.

I felt the same. Before the referendum the point was already being made
that leaving would be next to impossible because of the EU's size and
how integrated it was with the UK. That sounded a warning klaxon.

[Mike Scott]

On 05/12/17 04:25, James Harris wrote:
.....

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow

Post by Ian Jackson
But, of course, the
Brexiteers knew this when the voted in the referendum.

It being "too hard to leave" is not an acceptable excuse for not doing
so and further makes me as sure as ever we are doing the right thing,
leaving while we still can, just.

I felt the same. Before the referendum the point was already being made
that leaving would be next to impossible because of the EU's size and
how integrated it was with the UK. That sounded a warning klaxon.

Indeed. I confess I'd not associated Brexit and GFA in any manner - but
it would have made no difference. As you say, if something's too hard to
get out of, it's time you weren't in it.

Where my thinking did go badly awry was in assuming that Brussels would
enter exit negotiations in good faith. From here, I see nothing
resembling that, just a series of demands from the other side. Adults
would work together to solve the problems arising; maybe that says
something about those running the EU.

I do wonder - suppose the UK said, OK, open border it is and our own
regulations within the UK. The /EU/ could not allow this, could they?
And presumably RoI would then start installing customs posts to ensure
imposition of their own controls. Hmmm.

[pamela]

Post by Mike Scott
.....

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow

Post by Ian Jackson
But, of course, the
Brexiteers knew this when the voted in the referendum.

It being "too hard to leave" is not an acceptable excuse for
not doing so and further makes me as sure as ever we are doing
the right thing, leaving while we still can, just.

I felt the same. Before the referendum the point was already
being made that leaving would be next to impossible because of
the EU's size and how integrated it was with the UK. That
sounded a warning klaxon.

Indeed. I confess I'd not associated Brexit and GFA in any
manner - but it would have made no difference. As you say, if
something's too hard to get out of, it's time you weren't in it.

Isn't that just the weirdest logic. That's an emorional knee-jerk
rather than a properly thought through understanding.

Post by Mike Scott
Where my thinking did go badly awry was in assuming that
Brussels would enter exit negotiations in good faith.

They would have been fools to do so. The EU is expected to act in
its own best interests. Perhaps you want the EU to throw Britain
a sop in the way it helps out poor developing countries?

Post by Mike Scott
From here,
I see nothing resembling that, just a series of demands from the
other side.

The EU are good negotiators and doing a great job for the citizens
of the EU27. Bravo. It's time Britain upped its game rather than
moaning. We used to be such good losers.... what's happened to
that?

Post by Mike Scott
Adults would work together to solve the problems
arising; maybe that says something about those running the EU.

It is the Uk which has brought childish petulance and cries of
"it's not fair". Time to grow up and accept that the world is a
tough place and dreamy notions of "fairness" and "it's not
cricket" have never had a place in international relations.

Post by Mike Scott
I do wonder - suppose the UK said, OK, open border it is and our
own regulations within the UK. The /EU/ could not allow this,
could they? And presumably RoI would then start installing
customs posts to ensure imposition of their own controls. Hmmm.

Why should the EU have an open external land border wide enough to
cause all sorts of problems to pass through it? Why didn't Gove
and Johnson tell us about all this during the campaign?

[Ian Jackson]

Post by pamela

Post by Mike Scott
.....

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow

Post by Ian Jackson
But, of course, the
Brexiteers knew this when the voted in the referendum.

It being "too hard to leave" is not an acceptable excuse for
not doing so and further makes me as sure as ever we are doing
the right thing, leaving while we still can, just.

I felt the same. Before the referendum the point was already
being made that leaving would be next to impossible because of
the EU's size and how integrated it was with the UK. That
sounded a warning klaxon.

Indeed. I confess I'd not associated Brexit and GFA in any
manner - but it would have made no difference. As you say, if
something's too hard to get out of, it's time you weren't in it.

Isn't that just the weirdest logic. That's an emorional knee-jerk
rather than a properly thought through understanding.

I'm amazed that anyone could not have associated Brexit and the GFA.
It's one of the first problems I saw coming (and a potentially insoluble
one too).

I'm even more amazed that even if you had had the foresight, it would
have made no difference. I can only hope that most Brexiteers have a bit
more regard for the well-being of both our fellow-citizens in NI, and
our fellow-Europeans in the RoI.

Post by pamela

Post by Mike Scott
Where my thinking did go badly awry was in assuming that
Brussels would enter exit negotiations in good faith.

They would have been fools to do so. The EU is expected to act in
its own best interests. Perhaps you want the EU to throw Britain
a sop in the way it helps out poor developing countries?

Unless I'm mistaken, it's not the EU who have thrown a spanner in the
works. Strangely, I can actually understand why they have done it.

Post by pamela

Post by Mike Scott
From here,
I see nothing resembling that, just a series of demands from the
other side.

The EU are good negotiators and doing a great job for the citizens
of the EU27. Bravo. It's time Britain upped its game rather than
moaning. We used to be such good losers.... what's happened to
that?

The Brexiteers certainly seem to be just as good at moaning as the
Remoaners.

Post by pamela

Post by Mike Scott
Adults would work together to solve the problems
arising; maybe that says something about those running the EU.

It is the Uk which has brought childish petulance and cries of
"it's not fair". Time to grow up and accept that the world is a
tough place and dreamy notions of "fairness" and "it's not
cricket" have never had a place in international relations.

As I said....

Post by pamela

Post by Mike Scott
I do wonder - suppose the UK said, OK, open border it is and our
own regulations within the UK. The /EU/ could not allow this,
could they? And presumably RoI would then start installing
customs posts to ensure imposition of their own controls. Hmmm.

Why should the EU have an open external land border wide enough to
cause all sorts of problems to pass through it? Why didn't Gove
and Johnson tell us about all this during the campaign?

Economic with the truth - or simply pig-ignorant?

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Ian Jackson

[quoted text muted]

I'm amazed that anyone could not have associated Brexit and the GFA.
It's one of the first problems I saw coming (and a potentially insoluble
one too).

It was also widely flagged up before the referendum. If anyone was
listening.

[The Todal]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Ian Jackson

[quoted text muted]

I'm amazed that anyone could not have associated Brexit and the GFA.
It's one of the first problems I saw coming (and a potentially insoluble
one too).

It was also widely flagged up before the referendum. If anyone was
listening.

It was part of Project Fear, and was therefore to be dismissed with
contempt.

We have no intention of being intimidated by scare stories. Or by bombs,
or terrorists, or unemployment, or epidemics.

To digress, there's an excellent BBC series about the Blitz. "Blitz -
the bombs that Changed Britain". Well worth watching. You know all that
stuff about "business as usual" and "we can take it"? The reality was a
bit different. People were bombed out of their houses and then treated
as bothersome refugees, nobody willing to provide them with food or
shelter or blankets and big arguments going on about whether local
authorities should support those who have become refugees and moved into
their area from another part of the country.

But it all turned out all right in the end. Of course. Once you bury the
bodies, there's nothing more to see.

[James Harris]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by pamela

Post by Mike Scott
.....

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow

Post by Ian Jackson
But, of course, the
Brexiteers knew this when the voted in the referendum.

It being "too hard to leave" is not an acceptable excuse for
not doing so and further makes me as sure as ever we are doing
the right thing, leaving while we still can, just.

I felt the same. Before the referendum the point was already
being made that leaving would be next to impossible because of
the EU's size and how integrated it was with the UK. That
sounded a warning klaxon.

Indeed. I confess I'd not associated Brexit and GFA in any
manner - but it would have made no difference. As you say, if
something's too hard to get out of, it's time you weren't in it.

Isn't that just the weirdest logic. That's an emorional knee-jerk
rather than a properly thought through understanding.

I'm amazed that anyone could not have associated Brexit and the GFA.
It's one of the first problems I saw coming (and a potentially insoluble
one too).

Here's the GFA:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136652/agreement.pdf

It mentions the European Convention on Human rights a few times. But as
you know, that is nothing to do with the EU and neither side is
withdrawing from it.

It mentions the European Union hardly at all.


So, which part of the GFA are you linking to Brexit?

[Ian Jackson]

Post by James Harris

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by pamela

Post by Mike Scott
.....

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow

Post by Ian Jackson
But, of course, the
Brexiteers knew this when the voted in the referendum.

It being "too hard to leave" is not an acceptable excuse for
not doing so and further makes me as sure as ever we are doing
the right thing, leaving while we still can, just.

I felt the same. Before the referendum the point was already
being made that leaving would be next to impossible because of
the EU's size and how integrated it was with the UK. That
sounded a warning klaxon.

Indeed. I confess I'd not associated Brexit and GFA in any
manner - but it would have made no difference. As you say, if
something's too hard to get out of, it's time you weren't in it.

Isn't that just the weirdest logic. That's an emorional knee-jerk
rather than a properly thought through understanding.

I'm amazed that anyone could not have associated Brexit and the GFA.
It's one of the first problems I saw coming (and a potentially insoluble
one too).

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil
e/136652/agreement.pdf
It mentions the European Convention on Human rights a few times. But as
you know, that is nothing to do with the EU and neither side is
withdrawing from it.
It mentions the European Union hardly at all.
So, which part of the GFA are you linking to Brexit?

When the terms of the GFA were written, both sides of the Irish border
were in the EU, and therefore both subject to the same EU rules.

As you know, when we leave the EU the UK will no longer be subject to EU
rules - so NI will have different rules from the RoI. NI, being in the
UK, will then be able to restrict the movement of EU citizens (which
includes those of the RoI) coming from the RoI into NI (which breaches
the GFA). [After all, controlling EU citizens coming into the UK was one
of the main reasons why Brexiteers voted to leave the EU.]

Also, the EU will require the RoI to carry out customs checks on goods
coming in from NI (which again breaches the GFA).

Those are only two examples of the problem.

So apart from hoping that as neither NI nor the RoI want these problems
- and that, with a bit of goodwill on both sides, we are bound to be
able to come up with SOMETHING - what solution do YOU propose? And if
you think it has any merit, why haven't you cleared it first with Arlene
Foster, and then emailed it to the two MPs involved?

[Jethro_uk]

[After all, controlling EU citizens coming into the UK was one of the
main reasons why Brexiteers voted to leave the EU.]

I fear that nuanced distinction is lost on many Brexiteers, who just
wanted to get rid of brown faces.

Remember, there's an entire demographic in the UK that can't be arsed to
learn, and to whom "immigrant", "muslim" and "paki" are synonymous.

[James Harris]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by James Harris

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by pamela

Post by Mike Scott
.....

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow

Post by Ian Jackson
But, of course, the
Brexiteers knew this when the voted in the referendum.

It being "too hard to leave" is not an acceptable excuse for
not doing so and further makes me as sure as ever we are doing
the right thing, leaving while we still can, just.

I felt the same. Before the referendum the point was already
being made that leaving would be next to impossible because of
the EU's size and how integrated it was with the UK. That
sounded a warning klaxon.

Indeed. I confess I'd not associated Brexit and GFA in any
manner - but it would have made no difference. As you say, if
something's too hard to get out of, it's time you weren't in it.

Isn't that just the weirdest logic. That's an emorional knee-jerk
rather than a properly thought through understanding.

I'm amazed that anyone could not have associated Brexit and the GFA.
It's one of the first problems I saw coming (and a potentially insoluble
one too).

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil
e/136652/agreement.pdf
It mentions the European Convention on Human rights a few times. But as
you know, that is nothing to do with the EU and neither side is
withdrawing from it.
It mentions the European Union hardly at all.
So, which part of the GFA are you linking to Brexit?

When the terms of the GFA were written, both sides of the Irish border
were in the EU, and therefore both subject to the same EU rules.
As you know, when we leave the EU the UK will no longer be subject to EU
rules - so NI will have different rules from the RoI. NI, being in the
UK, will then be able to restrict the movement of EU citizens (which
includes those of the RoI) coming from the RoI into NI (which breaches
the GFA). [After all, controlling EU citizens coming into the UK was one
of the main reasons why Brexiteers voted to leave the EU.]

To try to verify your claims I've searched it for all kinds of words
such as free*, movement, citizen*, border, travel, good*, and others.
Are you SURE of what you claim? If so, please point out the relevant
sections. Otherwise, as far as I can see, it is about Northern Ireland,
not about the border or about many cross-border issues.

Post by Ian Jackson
Also, the EU will require the RoI to carry out customs checks on goods
coming in from NI (which again breaches the GFA).

Search it as I might, I cannot find where that requirement breaches the
GFA. Can you substantiate your assertion?

Post by Ian Jackson
Those are only two examples of the problem.
So apart from hoping that as neither NI nor the RoI want these problems
- and that, with a bit of goodwill on both sides, we are bound to be
able to come up with SOMETHING - what solution do YOU propose?

That businesses account for their customs duties as they do for their
other taxes, and that inspectors check their books from time to time.
Why would that be no good?

[Mike Scott]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by James Harris

Post by Mike Scott
.....

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow

Post by Ian Jackson
But, of course, the
Brexiteers knew this when the voted in the referendum.

It being "too hard to leave" is not an acceptable excuse for
not doing so and further makes me as sure as ever we are doing
the right thing, leaving while we still can, just.

I felt the same. Before the referendum the point was already
being made that leaving would be next to impossible because of
the EU's size and how integrated it was with the UK. That
sounded a warning klaxon.

Indeed. I confess I'd not associated Brexit and GFA in any
manner - but it would have made no difference. As you say, if
something's too hard to get out of, it's time you weren't in it.

Isn't that just the weirdest logic.  That's an emorional knee-jerk
rather than a properly thought through understanding.

 I'm amazed that anyone could not have associated Brexit and the GFA.
It's one of the first problems I saw coming (and a potentially insoluble
one too).

I've just hunted, out of curiosity, on google. There are a few mentions
of the issue pre-referendum; I'm afraid I don't pay much heed to Sinn
Fein though. But even so, I don't accept that as a reason against
brexit; it's just another issue to be solved through discussion.

Maybe when Cameron was trying to wring reason out of a mule-like
Brussels, someone there might just have considered the possible outcome
of their intransigence. But no - and arguably that failure contributed
in large part to the result of the referendum.

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by James Harris
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil
e/136652/agreement.pdf
It mentions the European Convention on Human rights a few times. But
as you know, that is nothing to do with the EU and neither side is
withdrawing from it.
It mentions the European Union hardly at all.
So, which part of the GFA are you linking to Brexit?

When the terms of the GFA were written, both sides of the Irish border
were in the EU, and therefore both subject to the same EU rules.

And nobody thought "what if.....?" Typical.

Post by Ian Jackson
As you know, when we leave the EU the UK will no longer be subject to EU

hopefully.

Post by Ian Jackson
rules - so NI will have different rules from the RoI. NI, being in the
UK, will then be able to restrict the movement of EU citizens (which
includes those of the RoI) coming from the RoI into NI (which breaches
the GFA). [After all, controlling EU citizens coming into the UK was one
of the main reasons why Brexiteers voted to leave the EU.]

But RoI citizens have for a long time had a special status anyway wrt
the UK. Pre-EU is so long ago, I can't remember, but wasn't free entry
part of it; and voting rights?

Post by Ian Jackson
Also, the EU will require the RoI to carry out customs checks on goods
coming in from NI (which again breaches the GFA).

But that's not the UK breaching it. If EU rules mean RoI must so do, is
that our problem to solve, or theirs?

Post by Ian Jackson
Those are only two examples of the problem.
So apart from hoping that as neither NI nor the RoI want these problems
- and that, with a bit of goodwill on both sides, we are bound to be
able to come up with SOMETHING - what solution do YOU propose? And if
you think it has any merit, why haven't you cleared it first with Arlene
Foster, and then emailed it to the two MPs involved?

<ramble>
You /could/ have a referendum in NI to see whether they want to remain
part of a non-EU UK, with EU border controls, or want to unite with RoI
within the EU. That at least puts the decision where it arguably belongs.

Or RoI could leave the EU.

Or we just leave the border open for business as usual and let RoI put
up the customs posts.
</ramble>

Whatever the eventual solution, we'd get there faster without the
foot-stamping we're currently seeing, but with some sensible suggestions
from EU/RoI.

[Yellow]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:34:06 +0000, Mike Scott <usenet.16

Post by Mike Scott

Isn't that just the weirdest logic.  That's an emorional knee-

jerk

Post by Mike Scott

rather than a properly thought through understanding.

 I'm amazed that anyone could not have associated Brexit and the GFA.
It's one of the first problems I saw coming (and a potentially insoluble
one too).

I've just hunted, out of curiosity, on google. There are a few mentions
of the issue pre-referendum; I'm afraid I don't pay much heed to Sinn
Fein though. But even so, I don't accept that as a reason against
brexit; it's just another issue to be solved through discussion.

The Irish border came up for sure, but I don't particularly remember it
being talked about in terms of the Good Friday Agreement.

But for me, it was just on the list of many things that need to be
resolved to unpick 40 odd years of ever closer union.

[Yellow]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:43:25 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by James Harris
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil
e/136652/agreement.pdf
It mentions the European Convention on Human rights a few times. But as
you know, that is nothing to do with the EU and neither side is
withdrawing from it.
It mentions the European Union hardly at all.
So, which part of the GFA are you linking to Brexit?

When the terms of the GFA were written, both sides of the Irish border
were in the EU, and therefore both subject to the same EU rules.
As you know, when we leave the EU the UK will no longer be subject to EU
rules - so NI will have different rules from the RoI. NI, being in the
UK, will then be able to restrict the movement of EU citizens (which
includes those of the RoI) coming from the RoI into NI (which breaches
the GFA).

The GFA guarantees the right of people from across the EU to freely
enter and leave NI? Are you quite sure about that?

Post by Ian Jackson
[After all, controlling EU citizens coming into the UK was one
of the main reasons why Brexiteers voted to leave the EU.]
Also, the EU will require the RoI to carry out customs checks on goods
coming in from NI (which again breaches the GFA).

According to the radio, you are wrong and the GFA only says there must
not be security checks on the border.

Customs checks would be fine.

Post by Ian Jackson
Those are only two examples of the problem.
So apart from hoping that as neither NI nor the RoI want these problems
- and that, with a bit of goodwill on both sides, we are bound to be
able to come up with SOMETHING - what solution do YOU propose? And if
you think it has any merit, why haven't you cleared it first with Arlene
Foster, and then emailed it to the two MPs involved?

When anyone disagrees with your mad assertions you finish your posts
with the same demand - "what solution do YOU propose?" - and then you
either ignore them or come up with more mad assertions.

Just saying.

[Ophelia]

"Yellow" wrote in message news:***@News.Individual.NET...

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:43:25 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by James Harris
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil
e/136652/agreement.pdf
It mentions the European Convention on Human rights a few times. But as
you know, that is nothing to do with the EU and neither side is
withdrawing from it.
It mentions the European Union hardly at all.
So, which part of the GFA are you linking to Brexit?

When the terms of the GFA were written, both sides of the Irish border
were in the EU, and therefore both subject to the same EU rules.
As you know, when we leave the EU the UK will no longer be subject to EU
rules - so NI will have different rules from the RoI. NI, being in the
UK, will then be able to restrict the movement of EU citizens (which
includes those of the RoI) coming from the RoI into NI (which breaches
the GFA).

The GFA guarantees the right of people from across the EU to freely
enter and leave NI? Are you quite sure about that?

Post by Ian Jackson
[After all, controlling EU citizens coming into the UK was one
of the main reasons why Brexiteers voted to leave the EU.]
Also, the EU will require the RoI to carry out customs checks on goods
coming in from NI (which again breaches the GFA).

According to the radio, you are wrong and the GFA only says there must
not be security checks on the border.

Customs checks would be fine.

Post by Ian Jackson
Those are only two examples of the problem.
So apart from hoping that as neither NI nor the RoI want these problems
- and that, with a bit of goodwill on both sides, we are bound to be
able to come up with SOMETHING - what solution do YOU propose? And if
you think it has any merit, why haven't you cleared it first with Arlene
Foster, and then emailed it to the two MPs involved?

When anyone disagrees with your mad assertions you finish your posts
with the same demand - "what solution do YOU propose?" - and then you
either ignore them or come up with more mad assertions.

Just saying.

==

You are not wrong .. I say you are ....

:)

[pamela]

Post by Yellow
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:43:25 +0000, Ian Jackson

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment

Post by Yellow

Post by Ian Jackson

_data/fil e/136652/agreement.pdf
It mentions the European Convention on Human rights a few
times. But as you know, that is nothing to do with the EU and
neither side is withdrawing from it.
It mentions the European Union hardly at all.
So, which part of the GFA are you linking to Brexit?

When the terms of the GFA were written, both sides of the Irish
border were in the EU, and therefore both subject to the same
EU rules.
As you know, when we leave the EU the UK will no longer be
subject to EU rules - so NI will have different rules from the
RoI. NI, being in the UK, will then be able to restrict the
movement of EU citizens (which includes those of the RoI)
coming from the RoI into NI (which breaches the GFA).

The GFA guarantees the right of people from across the EU to
freely enter and leave NI? Are you quite sure about that?

Post by Ian Jackson
[After all, controlling EU citizens coming into the UK was one
of the main reasons why Brexiteers voted to leave the EU.]
Also, the EU will require the RoI to carry out customs checks
on goods coming in from NI (which again breaches the GFA).

According to the radio, you are wrong and the GFA only says
there must not be security checks on the border.
Customs checks would be fine.

Post by Ian Jackson
Those are only two examples of the problem.
So apart from hoping that as neither NI nor the RoI want these
problems - and that, with a bit of goodwill on both sides, we
are bound to be able to come up with SOMETHING - what solution
do YOU propose? And if you think it has any merit, why haven't
you cleared it first with Arlene Foster, and then emailed it to
the two MPs involved?

When anyone disagrees with your mad assertions you finish your
posts with the same demand - "what solution do YOU propose?" -
and then you either ignore them or come up with more mad
assertions.
Just saying.

I propose a second referendum. Out of interest, what solution do
you propose?

[Tim Woodall]

Post by pamela
I propose a second referendum. Out of interest, what solution do
you propose?

Needs more information. A second referendum doesn't solve anything if
it's the same question as before:

I propose a referendum:

Leave the SM, customs union and FoM
Remain in the above (but leave the EU)

And count NI separately (as well as part of the UK). If NI votes leave
then AIUI there can be a border in Ireland as GFA allows border on a
referendum to create it.

If NI votes remain but rest of uk votes leave then have the customs
border at the coast.

If all vote remain then no issue with border at all.

If NI votes leave but whole of UK votes remain then NI has to remain -
their separate count only matters if whole of UK votes leave where the
GFA then requires a NI vote to create a border.

And in no case does this referendum overturn the previous one - we're
always leaving the EU.

[Yellow]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 12:58:49 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall <news001

Post by Tim Woodall

Post by pamela
I propose a second referendum. Out of interest, what solution do
you propose?

Needs more information. A second referendum doesn't solve anything if
Leave the SM, customs union and FoM
Remain in the above (but leave the EU)
And count NI separately (as well as part of the UK). If NI votes leave
then AIUI there can be a border in Ireland as GFA allows border on a
referendum to create it.
If NI votes remain but rest of uk votes leave then have the customs
border at the coast.
If all vote remain then no issue with border at all.
If NI votes leave but whole of UK votes remain then NI has to remain -
their separate count only matters if whole of UK votes leave where the
GFA then requires a NI vote to create a border.
And in no case does this referendum overturn the previous one - we're
always leaving the EU.

That is far too complicated for a referendum.

But in my view, the only reason there is now some public support for a
second referendum is the divorce bill as it is since the 50 billion
Euros figure has been banded about that this opinion has changed.

And that question is not stay in the EU or pay the 50 million, as some
remainers would like to see on a ballot, but pay the 50 million or leave
the EU without a deal. That is how the public mood seems to me, given
there is still support for leave over remain in the opinion polls
according to the BBC yesterday (on the radio).

[pamela]

Post by Yellow
On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 12:58:49 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall <news001

Post by Tim Woodall

Post by pamela
I propose a second referendum. Out of interest, what
solution do you propose?

Needs more information. A second referendum doesn't solve
Leave the SM, customs union and FoM
Remain in the above (but leave the EU)
And count NI separately (as well as part of the UK). If NI
votes leave then AIUI there can be a border in Ireland as GFA
allows border on a referendum to create it.
If NI votes remain but rest of uk votes leave then have the
customs border at the coast.
If all vote remain then no issue with border at all.
If NI votes leave but whole of UK votes remain then NI has to
remain - their separate count only matters if whole of UK votes
leave where the GFA then requires a NI vote to create a border.
And in no case does this referendum overturn the previous one -
we're always leaving the EU.

That is far too complicated for a referendum.
But in my view, the only reason there is now some public support
for a second referendum is the divorce bill as it is since the
50 billion Euros figure has been banded about that this opinion
has changed.
And that question is not stay in the EU or pay the 50 million,
as some remainers would like to see on a ballot, but pay the 50
million or leave the EU without a deal. That is how the public
mood seems to me, given there is still support for leave over
remain in the opinion polls according to the BBC yesterday (on
the radio).

Running away from Britain's agreed obligations by refusing to pay
what is owed would only create problme of trust in trade
negotiations with the ROW.... and if we acted badly towards the EU
then we're going to need trade agreements wit the ROW more than
ever.

[pamela]

Post by Tim Woodall

Post by pamela
I propose a second referendum. Out of interest, what solution
do you propose?

Needs more information. A second referendum doesn't solve

The referendum should not be the same as before (however flawed it
was).

Post by Tim Woodall
Leave the SM, customs union and FoM
Remain in the above (but leave the EU)

Something like that would be a good idea. I think the British
public can probably manage a third choice too if one would be
helpful.

Post by Tim Woodall
And count NI separately (as well as part of the UK). If NI votes
leave then AIUI there can be a border in Ireland as GFA allows
border on a referendum to create it.
If NI votes remain but rest of uk votes leave then have the
customs border at the coast.
If all vote remain then no issue with border at all.
If NI votes leave but whole of UK votes remain then NI has to
remain - their separate count only matters if whole of UK votes
leave where the GFA then requires a NI vote to create a border.

The NI vote should not be seen as separate from the rest of the
UK. If the UK is outside customs/SM then there has to be a
border.... which will cause various political problems and that
needs to be taken into account when voting.

Post by Tim Woodall
And in no case does this referendum overturn the previous one -
we're always leaving the EU.

