Brexit: Now What? Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
ceptimus said:
Wrong again. I've repeatedly explained that the reason negotiations are stalled is due to unreasonable EU preconditions. Our negotiating position is that we can't agree to pay until we've negotiated what we'll get in return - and the EU preconditions don't allow that. I've further explained that I don't believe the EU are currently prepared to negotiate in good faith and therefore I think we should walk away from the farcical "negotiations".
Click to expand...
Yes you have said these things; people have pointed out the absurdity of your project, as regards the Irish border for example; and you have made no coherent response.
 
ceptimus said:
Wrong again. I've repeatedly explained that the reason negotiations are stalled is due to unreasonable EU preconditions. Our negotiating position is that we can't agree to pay until we've negotiated what we'll get in return - and the EU preconditions don't allow that. I've further explained that I don't believe the EU are currently prepared to negotiate in good faith and therefore I think we should walk away from the farcical "negotiations".
Click to expand...

You're not getting anything in return for payment, they're trying to negotiate what you owe. Once the UK's obligations are settled, the rights of EU and UK citizens in each other's territories and the Irish border are agreed upon, that's when the Article 50 negotiations are finished and discussion of a FTA can begin.
 
ceptimus said:
Wrong again. I've repeatedly explained that the reason negotiations are stalled is due to unreasonable EU preconditions. Our negotiating position is that we can't agree to pay until we've negotiated what we'll get in return - and the EU preconditions don't allow that. I've further explained that I don't believe the EU are currently prepared to negotiate in good faith and therefore I think we should walk away from the farcical "negotiations".
Click to expand...

What you'll get in return for paying for already existing obligations and liabilities (the existence or exact value of which can be debated aside)?

You get to leave the EU.

As I am more and more often saying about things in my own country: "This is what you voted for, isn't it?"
 
Craig B said:
Yes you have said these things; people have pointed out the absurdity of your project, as regards the Irish border for example; and you have made no coherent response.
Click to expand...
On the contrary. I've made very coherent responses. You may not agree with me but that doesn't make my responses incoherent.
 
ceptimus said:
On the contrary. I've made very coherent responses. You may not agree with me but that doesn't make my responses incoherent.
Click to expand...
The Border in Ireland - in the past, you will recall, has been involved in decades of bloodshed, as well as smuggling and other offences on a vast scale. So it's a really serious issue. And this is your "very coherent" contribution to our understanding of this subject.
ceptimus said:
Illegal entrants can be tracked by means other than hard borders - via housing, jobs, benefit claims, bank transactions, and so on.

Smugglers exist even with hard borders, and for those that build the borders it's a compromise between the harm caused by the smugglers versus the harm caused by the borders.
Click to expand...
 
Craig B said:
The Border in Ireland - in the past, you will recall, has been involved in decades of bloodshed, as well as smuggling and other offences on a vast scale. So it's a really serious issue. And this is your "very coherent" contribution to our understanding of this subject.
Click to expand...
Selective quote mining as usual. You can do better than that.

The part you quoted was only a follow-up to my main point that no one wants a hard border, so why is one required? Also, how can we work out what kind of border structures (if any) are needed until we know what they're required to do - and that requires a trade agreement.

None of the posters in this thread have yet addressed these points - they prefer to throw insults around - I suppose that requires less thought and effort.
 
ceptimus said:
Selective quote mining as usual. You can do better than that.

The part you quoted was only a follow-up to my main point that no one wants a hard border, so why is one required? Also, how can we work out what kind of border structures (if any) are needed until we know what they're required to do - and that requires a trade agreement.

None of the posters in this thread have yet addressed these points - they prefer to throw insults around - I suppose that requires less thought and effort.
Click to expand...

I addressed your points, without throwing any insults, and you ignored me.

I'll try again - customs checks are required by international law between any two countries who are not in a customs union together. That answers both your questions - the WTO require it, and the only thing the EU needs to know at this stage to discuss the Irish border is whether or not the UK is staying in the customs union.

Now, would you care to tell us your suggestion as to what the UK government's position should be.
 
ceptimus said:
Selective quote mining as usual. You can do better than that.

The part you quoted was only a follow-up to my main point that no one wants a hard border, so why is one required? Also, how can we work out what kind of border structures (if any) are needed until we know what they're required to do - and that requires a trade agreement.

None of the posters in this thread have yet addressed these points - they prefer to throw insults around - I suppose that requires less thought and effort.
Click to expand...
Posters have addressed these points. This is worth stating again:

Once the single market arrangements and free movement end there will be a requirement for border restrictions and formalities. How will these requirements be met? The Border in Ireland is hugely sensitive, indeed it is steeped in blood. How will this be addressed? May's NI allies are extremist bigots. How will their prejudices be appeased without creating resentment and indignation in other sections of society?
 
ceptimus said:
Selective quote mining as usual. You can do better than that.