It sounds like a good proposal and that's essentially what I would
go for.

[MM]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 12:58:49 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall

Post by Tim Woodall

Post by pamela
I propose a second referendum. Out of interest, what solution do
you propose?

Needs more information. A second referendum doesn't solve anything if
Leave the SM, customs union and FoM
Remain in the above (but leave the EU)

Trouble is not many people, whether Brexiters or remainers, will have
much of a concept of what a customs union is or how the internal
market works. They might have a superficial view, but that's the
problem with Brexit: It's too complicated for most people to
understand. No wonder: The EU and its forerunners have been evolving
since 1952.

I knew a heck of a lot about the workings of the EU before the
referendum, but 18 months and reams of reading later, I know now how
little I knew. So there was absolutely no hope of getting an informed
result. I don't things have changed much since the referendum, either.
We see here that most Brexiters, for example, are just as ill-informed
and stubborn as they always were.

MM

[Ian Jackson]

Post by James Harris
I don't

(think?)

Post by James Harris
things have changed much since the referendum, either.
We see here that most Brexiters, for example, are just as ill-informed
and stubborn as they always were.

This is exactly what James o'Brian keeps saying. Regardless of
overwhelming evidence of the problems, most Brexiteers have not changed
their convictions one jot. His colleague, Iain Dale, is one of them. He
simply cannot see the problems in Ireland ("What's the problem is
neither side wants a border?" he keeps saying) - and heaven help any
caller who suggests a re-think re-referendum.

To be honest, I'm beginning to believe myself that even if there was a
re-run, despite the obvious logic of voting not to leave the EU (at
least at the moment), the outcome would still be to leave.

[James Harris]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by James Harris
I don't

(think?)

Post by James Harris
things have changed much since the referendum, either.
We see here that most Brexiters, for example, are just as ill-informed
and stubborn as they always were.

This is exactly what James o'Brian keeps saying. Regardless of
overwhelming evidence of the problems, most Brexiteers have not changed
their convictions one jot. His colleague, Iain Dale, is one of them. He
simply cannot see the problems in Ireland ("What's the problem is
neither side wants a border?" he keeps saying) - and heaven help any
caller who suggests a re-think re-referendum.
To be honest, I'm beginning to believe myself that even if there was a
re-run, despite the obvious logic of voting not to leave the EU (at
least at the moment), the outcome would still be to leave.

Without getting into the debate itself, I have to say those are
interesting posts by you and MM.

[pamela]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by James Harris
I don't

(think?)

Post by James Harris
things have changed much since the referendum, either. We see
here that most Brexiters, for example, are just as ill-informed
and stubborn as they always were.

This is exactly what James o'Brian keeps saying. Regardless of
overwhelming evidence of the problems, most Brexiteers have not
changed their convictions one jot. His colleague, Iain Dale, is
one of them. He simply cannot see the problems in Ireland
("What's the problem is neither side wants a border?" he keeps
saying) - and heaven help any caller who suggests a re-think
re-referendum.
To be honest, I'm beginning to believe myself that even if there
was a re-run, despite the obvious logic of voting not to leave
the EU (at least at the moment), the outcome would still be to
leave.

Brexiteers are similar to Donald trump's voter base.... both are
impervious to facts and both are going to be worse off if the get
their way.

Let's have the Brexit indicated by the referendum but let's save
these poor Brexiteers (and also everyone else in the country) from
self-ruin. Take control of the exit process.

[James Harris]

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by James Harris
I don't

(think?)

Post by James Harris
things have changed much since the referendum, either. We see
here that most Brexiters, for example, are just as ill-informed
and stubborn as they always were.

This is exactly what James o'Brian keeps saying. Regardless of
overwhelming evidence of the problems, most Brexiteers have not
changed their convictions one jot. His colleague, Iain Dale, is
one of them. He simply cannot see the problems in Ireland
("What's the problem is neither side wants a border?" he keeps
saying) - and heaven help any caller who suggests a re-think
re-referendum.
To be honest, I'm beginning to believe myself that even if there
was a re-run, despite the obvious logic of voting not to leave
the EU (at least at the moment), the outcome would still be to
leave.

Brexiteers are similar to Donald trump's voter base.... both are
impervious to facts and both are going to be worse off if the get
their way.
Let's have the Brexit indicated by the referendum but let's save
these poor Brexiteers (and also everyone else in the country) from
self-ruin. Take control of the exit process.

It never ceases to amaze me how many Remainers think that assertion is
sufficient to make an argument.

[Vidcapper]

Post by James Harris

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by James Harris
I don't

(think?)

Post by James Harris
things have changed much since the referendum, either. We see
here that most Brexiters, for example, are just as ill-informed
and stubborn as they always were.

This is exactly what James o'Brian keeps saying. Regardless of
overwhelming evidence of the problems, most Brexiteers have not
changed their convictions one jot. His colleague, Iain Dale, is
one of them. He simply cannot see the problems in Ireland
("What's the problem is neither side wants a border?" he keeps
saying) - and heaven help any caller who suggests a re-think
re-referendum.
To be honest, I'm beginning to believe myself that even if there
was a re-run, despite the obvious logic of voting not to leave
the EU (at least at the moment), the outcome would still be to
leave.

Brexiteers are similar to Donald trump's voter base.... both are
impervious to facts and both are going to be worse off if the get
their way.
Let's have the Brexit indicated by the referendum but let's save
these poor Brexiteers (and also everyone else in the country) from
self-ruin. Take control of the exit process.

It never ceases to amaze me how many Remainers think that assertion is
sufficient to make an argument.

Sour grapes are all they have.

[Mike Scott]

On 07/12/17 07:58, Vidcapper wrote:
...

Post by Vidcapper
Sour grapes are all they have.

Enough to make a good whine though.


Seriously, I think a lot of people need to realise which way the result
went, and just get on, live with it, and make the majority decision work
as well as possible, instead of fighting it and causing difficulties.
It's in their own interests, although many don't seem to realise this.

[James Harris]

Post by Mike Scott
...

Post by Vidcapper
Sour grapes are all they have.

Enough to make a good whine though.

:-)

Post by Mike Scott
Seriously, I think a lot of people need to realise which way the result
went, and just get on, live with it, and make the majority decision work
as well as possible, instead of fighting it and causing difficulties.
It's in their own interests, although many don't seem to realise this.

The situation is akin to a family which spends months discussing an
important choice and then makes its decision; but then some in the
family refuse to accept it and keep moaning that they didn't get their
way. For them, the term Remoaner is a good one.

I think you are right. The Remoaners should shut up and get on with
trying to make the family's decision work. In ten years time, say, if
the decision has turned out not to be a good one then the family can
make another decision. But the continual self-indulgent moaning going on
now doesn't help anyone.

[Tim Woodall]

Post by James Harris
The situation is akin to a family which spends months discussing an
important choice and then makes its decision; but then some in the
family refuse to accept it and keep moaning that they didn't get their
way. For them, the term Remoaner is a good one.
I think you are right. The Remoaners should shut up and get on with
trying to make the family's decision work. In ten years time, say, if
the decision has turned out not to be a good one then the family can
make another decision. But the continual self-indulgent moaning going on
now doesn't help anyone.

No the situation is akin to a family deciding whether to go out for
dinner or whether to stay in and eat at home.

They've now decided to go out. The question now is where should they go.
The people who voted to go out seem to think that because the others
voted to stay in they should now have absolutely no say on where they go
to eat but just have to like any lump anything that the "go out" voters
decide.

[James Harris]

Post by Tim Woodall

Post by James Harris
The situation is akin to a family which spends months discussing an
important choice and then makes its decision; but then some in the
family refuse to accept it and keep moaning that they didn't get their
way. For them, the term Remoaner is a good one.
I think you are right. The Remoaners should shut up and get on with
trying to make the family's decision work. In ten years time, say, if
the decision has turned out not to be a good one then the family can
make another decision. But the continual self-indulgent moaning going on
now doesn't help anyone.

No the situation is akin to a family deciding whether to go out for
dinner or whether to stay in and eat at home.
They've now decided to go out. The question now is where should they go.
The people who voted to go out seem to think that because the others
voted to stay in they should now have absolutely no say on where they go
to eat but just have to like any lump anything that the "go out" voters
decide.

I see your point of view and have some sympathy with it. But what I
don't understand is why in your scenario those who wanted to stay didn't
insist on knowing the destination restaurant before they took part in
the vote.

[MM]

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 08:21:11 +0000, Mike Scott

Post by Mike Scott
...

Post by Vidcapper
Sour grapes are all they have.

Enough to make a good whine though.
Seriously, I think a lot of people need to realise which way the result
went, and just get on, live with it, and make the majority decision work
as well as possible, instead of fighting it and causing difficulties.
It's in their own interests, although many don't seem to realise this.

So do you have a solution for the border question between the Republic
of Ireland and Northern Ireland?

MM

[pamela]

Post by Mike Scott
...

Post by Vidcapper
Sour grapes are all they have.

Enough to make a good whine though.
Seriously, I think a lot of people need to realise which way the
result went, and just get on, live with it, and make the
majority decision work as well as possible, instead of fighting
it and causing difficulties. It's in their own interests,
although many don't seem to realise this.

Remainers know that no sensible outcome can be expected of Brexit,
so why should they spend their time to support increasingly
extreme and unattainable Leaver objectives?

You voted for this mess. You clear it up.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by James Harris

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by James Harris
I don't

(think?)

Post by James Harris
things have changed much since the referendum, either. We see
here that most Brexiters, for example, are just as ill-informed
and stubborn as they always were.

This is exactly what James o'Brian keeps saying. Regardless of
overwhelming evidence of the problems, most Brexiteers have not
changed their convictions one jot. His colleague, Iain Dale, is
one of them. He simply cannot see the problems in Ireland
("What's the problem is neither side wants a border?" he keeps
saying) - and heaven help any caller who suggests a re-think
re-referendum.
To be honest, I'm beginning to believe myself that even if there
was a re-run, despite the obvious logic of voting not to leave
the EU (at least at the moment), the outcome would still be to
leave.

Brexiteers are similar to Donald trump's voter base.... both are
impervious to facts and both are going to be worse off if the get
their way.
Let's have the Brexit indicated by the referendum but let's save
these poor Brexiteers (and also everyone else in the country) from
self-ruin. Take control of the exit process.

It never ceases to amaze me how many Remainers think that assertion is
sufficient to make an argument.

Oh like

"Maybe nobody gives a fuck about it anymore? We're tired of hearing all this shit. We voted to leave, we're leaving, end of story.
"

Post by James Harris
--
James Harris

[Vidcapper]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by James Harris
I don't

(think?)

Post by James Harris
things have changed much since the referendum, either.
We see here that most Brexiters, for example, are just as ill-informed
and stubborn as they always were.

This is exactly what James o'Brian keeps saying. Regardless of
overwhelming evidence of the problems, most Brexiteers have not changed
their convictions one jot. His colleague, Iain Dale, is one of them. He
simply cannot see the problems in Ireland ("What's the problem is
neither side wants a border?" he keeps saying) - and heaven help any
caller who suggests a re-think re-referendum.
To be honest, I'm beginning to believe myself that even if there was a
re-run, despite the obvious logic of voting not to leave the EU (at
least at the moment), the outcome would still be to leave.

But to most eavers, it is the *outcome* that matters, rather than the
process of leaving.

[MM]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 19:31:36 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by James Harris
I don't

(think?)

Post by James Harris
things have changed much since the referendum, either.
We see here that most Brexiters, for example, are just as ill-informed
and stubborn as they always were.

This is exactly what James o'Brian keeps saying. Regardless of
overwhelming evidence of the problems, most Brexiteers have not changed
their convictions one jot. His colleague, Iain Dale, is one of them. He
simply cannot see the problems in Ireland ("What's the problem is
neither side wants a border?" he keeps saying) - and heaven help any
caller who suggests a re-think re-referendum.
To be honest, I'm beginning to believe myself that even if there was a
re-run, despite the obvious logic of voting not to leave the EU (at
least at the moment), the outcome would still be to leave.

Not if the referendum were conducted properyl, with a minimum turnout
having to be reached and a clear majority, say, 85% of those voting.

I see it this way: Most voters who wanted badly enough to leave the EU
voted. And then there were many who just wanted to give the government
a good kicking, so they voted, too. For the latter group the question
could have been just about anything and they would have voted. Giving
the government a kicking is what mattered to them. The EU was just an
excuse. I heard a number voters saying it's the first time they ever
voted or the first time in years.

Conversely, those of the "remainer" ilk just believed that there was
no chance at all for a far-right nationalistic vote to come in with a
majority against all received wisdom of what passes for common sense,
and therefore didn't bother to vote with the same degree of dedication
that the Brexiters had.

Given that the next referendum, if held, should really address the
validity of the majority as I said above, there won't be many
Brexiters who didn't already vote. So they'll vote again the same way.
But there will be very many "remainers" who didn't vote the first time
for reasons I've outlined, but next time definitely would.

Even if the required majority for leave was reduced from my preferred
85% to 70%, I doubt Leave would win now.


MM

[Tim Woodall]

Post by MM
Even if the required majority for leave was reduced from my preferred
85% to 70%, I doubt Leave would win now.

I'm sorry but if there was going to have been a threshold then it had to
have been in the first referendum.

A new referendum with a 2/3 majority to overturn the previous one, fine
but not a new one where you move the goal posts so that you win.

I don't even support a rerun of the referendum on a 2/3 majority to
overturn the last one - not because I don't want the vote overturned but
because the referendum question itself was flawed in that the brexit
that the loudest brexiteers wanted can't be delivered without an Irish
border and my understanding is that an Irish border cannot be introduced
without a NI referendum to allow it and there's no way that the NI vote
in the referendum can be interpreted as implicit consent as they didn't
vote to leave.

Hence why we need a new referendum, not to decide whether we're leaving
or not but instead to decide whether we get a NI border (and leave the
SM) or no border (and stay in the SM) or a border between the mainland
and NI where the mainland leaves the SM and NI stays in.

(Where SM includes any possible treaty deal that can be negotiated that
allows there to be no NI border, doesn't have to be full SM membership)

[pamela]

Post by Tim Woodall

Post by MM
Even if the required majority for leave was reduced from my
preferred 85% to 70%, I doubt Leave would win now.

I'm sorry but if there was going to have been a threshold then
it had to have been in the first referendum.

Two wrongs don't make a right. The first referendum's 50%
threshold was a serious oversight by Cameron.

Post by Tim Woodall
A new referendum with a 2/3 majority to overturn the previous
one, fine but not a new one where you move the goal posts so
that you win.
I don't even support a rerun of the referendum on a 2/3 majority
to overturn the last one - not because I don't want the vote
overturned but because the referendum question itself was flawed
in that the brexit that the loudest brexiteers wanted can't be
delivered without an Irish border and my understanding is that
an Irish border cannot be introduced without a NI referendum to
allow it and there's no way that the NI vote in the referendum
can be interpreted as implicit consent as they didn't vote to
leave.
Hence why we need a new referendum, not to decide whether we're
leaving or not but instead to decide whether we get a NI border
(and leave the SM) or no border (and stay in the SM) or a border
between the mainland and NI where the mainland leaves the SM and
NI stays in.
(Where SM includes any possible treaty deal that can be
negotiated that allows there to be no NI border, doesn't have to
be full SM membership)

Why should the British public be made to suffer just because they
made a mistake the first time (on account of accepting false
information) and now want to correct it?

[Tim Woodall]

Post by pamela
Why should the British public be made to suffer just because they
made a mistake the first time (on account of accepting false
information) and now want to correct it?

Because, even if the British public now admits they made a mistake, a
mistake was also made on the referendum question as "brexit means
brexit" is a tautology, not a description of what is being voted for.

Rerunning the same question again and hoping that the problems with a
brexit vote go away because you get a different answer is not being
honest, it's rerunning a vote till you get the answer you need. DC was
stupid to allow such a question to be put to the electorate but we all
know he had the vote at all because of divisions in the tory party, not
because he wanted a vote so, as PMs before, he jumped without an exit
plan first.

So run a vote on whether we get a border in NI, a border at the coast or
no border at all. Then TM can settle the initial questions and get on to
the trade negotiations knowing what sort of border the people will
accept. (Of course, there's no way the DUP will accept a referendum
result that says to put a border on the coast but that's a different
issue and I'd hope with a properly posed question, MPs from other
parties would allow TM to get past the NI border problem)

Then, once the final deal is sorted, put it to the people to chose
between the deal or the status quo if you insist.

I don't want brexit, and I don't want a hard brexit if we've got to have
brexit, but the politicians have succeeded in dividing this country
right down the middle.

The only way to get things back into any sort of order is to reflect on
what people have said and voted for and, in the absence of overwhelming
evidence of a change of heart or such a change of condition (such as,
for example, the outbreak of WWIII) proceed with what the people voted
for.


But I don't think anything like this will happen. TM doesn't look likely
to get a chance to move on to trade talks this time. The indications
seem to be that business is reaching the point where it cannot wait and
is going to have to commit to plans (and is going to have to assume a
hard brexit) so I cannot see this government lasting more than another
six months when we will then have yet another general election. Another
couple of months gone. Hey, presto, there's no time left at all.


Assuming the above pans out, will parliament allow a cliff edge brexit
or will it force a remain over the will of the people?

[pamela]

Post by Tim Woodall

Post by pamela
Why should the British public be made to suffer just because
they made a mistake the first time (on account of accepting
false information) and now want to correct it?

Because, even if the British public now admits they made a
mistake, a mistake was also made on the referendum question as
"brexit means brexit" is a tautology, not a description of what
is being voted for.
Rerunning the same question again and hoping that the problems
with a brexit vote go away because you get a different answer is
not being honest, it's rerunning a vote till you get the answer
you need. DC was stupid to allow such a question to be put to
the electorate but we all know he had the vote at all because of
divisions in the tory party, not because he wanted a vote so, as
PMs before, he jumped without an exit plan first.
So run a vote on whether we get a border in NI, a border at the
coast or no border at all. Then TM can settle the initial
questions and get on to the trade negotiations knowing what sort
of border the people will accept. (Of course, there's no way the
DUP will accept a referendum result that says to put a border on
the coast but that's a different issue and I'd hope with a
properly posed question, MPs from other parties would allow TM
to get past the NI border problem)
Then, once the final deal is sorted, put it to the people to
chose between the deal or the status quo if you insist.
I don't want brexit, and I don't want a hard brexit if we've got
to have brexit, but the politicians have succeeded in dividing
this country right down the middle.
The only way to get things back into any sort of order is to
reflect on what people have said and voted for and, in the
absence of overwhelming evidence of a change of heart or such a
change of condition (such as, for example, the outbreak of
WWIII) proceed with what the people voted for.
But I don't think anything like this will happen. TM doesn't
look likely to get a chance to move on to trade talks this time.
The indications seem to be that business is reaching the point
where it cannot wait and is going to have to commit to plans
(and is going to have to assume a hard brexit) so I cannot see
this government lasting more than another six months when we
will then have yet another general election. Another couple of
months gone. Hey, presto, there's no time left at all.
Assuming the above pans out, will parliament allow a cliff edge
brexit or will it force a remain over the will of the people?

I can't believe it is in the interests of democracy not to permit
the British public to change their mind.

It's not a question of "hoping for a change" but that there is a
clear indication that there had been a change. One quirk, not
shared by most referendums or consultations, is that the
implementation is many years after the vote and can be confirmed.

Of course we have the additional features that many voters now
feel they were misled about what they were voting for and also
that the majority is slim.

Northern Ireland is a tricky complication and if a solution is
found then the public would know what they are voting for in
another referendum. It would be nice, too, if the amount of the
divorce bill has been determined and also a clear indication of
how much the economy will be affected before that confirmation
vote is taken.

[Tim Woodall]

Post by pamela
I can't believe it is in the interests of democracy not to permit
the British public to change their mind.

Of course it's not. But it's not at all obvious that there has been a
sea change in opinion.

It's possible that the "couldn't be bothered to vote" now would and that
would significantly change the result and they're the ones who also
refuse to talk to polsters.

But at best the result would be 55/45 (and I don't know which way it
would go). Rerunning a close vote and getting another close vote the
other way because Aunt Edga died and baby Suzie is now old enough to
vote isn't "permitting the British public to change their mind" it's
rerunning the vote until you get the result you want.

Even a final referendum - the brexiteers will want the vote to be
between "accept the deal or leave with no deal" and the remainers will
want the vote to be between "accept the deal or stay in the EU".

(If there is no deal then it's simpler, no deal or stay in the eu but I
don't think that will happen as, despite TMs words, any deal will be
better than no deal)

So we have a three way vote.

11million vote for leave with no deal, 9 million vote for accept the
deal, 10 million vote to remain in the EU and 10 million don't vote.

But the deal was "stay in the SM but leave the EU" and there was a
strong swing away from a hard brexit - but you've just got yourself a
hard brexit.

Do you now want yet another vote? Or are you going to "rig" it so that
stay in the SM wins?


I think brexit is going to be bad for the country. But it doesn't have
to be catastrophic. But reversing it isn't the solution - those 17
million people, even if 16.5 million didn't want brexit at all but just
wanted to give the government a kick in the teeth, aren't going to be
happy. And reversing brexit isn't going to make them say "thank
goodness, I didn't want it anyway", they're going to say "The elites
ignored us again"

We need to be fighting to save this country, not start a civil war,
either through ignoring the masses or casting them into such economic
destitution that they've got no other hope.

[James Harris]

Post by Tim Woodall

Post by MM
Even if the required majority for leave was reduced from my preferred
85% to 70%, I doubt Leave would win now.

I'm sorry but if there was going to have been a threshold then it had to
have been in the first referendum.
A new referendum with a 2/3 majority to overturn the previous one, fine
but not a new one where you move the goal posts so that you win.
I don't even support a rerun of the referendum on a 2/3 majority to
overturn the last one - not because I don't want the vote overturned but
because the referendum question itself was flawed in that the brexit
that the loudest brexiteers wanted can't be delivered without an Irish
border and my understanding is that an Irish border cannot be introduced
without a NI referendum to allow it and there's no way that the NI vote
in the referendum can be interpreted as implicit consent as they didn't
vote to leave.

There is a border across Ireland already but it's managed discreetly. I
don't see any reason why that should change.

In fact, I am beginning to suspect that Leo Veradkar's problem is not
the border at all but the prospect of the UK becoming more competitive.
In other words, he's not concerned about terrorism but Britain's
forthcoming ability to reduce taxes. If that's right, his problem will
not be the border but the UK's greater freedom. So he wants to ensure
the North is locked to his trading conditions.

Post by Tim Woodall
Hence why we need a new referendum, not to decide whether we're leaving
or not but instead to decide whether we get a NI border (and leave the
SM) or no border (and stay in the SM) or a border between the mainland
and NI where the mainland leaves the SM and NI stays in.

I don't think anyone would understand the options....

Post by Tim Woodall
(Where SM includes any possible treaty deal that can be negotiated that
allows there to be no NI border, doesn't have to be full SM membership)

[Vidcapper]

Post by MM
I knew a heck of a lot about the workings of the EU before the
referendum, but 18 months and reams of reading later, I know now how
little I knew. So there was absolutely no hope of getting an informed
result. I don't things have changed much since the referendum, either.
We see here that most Brexiters, for example, are just as ill-informed
and stubborn as they always were.

So they should be 're-educated' to see how wonderful the EU really is? 8)

[James Harris]

Post by Mike Scott
.....

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow

Post by Ian Jackson
But, of course, the
Brexiteers knew this when the voted in the referendum.

It being "too hard to leave" is not an acceptable excuse for not doing
so and further makes me as sure as ever we are doing the right thing,
leaving while we still can, just.

I felt the same. Before the referendum the point was already being made
that leaving would be next to impossible because of the EU's size and
how integrated it was with the UK. That sounded a warning klaxon.

Indeed. I confess I'd not associated Brexit and GFA in any manner - but
it would have made no difference. As you say, if something's too hard to
get out of, it's time you weren't in it.
Where my thinking did go badly awry was in assuming that Brussels would
enter exit negotiations in good faith.

Me too. For example, I expected that the UK and the EU would hold
preliminary discussions and then, when both sides were ready, the UK
would trigger Article 50 to begin the formal process. But that was
completely wrong. In the event, the EU evidently thought that
preliminary discussions would sully themselves in some way. They
wouldn't even discuss people's rights or the structure of future talks.
Incredible!

Post by Mike Scott
From here, I see nothing
resembling that, just a series of demands from the other side. Adults
would work together to solve the problems arising; maybe that says
something about those running the EU.

One good thing from that is that those who voted Remain thinking that EU
membership was in some way about that nice Europe will have had their
eyes opened a little.

Post by Mike Scott
I do wonder - suppose the UK said, OK, open border it is and our own
regulations within the UK. The /EU/ could not allow this, could they?
And presumably RoI would then start installing customs posts to ensure
imposition of their own controls. Hmmm.

I don't see a need for any immigration controls more than there are now.
And duties on goods can be collected without controls at the border
itself. So I am not sure why anyone would want customs posts.

[Lancer]

Post by James Harris

Post by Mike Scott
.....

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow

Post by Ian Jackson
But, of course, the
Brexiteers knew this when the voted in the referendum.

It being "too hard to leave" is not an acceptable excuse for not doing
so and further makes me as sure as ever we are doing the right thing,
leaving while we still can, just.

I felt the same. Before the referendum the point was already being made
that leaving would be next to impossible because of the EU's size and
how integrated it was with the UK. That sounded a warning klaxon.

Indeed. I confess I'd not associated Brexit and GFA in any manner - but
it would have made no difference. As you say, if something's too hard to
get out of, it's time you weren't in it.
Where my thinking did go badly awry was in assuming that Brussels would
enter exit negotiations in good faith.

Me too. For example, I expected that the UK and the EU would hold
preliminary discussions and then, when both sides were ready, the UK
would trigger Article 50 to begin the formal process. But that was
completely wrong. In the event, the EU evidently thought that
preliminary discussions would sully themselves in some way. They
wouldn't even discuss people's rights or the structure of future talks.
Incredible!

Why would the EU start discussions before Article 50 was triggered? Up
till then the UK was not officially going to leave. Perhaps Cameron
should have triggered it a couple of weeks after the referendum, instead
of May doing it 9 months later.

Or is there more to triggering it than you, I or any one else not
running the country know about?

Post by James Harris

Post by Mike Scott
From here, I see nothing
resembling that, just a series of demands from the other side. Adults
would work together to solve the problems arising; maybe that says
something about those running the EU.

One good thing from that is that those who voted Remain thinking that EU
membership was in some way about that nice Europe will have had their
eyes opened a little.

No, we're divorcing them. We kept being told by Brexiteers that they
need us far more than we need them, but for some reason it seems May is
the one preparing to sell the family silver.

Post by James Harris

Post by Mike Scott
I do wonder - suppose the UK said, OK, open border it is and our own
regulations within the UK. The /EU/ could not allow this, could they?
And presumably RoI would then start installing customs posts to ensure
imposition of their own controls. Hmmm.

I don't see a need for any immigration controls more than there are now.
And duties on goods can be collected without controls at the border
itself. So I am not sure why anyone would want customs posts.

Now? Again we were being told by Brexiteers of floodgates opened, no
border control and mass immigration. How have laws changed in recent
months to stop ~300,000 net migration a year?


If there is no border checks at N. Ireland we'll get 300,000 illegal
immigrants. ;)

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Lancer
Why would the EU start discussions before Article 50 was triggered? Up
till then the UK was not officially going to leave. Perhaps Cameron
should have triggered it a couple of weeks after the referendum, instead
of May doing it 9 months later

As he promised you mean ?

[Lancer]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Lancer
Why would the EU start discussions before Article 50 was triggered? Up
till then the UK was not officially going to leave. Perhaps Cameron
should have triggered it a couple of weeks after the referendum, instead
of May doing it 9 months later

As he promised you mean ?

Along with net immigration capped at tens of thousands. :)

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Mike Scott
Where my thinking did go badly awry was in assuming that Brussels would
enter exit negotiations in good faith.

Can you demonstrate any bad faith ?

Negotiations started after the General Election, and the first order of
business was ... well the order of business. The EUs preferred approach
was a 2-phase one, with divorce bill, citizens rights and the NI border
being decided *before* starting with phase 2, trade talks.

The UK agreed this approach. The EU is working to it.

Bad faith, or sour grapes ?

As an EU and UK citizen, I'm pleased someone is fighting for my rights.
Because HMG as sure as hell ain't.

[Ophelia]

"Mike Scott" wrote in message news:p05nq1$in2$***@dont-email.me...

On 05/12/17 04:25, James Harris wrote:
.....

Post by James Harris

Post by Yellow

Post by Ian Jackson
But, of course, the
Brexiteers knew this when the voted in the referendum.

It being "too hard to leave" is not an acceptable excuse for not doing
so and further makes me as sure as ever we are doing the right thing,
leaving while we still can, just.

I felt the same. Before the referendum the point was already being made
that leaving would be next to impossible because of the EU's size and how
integrated it was with the UK. That sounded a warning klaxon.

Indeed. I confess I'd not associated Brexit and GFA in any manner - but
it would have made no difference. As you say, if something's too hard to
get out of, it's time you weren't in it.

Where my thinking did go badly awry was in assuming that Brussels would
enter exit negotiations in good faith. From here, I see nothing
resembling that, just a series of demands from the other side. Adults
would work together to solve the problems arising; maybe that says
something about those running the EU.

I do wonder - suppose the UK said, OK, open border it is and our own
regulations within the UK. The /EU/ could not allow this, could they?
And presumably RoI would then start installing customs posts to ensure
imposition of their own controls. Hmmm.

Mike Scott

===

The EU is IN CHARGE don'tcha know? That fact that they will be the losers
if we walk out matters not a jot so long as they can be seen as being The
Boss!

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Yellow
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 22:25:05 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Yellow
I am bemused that the UK government could have thought this was ever
going to be a go-er.
Perhaps they got caught up in the moment or they have some other play in
mind but yes, bemused is the only word I can come up with.

For once I agree with you. The situation was absolutely 110%
predictable. I can't believe how naive and inept the PM is. As I have be
saying for ages, as things are at the moment there are only two
available solutions - and one or the other of the two will be not be
simultaneously acceptable to both 'sides'.

I have no doubt this is solvable.

I wish I had your confidence. For months, several of the government
Brexiteers have, when reminded of The Irish Problem, have been saying
exactly what you said. "I'm sure we'll find a way." "I expect we will be
able to find am electronic solution." "Don't you worry your tiny heads
about it." Or Iain Dale's favourite, "Both sides want an open border, so
what's the problem?"

Post by Yellow

Post by Ian Jackson
But, of course, the
Brexiteers knew this when the voted in the referendum.

It being "too hard to leave" is not an acceptable excuse for not doing
so and further makes me as sure as ever we are doing the right thing,
leaving while we still can, just.

What many Brexiteers refuse to accept is that "Difficult things take a
little time; the impossible takes a little longer." In Ireland, some
die-hards are still fighting The Battle of the Boyne. As that was in
1690, I expect the Brexit affair could be with us for a while.

[James Harris]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Yellow
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 22:25:05 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Yellow
I am bemused that the UK government could have thought this was ever
going to be a go-er.
Perhaps they got caught up in the moment or they have some other play in
mind but yes, bemused is the only word I can come up with.

For once I agree with you. The situation was absolutely 110%
predictable. I can't believe how naive and inept the PM is. As I have be
saying for ages, as things are at the moment there are only two
available solutions - and one or the other of the two will be not be
simultaneously acceptable to both 'sides'.

I have no doubt this is solvable.

I wish I had your confidence. For months, several of the government
Brexiteers have, when reminded of The Irish Problem, have been saying
exactly what you said. "I'm sure we'll find a way." "I expect we will be
able to find am electronic solution." "Don't you worry your tiny heads
about it." Or Iain Dale's favourite, "Both sides want an open border, so
what's the problem?"

What's wrong with getting Irish businesses to account for duties as they
account for other taxes, and having the authorities performing
occasional inspections to check compliance?

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Yellow

Post by Ian Jackson
But, of course, the
Brexiteers knew this when the voted in the referendum.

It being "too hard to leave" is not an acceptable excuse for not doing
so and further makes me as sure as ever we are doing the right thing,
leaving while we still can, just.

What many Brexiteers refuse to accept is that "Difficult things take a
little time; the impossible takes a little longer." In Ireland, some
die-hards are still fighting The Battle of the Boyne. As that was in
1690, I expect the Brexit affair could be with us for a while.

Both sides in Ireland do seem remarkably entrenched. It makes others
seem almost reasonable.

[pamela]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Yellow
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 22:25:05 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Yellow
I am bemused that the UK government could have thought this
was ever going to be a go-er.
Perhaps they got caught up in the moment or they have some
other play in mind but yes, bemused is the only word I can
come up with.

For once I agree with you. The situation was absolutely 110%
predictable. I can't believe how naive and inept the PM is. As
I have be saying for ages, as things are at the moment there
are only two available solutions - and one or the other of the
two will be not be simultaneously acceptable to both 'sides'.

I have no doubt this is solvable.

I wish I had your confidence. For months, several of the
government Brexiteers have, when reminded of The Irish Problem,
have been saying exactly what you said. "I'm sure we'll find a
way." "I expect we will be able to find am electronic solution."
"Don't you worry your tiny heads about it." Or Iain Dale's
favourite, "Both sides want an open border, so what's the
problem?"

It's been like listening to teenagers tell parents they know
better than anyone else how how to run the house. Poor dears.
Luckily there are some adults in the room.

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Yellow

Post by Ian Jackson
But, of course, the Brexiteers knew this when the voted in the
referendum.

It being "too hard to leave" is not an acceptable excuse for not
doing so and further makes me as sure as ever we are doing the
right thing, leaving while we still can, just.

What many Brexiteers refuse to accept is that "Difficult things
take a little time; the impossible takes a little longer." In
Ireland, some die-hards are still fighting The Battle of the
Boyne. As that was in 1690, I expect the Brexit affair could be
with us for a while.

It's not just the Irish border that's going to be a problem. New
trade talks are vastly more complicated and lengthy than the
Brexit teenagers ever imagined.

[Yellow]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 09:08:56 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Yellow
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 22:25:05 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Yellow
I am bemused that the UK government could have thought this was ever
going to be a go-er.
Perhaps they got caught up in the moment or they have some other play in
mind but yes, bemused is the only word I can come up with.

For once I agree with you. The situation was absolutely 110%
predictable. I can't believe how naive and inept the PM is. As I have be
saying for ages, as things are at the moment there are only two
available solutions - and one or the other of the two will be not be
simultaneously acceptable to both 'sides'.

I have no doubt this is solvable.

I wish I had your confidence. For months, several of the government
Brexiteers have, when reminded of The Irish Problem, have been saying
exactly what you said. "I'm sure we'll find a way." "I expect we will be
able to find am electronic solution." "Don't you worry your tiny heads
about it." Or Iain Dale's favourite, "Both sides want an open border, so
what's the problem?"

Both side want an open border, so what is the problem? Remind me.

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Yellow

Post by Ian Jackson
But, of course, the
Brexiteers knew this when the voted in the referendum.

It being "too hard to leave" is not an acceptable excuse for not doing
so and further makes me as sure as ever we are doing the right thing,
leaving while we still can, just.

What many Brexiteers refuse to accept is that "Difficult things take a
little time; the impossible takes a little longer." In Ireland, some
die-hards are still fighting The Battle of the Boyne. As that was in
1690, I expect the Brexit affair could be with us for a while.

If people in Eire decide to start blowing people up again that will be
tragic beyond words, but arguing that the threat of terrorism should
keep us in the EU is a non-starter with me.

[pamela]

Post by Yellow
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 09:08:56 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Yellow
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 22:25:05 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Yellow
I am bemused that the UK government could have thought this
was ever going to be a go-er.
Perhaps they got caught up in the moment or they have some
other play in mind but yes, bemused is the only word I can
come up with.

For once I agree with you. The situation was absolutely 110%
predictable. I can't believe how naive and inept the PM is.
As I have be saying for ages, as things are at the moment
there are only two available solutions - and one or the
other of the two will be not be simultaneously acceptable to
both 'sides'.

I have no doubt this is solvable.

I wish I had your confidence. For months, several of the
government Brexiteers have, when reminded of The Irish Problem,
have been saying exactly what you said. "I'm sure we'll find a
way." "I expect we will be able to find am electronic
solution." "Don't you worry your tiny heads about it." Or Iain
Dale's favourite, "Both sides want an open border, so what's
the problem?"

Both side want an open border, so what is the problem? Remind
me.

Brexit.

[MM]

Post by Yellow
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 09:08:56 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Yellow
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 22:25:05 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Yellow
I am bemused that the UK government could have thought this was ever
going to be a go-er.
Perhaps they got caught up in the moment or they have some other play in
mind but yes, bemused is the only word I can come up with.

For once I agree with you. The situation was absolutely 110%
predictable. I can't believe how naive and inept the PM is. As I have be
saying for ages, as things are at the moment there are only two
available solutions - and one or the other of the two will be not be
simultaneously acceptable to both 'sides'.

I have no doubt this is solvable.

I wish I had your confidence. For months, several of the government
Brexiteers have, when reminded of The Irish Problem, have been saying
exactly what you said. "I'm sure we'll find a way." "I expect we will be
able to find am electronic solution." "Don't you worry your tiny heads
about it." Or Iain Dale's favourite, "Both sides want an open border, so
what's the problem?"

Both side want an open border, so what is the problem? Remind me.

Ask yourself, why did East Germany suddenly erect a wall overnight?

It was to stop East Germans from escaping to the west, which they were
doing in ever increasing numbers, bleeding the country dry.

If you don't have a border, then anyone can cross it. Terrorists back
from Iraq, black marketeers getting round import/export tariffs,
ordinary shoppers buying provisions of all kinds without paying the
taxes due to the UK and/or Irish treasury, import/export of dodgy
goods that are not permitted in one or the other state, and so on.

There are over 200 crossing points between the Republic and the North.
Without a hard border -- or Britain staying in the customs union,
take your pick -- there will remain a weeping sore all along that
border and the EU simply will not accept it.

Chris Grayling, on all the news media this morning, can wibble on
forever about e-checks, surveillance cameras and suchlike, but they
won't stop anything or anybody, apart perhaps from Auntie Maureen who
thought it a good idea to save 5p on a pack of butter by buying it in
the South.

MM

[Jethro_uk]

Post by MM
There are over 200 crossing points between the Republic and the North.
Without a hard border -- or Britain staying in the customs union, take
your pick -- there will remain a weeping sore all along that border and
the EU simply will not accept it.

Especially as the UK is already in the frame for letting in dodgy Chinese
goods.

It's a nasty truth that Brexiteers are learning, but the UK isn't trusted
anywhere around the globe. Which is why everything being done has to be
in writing and in public.

[James Harris]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by MM
There are over 200 crossing points between the Republic and the North.
Without a hard border -- or Britain staying in the customs union, take
your pick -- there will remain a weeping sore all along that border and
the EU simply will not accept it.

Especially as the UK is already in the frame for letting in dodgy Chinese
goods.
It's a nasty truth that Brexiteers are learning, but the UK isn't trusted
anywhere around the globe. Which is why everything being done has to be
in writing and in public.

So "the UK isn't trusted anywhere around the globe", eh? What's your
evidence - other than Anglophobia.

[pamela]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by MM
There are over 200 crossing points between the Republic and the
North. Without a hard border -- or Britain staying in the
customs union, take your pick -- there will remain a weeping
sore all along that border and the EU simply will not accept
it.

Especially as the UK is already in the frame for letting in
dodgy Chinese goods.
It's a nasty truth that Brexiteers are learning, but the UK
isn't trusted anywhere around the globe. Which is why everything
being done has to be in writing and in public.

They even have a phrase for it..... "perfidious Albion".

Current talk of a hard Brexit in which we run away without fully
paying our dues is not doing much to inspire further confidence in
Britain.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by pamela

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by MM
There are over 200 crossing points between the Republic and the
North. Without a hard border -- or Britain staying in the
customs union, take your pick -- there will remain a weeping
sore all along that border and the EU simply will not accept
it.

Especially as the UK is already in the frame for letting in
dodgy Chinese goods.
It's a nasty truth that Brexiteers are learning, but the UK
isn't trusted anywhere around the globe. Which is why everything
being done has to be in writing and in public.

They even have a phrase for it..... "perfidious Albion".
Current talk of a hard Brexit in which we run away without fully
paying our dues is not doing much to inspire further confidence in
Britain.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is being slated for saying that we will
pay the £45bn regardless of whether we get a trade deal or not.
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-theresa-may-
divorce-bill-trade-deal-payment-hammond-split-a8095891.html>

Why? Surely he's just being honest? OK, so the EU won't start discussing
a trade deal until we agree to pay - but isn't the payment essentially
nothing to do with 'buying' a trade deal? Is it not instead to settle
any outstanding debts, and our contribution towards those projects and
commitments we have already agreed to fund, and will continue after we
have left the EU?

[James Harris]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by pamela

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by MM
There are over 200 crossing points between the Republic and the
North. Without a hard border -- or Britain staying in the
customs union, take your pick -- there will remain a weeping
sore all along that border and the EU simply will not accept
it.

Especially as the UK is already in the frame for letting in
dodgy Chinese goods.
It's a nasty truth that Brexiteers are learning, but the UK
isn't trusted anywhere around the globe. Which is why everything
being done has to be in writing and in public.

They even have a phrase for it..... "perfidious Albion".
Current talk of a hard Brexit in which we run away without fully
paying our dues is not doing much to inspire further confidence in
Britain.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is being slated for saying that we will
pay the £45bn regardless of whether we get a trade deal or not.
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-theresa-may-
divorce-bill-trade-deal-payment-hammond-split-a8095891.html>
Why? Surely he's just being honest? OK, so the EU won't start discussing
a trade deal until we agree to pay - but isn't the payment essentially
nothing to do with 'buying' a trade deal? Is it not instead to settle
any outstanding debts, and our contribution towards those projects and
commitments we have already agreed to fund, and will continue after we
have left the EU?

Don't forget that in April the European Council decided on this:

Negotiations under Article 50 TEU will be conducted in transparency and
as a single package. In accordance with the principle that nothing is
agreed until everything is agreed, individual items cannot be settled
separately.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/04/29/euco-brexit-guidelines/#

[pamela]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 19:19:44 -0000, Yellow

Post by Yellow
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 09:08:56 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Yellow
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 22:25:05 +0000, Ian Jackson

In message

Post by Yellow
I am bemused that the UK government could have thought
this was ever going to be a go-er.
Perhaps they got caught up in the moment or they have some
other play in mind but yes, bemused is the only word I can
come up with.

For once I agree with you. The situation was absolutely
110% predictable. I can't believe how naive and inept the
PM is. As I have be saying for ages, as things are at the
moment there are only two available solutions - and one or
the other of the two will be not be simultaneously
acceptable to both 'sides'.

I have no doubt this is solvable.

I wish I had your confidence. For months, several of the
government Brexiteers have, when reminded of The Irish
Problem, have been saying exactly what you said. "I'm sure
we'll find a way." "I expect we will be able to find am
electronic solution." "Don't you worry your tiny heads about
it." Or Iain Dale's favourite, "Both sides want an open
border, so what's the problem?"

Both side want an open border, so what is the problem? Remind
me.

Ask yourself, why did East Germany suddenly erect a wall
overnight?
It was to stop East Germans from escaping to the west, which
they were doing in ever increasing numbers, bleeding the country
dry.
If you don't have a border, then anyone can cross it. Terrorists
back from Iraq, black marketeers getting round import/export
tariffs, ordinary shoppers buying provisions of all kinds
without paying the taxes due to the UK and/or Irish treasury,
import/export of dodgy goods that are not permitted in one or
the other state, and so on.
There are over 200 crossing points between the Republic and the
North. Without a hard border -- or Britain staying in the
customs union, take your pick -- there will remain a weeping
sore all along that border and the EU simply will not accept it.

If even the smallest uncontrolled crossing exists then all those
who don't want their documents examined will make a bee-line for
it.

I recall crossing into the Soviet Union (sic) without documents by
making our way to a remote border crossing deep in the
countryside.... despite it being manned.

[MM]

Post by Yellow
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 09:08:56 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Yellow
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 22:25:05 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Yellow
I am bemused that the UK government could have thought this was ever
going to be a go-er.
Perhaps they got caught up in the moment or they have some other play in
mind but yes, bemused is the only word I can come up with.

For once I agree with you. The situation was absolutely 110%
predictable. I can't believe how naive and inept the PM is. As I have be
saying for ages, as things are at the moment there are only two
available solutions - and one or the other of the two will be not be
simultaneously acceptable to both 'sides'.

I have no doubt this is solvable.

I wish I had your confidence. For months, several of the government
Brexiteers have, when reminded of The Irish Problem, have been saying
exactly what you said. "I'm sure we'll find a way." "I expect we will be
able to find am electronic solution." "Don't you worry your tiny heads
about it." Or Iain Dale's favourite, "Both sides want an open border, so
what's the problem?"

Both side want an open border, so what is the problem? Remind me.

Some extra reasons I've just got from The Guardian:

"The Police Service of Northern Ireland has warned it does not want to
return to an era when sex offenders, human traffickers and burglars
use the Irish border to evade capture.

The deputy chief constable of the police force said 20 years ago there
was a huge problem with aggravated burglaries on elderly with
criminals fleeing across the border north or south to escape justice.

Strong co-operation between the PSNI and the Garda Siochana
underpinned by European arrest warrant legislation and a bilateral
agreement has made the rural border areas a place of “safety”, Drew
Harris told the Brexit select committee which is visiting the Irish
border today. He said:

Criminal gangs did evade us using the border. We’ve worked hard
over the last 20 years to make sure that’s not the case.

What we want to concentrate on is that we don’t diminish where we
are a the moment, that our relationships are maintained [post Brexit].

I served on this border are 30 years ago, we had good relationship
with the Garda Siochana, but we just didn’t have the legislative
infrastructure – and people flee across the border to evade the
police.

The border also proved a means of evasion for people involved in road
traffic accidents, the committee heard.

Harris, deputy chief constable of the PSNI, said there would have to
be a new extradition treaty with Ireland in the event of no deal.
Extradition attempts before the European arrest warrant agreement came
in was difficult, he told the Brexit select committee in Armagh."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/dec/07/brexit-deal-may-varadkar-eu-less-hospitable-for-foreign-talent-after-brexit-says-banking-chief-politics-live

MM

[James Harris]

Post by MM

Post by Yellow
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 09:08:56 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Yellow
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 22:25:05 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Yellow
I am bemused that the UK government could have thought this was ever
going to be a go-er.
Perhaps they got caught up in the moment or they have some other play in
mind but yes, bemused is the only word I can come up with.

For once I agree with you. The situation was absolutely 110%
predictable. I can't believe how naive and inept the PM is. As I have be
saying for ages, as things are at the moment there are only two
available solutions - and one or the other of the two will be not be
simultaneously acceptable to both 'sides'.

I have no doubt this is solvable.

I wish I had your confidence. For months, several of the government
Brexiteers have, when reminded of The Irish Problem, have been saying
exactly what you said. "I'm sure we'll find a way." "I expect we will be
able to find am electronic solution." "Don't you worry your tiny heads
about it." Or Iain Dale's favourite, "Both sides want an open border, so
what's the problem?"

Both side want an open border, so what is the problem? Remind me.

"The Police Service of Northern Ireland has warned it does not want to
return to an era when sex offenders, human traffickers and burglars
use the Irish border to evade capture.

Yeah, if only they had things like, you know, telephones and stuff.

Post by MM
The deputy chief constable of the police force said 20 years ago there
was a huge problem with aggravated burglaries on elderly with
criminals fleeing across the border north or south to escape justice.
Strong co-operation between the PSNI and the Garda Siochana
underpinned by European arrest warrant legislation and a bilateral
agreement has made the rural border areas a place of “safety”, Drew
Harris told the Brexit select committee which is visiting the Irish
Criminal gangs did evade us using the border. We’ve worked hard
over the last 20 years to make sure that’s not the case.

Er, we've been in the European Project for over 40 years yet the problem
has only been solved over the last 20 years? Maybe it's not an
EU-specific feature, then...?

Post by MM
What we want to concentrate on is that we don’t diminish where we
are a the moment, that our relationships are maintained [post Brexit].
I served on this border are 30 years ago, we had good relationship
with the Garda Siochana, but we just didn’t have the legislative
infrastructure – and people flee across the border to evade the
police.

It must be terrible for the NI police - thinking that there will be no
laws post Brexit.

Post by MM
The border also proved a means of evasion for people involved in road
traffic accidents, the committee heard.
Harris, deputy chief constable of the PSNI, said there would have to
be a new extradition treaty with Ireland in the event of no deal.
Extradition attempts before the European arrest warrant agreement came
in was difficult, he told the Brexit select committee in Armagh."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/dec/07/brexit-deal-may-varadkar-eu-less-hospitable-for-foreign-talent-after-brexit-says-banking-chief-politics-live

Isn't that an advantage of Brexit - that we will be able to choose what
conditions we accept for extradition? No more parents of ill children
being arrested on the say so of a police chief, perhaps.

[MM]

Post by Yellow

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK,
and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates
Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board
===
Excellent:)) Noddy is sticking her oar in and whinging that if N.I. are
allowed to stay in the single market, that Scotland can too:)))
I wondered how long it would take her.

I am bemused that the UK government could have thought this was ever
going to be a go-er.
Perhaps they got caught up in the moment or they have some other play in
mind but yes, bemused is the only word I can come up with.

This is what happens when people get into a blind panic. Yesterday
Theresa May looked as though she hoped a sinkhole would open up
beneath her.

MM

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Post by Yellow

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK,
and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates
Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board
===
Excellent:)) Noddy is sticking her oar in and whinging that if N.I. are
allowed to stay in the single market, that Scotland can too:)))
I wondered how long it would take her.

I am bemused that the UK government could have thought this was ever
going to be a go-er.
Perhaps they got caught up in the moment or they have some other play in
mind but yes, bemused is the only word I can come up with.

Confused.

[The Peeler]

On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 17:53:55 -0000, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Yellow
mind but yes, bemused is the only word I can come up with.

Confused.

Prick!

[Ophelia]

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK,
and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates
Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board
===
Excellent:)) Noddy is sticking her oar in and whinging that if N.I. are
allowed to stay in the single market, that Scotland can too:)))
I wondered how long it would take her.

I am bemused that the UK government could have thought this was ever
going to be a go-er.

Perhaps they got caught up in the moment or they have some other play in
mind but yes, bemused is the only word I can come up with.

===

Well someone is off their trolley. Arlene Foster has made it quite plain
what she wants, and it isn't to be tied to the EU.

Why one earth May thought she could get away with that beggars belief.
Thank goodness Arlene stuck her oar in before it was too late.

The latest I hear is the things are going smoothly again. I wonder what
they have dreamed up now.

[pullgees]

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK,
and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates
Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board
===
Excellent:)) Noddy is sticking her oar in and whinging that if N.I. are
allowed to stay in the single market, that Scotland can too:)))
I wondered how long it would take her.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Looks like a 'hard' Brexit is coming up which of course is really just plain Brexit and that's what we voted for.

[Yellow]

Post by pullgees

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK,
and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates
Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board
===
Excellent:)) Noddy is sticking her oar in and whinging that if N.I. are
allowed to stay in the single market, that Scotland can too:)))
I wondered how long it would take her.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Looks like a 'hard' Brexit is coming up which of course is really just plain Brexit and that's what we voted for.

Hard Brexit means staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, so I
would say most certainly NOT!

We may however leave without a deal. Time will tell.

[pullgees]

Post by Yellow

Post by pullgees

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK,
and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates
Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board
===
Excellent:)) Noddy is sticking her oar in and whinging that if N.I. are
allowed to stay in the single market, that Scotland can too:)))
I wondered how long it would take her.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Looks like a 'hard' Brexit is coming up which of course is really just plain Brexit and that's what we voted for.

Hard Brexit means staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, so I
would say most certainly NOT!

I'm not sure whether you are being wry. But that is certainly not the understanding of what a hard Brexit is, which is the complete severance.

Post by Yellow
We may however leave without a deal. Time will tell.

[Pelican]

Post by pullgees

Post by Yellow

Post by pullgees

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK,
and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates
Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board
===
Excellent:)) Noddy is sticking her oar in and whinging that if N.I. are
allowed to stay in the single market, that Scotland can too:)))
I wondered how long it would take her.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Looks like a 'hard' Brexit is coming up which of course is really just plain Brexit and that's what we voted for.

Hard Brexit means staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, so I
would say most certainly NOT!

I'm not sure whether you are being wry. But that is certainly not the understanding of what a hard Brexit is, which is the complete severance.

Not a "complete severance". It only means that more of them foreigners
don't get in because some Europeans say so.

Post by pullgees

Post by Yellow
We may however leave without a deal. Time will tell.

[pullgees]

Post by Pelican

Post by pullgees

Post by Yellow

Post by pullgees

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK,
and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates
Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board
===
Excellent:)) Noddy is sticking her oar in and whinging that if N.I. are
allowed to stay in the single market, that Scotland can too:)))
I wondered how long it would take her.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Looks like a 'hard' Brexit is coming up which of course is really just plain Brexit and that's what we voted for.

Hard Brexit means staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, so I
would say most certainly NOT!

I'm not sure whether you are being wry. But that is certainly not the understanding of what a hard Brexit is, which is the complete severance.

Not a "complete severance". It only means that more of them foreigners
don't get in because some Europeans say so.

Post by pullgees

Post by Yellow
We may however leave without a deal. Time will tell.

You're far more obsessed by foreigners than leavers are, you want open borders and unlimited immigration and have no sense of sustainability. Very cranky.

[Yellow]

Post by pullgees

Post by Yellow

Post by pullgees

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK,
and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates
Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board
===
Excellent:)) Noddy is sticking her oar in and whinging that if N.I. are
allowed to stay in the single market, that Scotland can too:)))
I wondered how long it would take her.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Looks like a 'hard' Brexit is coming up which of course is really just plain Brexit and that's what we voted for.

Hard Brexit means staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, so I
would say most certainly NOT!

I'm not sure whether you are being wry.

Nah - straightforward cock up. Ignore me. :-)

Post by pullgees
But that is certainly not the understanding of what a hard Brexit is,
which is the complete severance.

No - that is wrong too.

Hard Brexit means LEAVING the Customs Union and Single Market and it
never meant leaving without a deal - which is something else entirely.

Post by pullgees

Post by Yellow
We may however leave without a deal. Time will tell.

[pullgees]

Post by Yellow

Post by pullgees

Post by Yellow

Post by pullgees

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK,
and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates
Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board
===
Excellent:)) Noddy is sticking her oar in and whinging that if N.I. are
allowed to stay in the single market, that Scotland can too:)))
I wondered how long it would take her.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Looks like a 'hard' Brexit is coming up which of course is really just plain Brexit and that's what we voted for.

Hard Brexit means staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, so I
would say most certainly NOT!

I'm not sure whether you are being wry.

Nah - straightforward cock up. Ignore me. :-)

Post by pullgees
But that is certainly not the understanding of what a hard Brexit is,
which is the complete severance.

No - that is wrong too.
Hard Brexit means LEAVING the Customs Union and Single Market and it
never meant leaving without a deal - which is something else entirely.

I didn't mean that literally, we will still cooperate in other areas such as intelligence, but we will be bringing back our all law making to parliament and thereby re gaining our sovereignty and not be under the jurisdiction of the ECJ and of course controlling Migration from the EU. That's what Brexit means to those who voted to leave.

Post by Yellow

Post by pullgees

Post by Yellow
We may however leave without a deal. Time will tell.

[pamela]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:26:43 -0800 (PST), pullgees

Post by pullgees

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:05:35 -0800 (PST), pullgees

Post by pullgees

Post by Ophelia
"pullgees" wrote in message
news:fade1f2e-ae6d-4eae-bcff-
...
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been
very clear that Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the
same terms as the rest of the UK, and we will not accept
any form of regulatory divergence that separates
Northern Ireland economically or politically from the
rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board
===
Excellent:)) Noddy is sticking her oar in and whinging
that if N.I. are allowed to stay in the single market,
that Scotland can too:)))
I wondered how long it would take her.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Looks like a 'hard' Brexit is coming up which of course is
really just plain Brexit and that's what we voted for.

Hard Brexit means staying in the Single Market and Customs
Union, so I would say most certainly NOT!

I'm not sure whether you are being wry.

Nah - straightforward cock up. Ignore me. :-)

Are you feeling alright? Some of your recent posts have been a
bit, well, jaundiced.

Post by pullgees
But that is certainly not the understanding of what a hard
Brexit is, which is the complete severance.

No - that is wrong too.
Hard Brexit means LEAVING the Customs Union and Single Market
and it never meant leaving without a deal - which is something
else entirely.

[Ophelia]

Post by pullgees

Post by Yellow

Post by pullgees

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK,
and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates
Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board
===
Excellent:)) Noddy is sticking her oar in and whinging that if N.I. are
allowed to stay in the single market, that Scotland can too:)))
I wondered how long it would take her.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Looks like a 'hard' Brexit is coming up which of course is really just
plain Brexit and that's what we voted for.

Hard Brexit means staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, so I
would say most certainly NOT!

I'm not sure whether you are being wry.

Nah - straightforward cock up. Ignore me. :-)

Post by pullgees
But that is certainly not the understanding of what a hard Brexit is,
which is the complete severance.

No - that is wrong too.

Hard Brexit means LEAVING the Customs Union and Single Market and it
never meant leaving without a deal - which is something else entirely.

====

Phew! :)))) I must admit, you had me worried there:))))

^5

[Lancer]

Post by Yellow

Post by pullgees

Post by Yellow

Post by pullgees

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK,
and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates
Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board
===
Excellent:)) Noddy is sticking her oar in and whinging that if N.I. are
allowed to stay in the single market, that Scotland can too:)))
I wondered how long it would take her.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Looks like a 'hard' Brexit is coming up which of course is really just plain Brexit and that's what we voted for.

Hard Brexit means staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, so I
would say most certainly NOT!

I'm not sure whether you are being wry.

Nah - straightforward cock up. Ignore me. :-)

Post by pullgees
But that is certainly not the understanding of what a hard Brexit is,
which is the complete severance.

No - that is wrong too.
Hard Brexit means LEAVING the Customs Union and Single Market and it
never meant leaving without a deal - which is something else entirely.

Extreme Brexit? ;)

[Yellow]

Post by Lancer

Post by Yellow

Post by pullgees

Post by Yellow

Post by pullgees

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK,
and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates
Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board
===
Excellent:)) Noddy is sticking her oar in and whinging that if N.I. are
allowed to stay in the single market, that Scotland can too:)))
I wondered how long it would take her.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Looks like a 'hard' Brexit is coming up which of course is really just plain Brexit and that's what we voted for.

Hard Brexit means staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, so I
would say most certainly NOT!

I'm not sure whether you are being wry.

Nah - straightforward cock up. Ignore me. :-)

Post by pullgees
But that is certainly not the understanding of what a hard Brexit is,
which is the complete severance.

No - that is wrong too.
Hard Brexit means LEAVING the Customs Union and Single Market and it
never meant leaving without a deal - which is something else entirely.

Extreme Brexit? ;)

How is that extreme?

[pamela]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:05:35 -0800 (PST), pullgees

Post by pullgees

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very
clear that Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same
terms as the rest of the UK, and we will not accept any form
of regulatory divergence that separates Northern Ireland
economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board
===
Excellent:)) Noddy is sticking her oar in and whinging that
if N.I. are allowed to stay in the single market, that
Scotland can too:)))
I wondered how long it would take her.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Looks like a 'hard' Brexit is coming up which of course is
really just plain Brexit and that's what we voted for.

Hard Brexit means staying in the Single Market and Customs
Union,

Huh? Are you sure?

so I would say most certainly NOT!
We may however leave without a deal. Time will tell.

[Yellow]

Post by Yellow

Post by pullgees

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK,
and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates
Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board
===
Excellent:)) Noddy is sticking her oar in and whinging that if N.I. are
allowed to stay in the single market, that Scotland can too:)))
I wondered how long it would take her.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Looks like a 'hard' Brexit is coming up which of course is really just plain Brexit and that's what we voted for.

Hard Brexit means staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, so I
would say most certainly NOT!

I have that backwards! LOL!

Damn those late night posts. :-)

Post by Yellow
We may however leave without a deal. Time will tell.

[pamela]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 23:10:08 -0000, Yellow

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:05:35 -0800 (PST), pullgees

Post by pullgees

Post by Ophelia
"pullgees" wrote in message
news:fade1f2e-ae6d-4eae-bcff-
.
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very
clear that Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same
terms as the rest of the UK, and we will not accept any
form of regulatory divergence that separates Northern
Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the
UK.'
So back to the drawing board
===
Excellent:)) Noddy is sticking her oar in and whinging
that if N.I. are allowed to stay in the single market, that
Scotland can too:)))
I wondered how long it would take her.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Looks like a 'hard' Brexit is coming up which of course is
really just plain Brexit and that's what we voted for.

Hard Brexit means staying in the Single Market and Customs
Union, so I would say most certainly NOT!

I have that backwards! LOL!
Damn those late night posts. :-)

Do you drink when you are posting?

[Ophelia]

Post by pullgees

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK,
and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates
Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board
===
Excellent:)) Noddy is sticking her oar in and whinging that if N.I. are
allowed to stay in the single market, that Scotland can too:)))
I wondered how long it would take her.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Looks like a 'hard' Brexit is coming up which of course is really just
plain Brexit and that's what we voted for.

Hard Brexit means staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, so I
would say most certainly NOT!

We may however leave without a deal. Time will tell.

==

Are you sure??? For me hard brexit means just leaving with no deal!

[Yellow]

Post by Yellow

Post by pullgees

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK,
and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates
Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board
===
Excellent:)) Noddy is sticking her oar in and whinging that if N.I. are
allowed to stay in the single market, that Scotland can too:)))
I wondered how long it would take her.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Looks like a 'hard' Brexit is coming up which of course is really just
plain Brexit and that's what we voted for.

Hard Brexit means staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, so I
would say most certainly NOT!
We may however leave without a deal. Time will tell.
==
Are you sure???

No. :-)

Post by Yellow
For me hard brexit means just leaving with no deal!

I had a brain fart.

[Ophelia]

Post by Yellow

Post by pullgees

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of
the
UK,
and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates
Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board
===
Excellent:)) Noddy is sticking her oar in and whinging that if N.I. are
allowed to stay in the single market, that Scotland can too:)))
I wondered how long it would take her.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Looks like a 'hard' Brexit is coming up which of course is really just
plain Brexit and that's what we voted for.

Hard Brexit means staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, so I
would say most certainly NOT!
We may however leave without a deal. Time will tell.
==
Are you sure???

No. :-)

Post by Yellow
For me hard brexit means just leaving with no deal!

I had a brain fart.

==

Happens to us all:)))

[MM]

Post by pullgees

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK,
and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates
Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board
===
Excellent:)) Noddy is sticking her oar in and whinging that if N.I. are
allowed to stay in the single market, that Scotland can too:)))
I wondered how long it would take her.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Looks like a 'hard' Brexit is coming up which of course is really just plain Brexit and that's what we voted for.

No, because that would mean a border between the Republic and Northern
Ireland, and no on wants one.

MM

[pullgees]

Post by MM

Post by pullgees

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK,
and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates
Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board
===
Excellent:)) Noddy is sticking her oar in and whinging that if N.I. are
allowed to stay in the single market, that Scotland can too:)))
I wondered how long it would take her.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Looks like a 'hard' Brexit is coming up which of course is really just plain Brexit and that's what we voted for.

No, because that would mean a border between the Republic and Northern
Ireland, and no on wants one.
MM

There is already a border I think you mean't a hard border. For a start the term 'hard border' has just been coined by the media ,used be politicians, and is a trope thrown around by the commentariat. There is no such legal term used in the WTO rules. In fact The WTO's founding and guiding principles remain the pursuit of open borders.That's why there is such an instrument as TIR and with modern technology transit of goods across borders is even smoother than it ever was.

[Ophelia]

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK,
and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates
Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board
===
Excellent:)) Noddy is sticking her oar in and whinging that if N.I. are
allowed to stay in the single market, that Scotland can too:)))
I wondered how long it would take her.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Looks like a 'hard' Brexit is coming up which of course is really just plain
Brexit and that's what we voted for.

==

Fingers crossed!

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK, and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board

Funny that - they have or have had a different rate of corporation tax, laws on abortion, divorce, homosexuality and gay marriage - seems they want their cake and eat it...

[Ian Jackson]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of
the UK, and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that
separates Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest
of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board

Funny that - they have or have had a different rate of corporation tax,
laws on abortion, divorce, homosexuality and gay marriage - seems they
want their cake and eat it...

Yes - bit it's BRITISH corporation tax and BRITISH laws on abortion,
divorce, homosexuality and gay marriage (albeit these are different from
those in Great Britain).

[Yellow]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 10:51:54 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of
the UK, and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that
separates Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest
of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board

Funny that - they have or have had a different rate of corporation tax,
laws on abortion, divorce, homosexuality and gay marriage - seems they
want their cake and eat it...

Yes - bit it's BRITISH corporation tax and BRITISH laws on abortion,
divorce, homosexuality and gay marriage (albeit these are different from
those in Great Britain).

The argument that because NI has different laws on gay marriage etc it
is OK for other differences to be added on top is a very poor argument.

Surely it would be better than NI has the *same* laws on gay marriage
etc.

[pullgees]

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK, and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board

The trade negotiations haven't even started yet and after all this the biggest of all obstacles, that it's politically impossible for the EU to give us a trade deal which would not break up the EU. There can never be free trade with ex members. In the end we will be back where we started and will have to leave without a deal. To date all talks have been utterly pointless.

[James Harris]

Post by pullgees

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK, and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that separates Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board

The trade negotiations haven't even started yet and after all this the biggest of all obstacles, that it's politically impossible for the EU to give us a trade deal which would not break up the EU. There can never be free trade with ex members. In the end we will be back where we started and will have to leave without a deal. To date all talks have been utterly pointless.

The EU will take a short-term view, as it always does. I get the
impression that it wants a deal with the UK - e.g. it needs access to
London and wants to sell to the UK market - so some sort of deal is likely.

In the long term the EU is in a difficult place. If it negotiates a deal
now which is good for itself and the UK then the UK will do better
outside and other countries will want to leave.

On the other hand, if the two sides part on WTO terms then it will take
longer for the UK to start motoring again. But when it does it will
rapidly pass the EU. And then there will be a rush for the door.

Basically, the UK is a test case. It makes sense now for the rest of
Europe to sit back and see what happens. But if the UK does better
outside - as it should and almost certainly will if we have sensible
government - then the rest of the EU will see how much the EU had been
holding the UK back. Then there will be pressure for an exodus to begin.

[Pelican]

Post by James Harris

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of
the UK, and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that
separates Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest
of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board

  The trade negotiations haven't even started yet and after all this
the biggest of all obstacles, that it's politically impossible for the
EU to give us a trade deal which would not break up the EU. There can
never be free trade with ex members. In the end we will be back where
we started and will have to leave without a deal. To date all talks
have been utterly pointless.

The EU will take a short-term view, as it always does. I get the
impression that it wants a deal with the UK - e.g. it needs access to
London and wants to sell to the UK market - so some sort of deal is likely.
In the long term the EU is in a difficult place. If it negotiates a deal
now which is good for itself and the UK then the UK will do better
outside and other countries will want to leave.
On the other hand, if the two sides part on WTO terms then it will take
longer for the UK to start motoring again. But when it does it will
rapidly pass the EU. And then there will be a rush for the door.
Basically, the UK is a test case. It makes sense now for the rest of
Europe to sit back and see what happens. But if the UK does better
outside - as it should and almost certainly will if we have sensible
government - then the rest of the EU will see how much the EU had been
holding the UK back. Then there will be pressure for an exodus to begin.

What you are really saying is that it was always a mistake for the UK to
have joined the EU, on economic grounds

That wasn't the argument for the UK leaving the EU at the referendum.
The Brexit vote wasn't about economics, but the movement of people,
specifically the movement of people (foreigners) into the UK. The
leaders of the Brexit movement have made themselves scarce, but the
world understands very well why the vote went as it did.

Contrary to your view that there are countries that might contemplate
leaving the EU, there are countries wanting to join the EU. The UK is
not seen by the rest of the world as a test case, but a PITA where the
population made a poor choice for a bad reason without having any idea
what the economic consequences would be.

[James Harris]

Post by Pelican

Post by James Harris

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of
the UK, and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that
separates Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest
of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board

  The trade negotiations haven't even started yet and after all this
the biggest of all obstacles, that it's politically impossible for the
EU to give us a trade deal which would not break up the EU. There can
never be free trade with ex members. In the end we will be back where
we started and will have to leave without a deal. To date all talks
have been utterly pointless.

The EU will take a short-term view, as it always does. I get the
impression that it wants a deal with the UK - e.g. it needs access to
London and wants to sell to the UK market - so some sort of deal is likely.
In the long term the EU is in a difficult place. If it negotiates a deal
now which is good for itself and the UK then the UK will do better
outside and other countries will want to leave.
On the other hand, if the two sides part on WTO terms then it will take
longer for the UK to start motoring again. But when it does it will
rapidly pass the EU. And then there will be a rush for the door.
Basically, the UK is a test case. It makes sense now for the rest of
Europe to sit back and see what happens. But if the UK does better
outside - as it should and almost certainly will if we have sensible
government - then the rest of the EU will see how much the EU had been
holding the UK back. Then there will be pressure for an exodus to begin.

What you are really saying is that it was always a mistake for the UK to
have joined the EU, on economic grounds

Yes, but only in broad terms.

In slightly more detail, the common market probably helped a little but
it should be noted that we /remained/ an economic basket case for years
after joining so the EEC evidently wasn't as helpful as is sometimes
claimed.

The UK economy didn't really change until the UK went in for trade
liberalisation. And /that/ change is what has led to our present wealth
- just as a similar approach worked for Germany after the war and has
done so for China more recently.

But that's where a problem comes in: liberalisation takes courage but it
usually works. The EU's instincts, by contrast, are to do exactly the
opposite of what works for prosperity and to increase control and
centralisation. And that doesn't work in the long term. So, yes, I do
believe it is wrong for us to be in the EU now. It has been a big
mistake for the UK to be in the EU since the 1980s.

Post by Pelican
That wasn't the argument for the UK leaving the EU at the referendum.

There were lots of people putting arguments. The Vote Leave lot the
designation and, hence, most publicity. But they did not speak for
everyone and were not the only voice.

For example, "Brexit the Movie" was all about economics. It wasn't about
immigration at all. And IIRC "Lexit the Movie" was about workers' rights.

So when you speak of "the" argument I think you miss the bases on which
many people decided.

Post by Pelican
The Brexit vote wasn't about economics, but the movement of people,
specifically the movement of people (foreigners) into the UK. The
leaders of the Brexit movement have made themselves scarce, but the
world understands very well why the vote went as it did.

Immigration was a big part of it, for sure, especially when the
immigration figures released in the final weeks of the campaign were at
a record level. But from what I've seen I think immigration was _not_
the main reason people voted Leave; the main one was about having
decisions on our future made in the UK rather than in Brussels.

Post by Pelican
Contrary to your view that there are countries that might contemplate
leaving the EU, there are countries wanting to join the EU.

True. Why do you think they want to join?

Post by Pelican
The UK is
not seen by the rest of the world as a test case,

For the world, no. But fellow Europeans will be looking to see what
happens with the UK.

Post by Pelican
but a PITA where the
population made a poor choice for a bad reason without having any idea
what the economic consequences would be.

How can that be? We had lots of experts telling us that the sky would
fall in.

[Ash Burton]

Post by James Harris

Post by Pelican

Post by James Harris

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of
the UK, and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that
separates Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest
of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board

   The trade negotiations haven't even started yet and after all this
the biggest of all obstacles, that it's politically impossible for the
EU to give us a trade deal which would not break up the EU. There can
never be free trade with ex members. In the end we will be back where
we started and will have to leave without a deal. To date all talks
have been utterly pointless.

The EU will take a short-term view, as it always does. I get the
impression that it wants a deal with the UK - e.g. it needs access to
London and wants to sell to the UK market - so some sort of deal is likely.
In the long term the EU is in a difficult place. If it negotiates a deal
now which is good for itself and the UK then the UK will do better
outside and other countries will want to leave.
On the other hand, if the two sides part on WTO terms then it will take
longer for the UK to start motoring again. But when it does it will
rapidly pass the EU. And then there will be a rush for the door.
Basically, the UK is a test case. It makes sense now for the rest of
Europe to sit back and see what happens. But if the UK does better
outside - as it should and almost certainly will if we have sensible
government - then the rest of the EU will see how much the EU had been
holding the UK back. Then there will be pressure for an exodus to begin.

What you are really saying is that it was always a mistake for the UK to
have joined the EU, on economic grounds

Yes, but only in broad terms.
In slightly more detail, the common market probably helped a little but
it should be noted that we /remained/ an economic basket case for years
after joining so the EEC evidently wasn't as helpful as is sometimes
claimed.
The UK economy didn't really change until the UK went in for trade
liberalisation. And /that/ change is what has led to our present wealth
- just as a similar approach worked for Germany after the war and has
done so for China more recently.
But that's where a problem comes in: liberalisation takes courage but it
usually works. The EU's instincts, by contrast, are to do exactly the
opposite of what works for prosperity and to increase control and
centralisation. And that doesn't work in the long term. So, yes, I do
believe it is wrong for us to be in the EU now. It has been a big
mistake for the UK to be in the EU since the 1980s.

Post by Pelican
That wasn't the argument for the UK leaving the EU at the referendum.

There were lots of people putting arguments. The Vote Leave lot the
designation and, hence, most publicity. But they did not speak for
everyone and were not the only voice.
For example, "Brexit the Movie" was all about economics. It wasn't about
immigration at all. And IIRC "Lexit the Movie" was about workers' rights.
So when you speak of "the" argument I think you miss the bases on which
many people decided.

Post by Pelican
The Brexit vote wasn't about economics, but the movement of people,
specifically the movement of people (foreigners) into the UK.  The
leaders of the Brexit movement have made themselves scarce, but the
world understands very well why the vote went as it did.

Immigration was a big part of it, for sure, especially when the
immigration figures released in the final weeks of the campaign were at
a record level. But from what I've seen I think immigration was _not_
the main reason people voted Leave; the main one was about having
decisions on our future made in the UK rather than in Brussels.

Post by Pelican
Contrary to your view that there are countries that might contemplate
leaving the EU, there are countries wanting to join the EU.

True. Why do you think they want to join?

Post by Pelican
The UK is
not seen by the rest of the world as a test case,

For the world, no. But fellow Europeans will be looking to see what
happens with the UK.

Post by Pelican
but a PITA where the
population made a poor choice for a bad reason without having any idea
what the economic consequences would be.

How can that be? We had lots of experts telling us that the sky would
fall in.

The DUP are just Grandstanding,they will agree after they have made
their point (whatever it was)

[Ophelia]

Post by James Harris

Post by Pelican

Post by James Harris

Post by pullgees

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of
the UK, and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that
separates Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest
of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board

The trade negotiations haven't even started yet and after all this
the biggest of all obstacles, that it's politically impossible for the
EU to give us a trade deal which would not break up the EU. There can
never be free trade with ex members. In the end we will be back where
we started and will have to leave without a deal. To date all talks
have been utterly pointless.

The EU will take a short-term view, as it always does. I get the
impression that it wants a deal with the UK - e.g. it needs access to
London and wants to sell to the UK market - so some sort of deal is likely.
In the long term the EU is in a difficult place. If it negotiates a deal
now which is good for itself and the UK then the UK will do better
outside and other countries will want to leave.
On the other hand, if the two sides part on WTO terms then it will take
longer for the UK to start motoring again. But when it does it will
rapidly pass the EU. And then there will be a rush for the door.
Basically, the UK is a test case. It makes sense now for the rest of
Europe to sit back and see what happens. But if the UK does better
outside - as it should and almost certainly will if we have sensible
government - then the rest of the EU will see how much the EU had been
holding the UK back. Then there will be pressure for an exodus to begin.

What you are really saying is that it was always a mistake for the UK to
have joined the EU, on economic grounds

Yes, but only in broad terms.
In slightly more detail, the common market probably helped a little but it
should be noted that we /remained/ an economic basket case for years after
joining so the EEC evidently wasn't as helpful as is sometimes claimed.
The UK economy didn't really change until the UK went in for trade
liberalisation. And /that/ change is what has led to our present wealth -
just as a similar approach worked for Germany after the war and has done
so for China more recently.
But that's where a problem comes in: liberalisation takes courage but it
usually works. The EU's instincts, by contrast, are to do exactly the
opposite of what works for prosperity and to increase control and
centralisation. And that doesn't work in the long term. So, yes, I do
believe it is wrong for us to be in the EU now. It has been a big mistake
for the UK to be in the EU since the 1980s.

Post by Pelican
That wasn't the argument for the UK leaving the EU at the referendum.

There were lots of people putting arguments. The Vote Leave lot the
designation and, hence, most publicity. But they did not speak for
everyone and were not the only voice.
For example, "Brexit the Movie" was all about economics. It wasn't about
immigration at all. And IIRC "Lexit the Movie" was about workers' rights.
So when you speak of "the" argument I think you miss the bases on which
many people decided.

Post by Pelican
The Brexit vote wasn't about economics, but the movement of people,
specifically the movement of people (foreigners) into the UK. The
leaders of the Brexit movement have made themselves scarce, but the
world understands very well why the vote went as it did.

Immigration was a big part of it, for sure, especially when the
immigration figures released in the final weeks of the campaign were at a
record level. But from what I've seen I think immigration was _not_ the
main reason people voted Leave; the main one was about having decisions on
our future made in the UK rather than in Brussels.

Post by Pelican
Contrary to your view that there are countries that might contemplate
leaving the EU, there are countries wanting to join the EU.

True. Why do you think they want to join?

Post by Pelican
The UK is
not seen by the rest of the world as a test case,

For the world, no. But fellow Europeans will be looking to see what
happens with the UK.

Post by Pelican
but a PITA where the
population made a poor choice for a bad reason without having any idea
what the economic consequences would be.

How can that be? We had lots of experts telling us that the sky would fall
in.

The DUP are just Grandstanding,they will agree after they have made
their point (whatever it was)
==

I bloody well hope not!

[Vidcapper]

Post by pullgees
Ms Foster told journalists at Stormont: 'We have been very clear that
Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of
the UK, and we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence that
separates Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest
of the UK.'
So back to the drawing board

What happened to integrity - when you bribe someone, they should *stay*
bribed... :P