The part you quoted was only a follow-up to my main point that no one wants a hard border, so why is one required? Also, how can we work out what kind of border structures (if any) are needed until we know what they're required to do - and that requires a trade agreement.

None of the posters in this thread have yet addressed these points - they prefer to throw insults around - I suppose that requires less thought and effort.
Click to expand...

Because you want to control the movement of people between the EU and the UK. Ireland is part of the EU. If you don't control *that* border, what's to stop goods being shipped into Dublin, then transported to Belfast, and shipped to the rest of the UK?

Presumably you don't want a hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, so that means that you don't want a hard border between the EU and the UK whilst also wanting a hard border between the EU and the UK.
 
Strawberry said:
I'm sure if Ceptimus has a suggestion about where else to put them, he will make it.
Click to expand...
If he suggests a "Border" at the mainland ports and airports receiving persons and goods from NI, he will encounter extreme hostility from the Orange factions whom May is assiduously courting and lavishly bribing.

Imagine the indignation of these people. Travellers, alien by nation and faith, can proceed unimpeded from Dublin even unto the very Walls of Londonderry, while UK citizens desiring to journey from Glasgow to Belfast on the Twelfth of July will be required to cross a de facto frontier! Is this any way to treat loyal subjects of Her Majesty?
 
ceptimus said:
You say, "Then it follows..." But it doesn't follow. By your logic whenever, say, the USA changes its laws or regulations then every country that has a trade agreement with the USA would also have to change its own laws to match. That sometimes does happen of course, but not always. And, of course, the EU already manages to maintain trade agreements with countries such as Canada and those trade agreements don't fall apart when either the EU or Canada change their regulations.

If Canada can maintain a trade deal with the EU, why won't the UK be able to do the same? Hint: it will.
Click to expand...
They can maintain a trade deal by making sure everything the sell into the EU complies with "EU laws, regulations and rules" and so will we. I'm stunned you don't understand that basic fact.
 
The problem is that the politicians need to get out of the way and let the bureaucrats do their work. The decision to leave has been made, we are leaving. We now need real detail work.

Problem is our "top" politicians have never had to do any actual work themselves it's all other people who do their work so they have no idea what is actually involved in us leaving the EU.

Which is why there aren't new customs facilities being built (never mind not even being planned) now, why we aren't expanding the border service and training the thousands of new staff now. And so on.

The road outside Glasgow that is currently being constructed with a 27.67123% contribution by the EU, due to be paid 1st April 2028? What is happening to its funding? That is the level of detail that should be happening by now. (That by the way was a made up example!)

It should by now all be about the detail.

But of course it isn't for the Tories. For the Tories Brexit is -as it always has been - about who gets to be PM, sod the country.
 
jimbob said:
Because you want to control the movement of people between the EU and the UK. Ireland is part of the EU. If you don't control *that* border, what's to stop goods being shipped into Dublin, then transported to Belfast, and shipped to the rest of the UK?

Presumably you don't want a hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, so that means that you don't want a hard border between the EU and the UK whilst also wanting a hard border between the EU and the UK.
Click to expand...

That's where creative fudge comes in.

Why have a hard border when you can have "security checks" or "mobile customs checks" which just mostly happen on ferry routes between Northern Ireland and the UK?;)

The UK can probably risk not having border posts on the land border in Ireland, as the cost of enforcement (financial and political) outweighs the benefits. However it's a much bigger risk for the EU.
 
Aber said:
That's where creative fudge comes in.

Why have a hard border when you can have "security checks" or "mobile customs checks" which just mostly happen on ferry routes between Northern Ireland and the UK?;)

The UK can probably risk not having border posts on the land border in Ireland, as the cost of enforcement (financial and political) outweighs the benefits. However it's a much bigger risk for the EU.
Click to expand...
There will then be unimpeded migration into NI? Will Loyal Ulster be content with that? Xenophobia is no less prevalent in NI than in the rest of the UK.

What about materials moved into NI from third countries via the Republic, and subsequently transported to the mainland UK by sea or air? These will be checked on board? May I say the "creative fudgers" on the planes and ferries are likely to have a heavy workload.
 
And the reason no actual progress has been made on the UK side is that the Tories know there is no deal that will satisfy everyone in their party. And they are all craven gits who are willing to put a knife in the back but never have the courage to be front and centre and accept responsibility for their actions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom