Brexit!! Yeah, it's a thing now..

Now it might be old age, but I remember when at the start of this shower how the press were praising her negotiating ability.
 
It's so pointless. You don't need to negotiate anything now. Never did. You just draw a line with all the trade standards as they are now. Negotiate changes piece by piece going forward. These omnibus trade deals a just too big, too favourable to giant multinationals and too difficult for smaller institutions to understand (too difficult for even large institutions to understand before they are expected to adopt).
 
Well, duh! Whodathunkit?
It is "obvious" there will be a hard border in Ireland in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the European Commission's chief spokesman has said.
Margaritis Schinas made the comments at the commission's daily media briefing.
If he was pushed to speculate what might happen in a no-deal scenario, he said, it was "pretty obvious you will have a hard border".
However, the Irish government has repeated its stance that it will "not accept a hard border on this island".
Click to expand...

The reduction in bombings and terrorist murders has made the UK more boring anyway.
Let's bring back the excitement with a bang.
Well, lots of bangs.
 
Robert said:
Well, duh! Whodathunkit?


The reduction in bombings and terrorist murders has made the UK more boring anyway.
Let's bring back the excitement with a bang.
Well, lots of bangs.
Click to expand...
If Ireland won't accept one and the UK won't accept one and there is no deal with Europe then there won't be one. - Unless the EU wants to go to war over it.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
If Ireland won't accept one and the UK won't accept one and there is no deal with Europe then there won't be one. - Unless the EU wants to go to war over it.
Click to expand...
Like most of this farce, it's not that simple.
Both Ireland and the UK will have no choice but to accept a border - and the potential upheaval that comes with it - if the UK leaves the EU without any deal - unless Ireland also leaves, which they won't anytime soon.

Current EU rules mean any country which has no agreement with the EU over movement of people and goods has to have a "hard" border.
This means there will be a border, unless a "deal" of some sort is done to avoid it. In other words, not a "no-deal".
Bluster about "not accepting" a border won't make any difference.

None of this is new information - it was mentioned on this very thread over a year ago - but some politicians and parts of the press who have been persistently claiming otherwise are now pretending to be surprised.
 
Robert said:
Like most of this farce, it's not that simple.
Both Ireland and the UK will have no choice but to accept a border - and the potential upheaval that comes with it - if the UK leaves the EU without any deal - unless Ireland also leaves, which they won't anytime soon.

Current EU rules mean any country which has no agreement with the EU over movement of people and goods has to have a "hard" border.
This means there will be a border, unless a "deal" of some sort is done to avoid it. In other words, not a "no-deal".
Bluster about "not accepting" a border won't make any difference.

None of this is new information - it was mentioned on this very thread over a year ago - but some politicians and parts of the press who have been persistently claiming otherwise are now pretending to be surprised.
Click to expand...
The only way the EU can enforce a hard border is by enforcing it outside of Ireland and making the businesses that trade with Ireland abide by that decision, or by war or naval blockade - or by freezing the assets of Irish politicians.
 
I believe I heard the SNP guy say he wanted to get Scotland to be Independent because they (Scotland) didn't vote for this Brexit crap.

sounds good to me :)
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
The only way the EU can enforce a hard border is by enforcing it outside of Ireland and making the businesses that trade with Ireland abide by that decision, or by war or naval blockade - or by freezing the assets of Irish politicians.
Click to expand...
That depends on your definition of "enforce".
The EU has many ways it can punish Ireland if they don't comply with their rules.
 
cecilia said:
I believe I heard the SNP guy say he wanted to get Scotland to be Independent because they (Scotland) didn't vote for this Brexit crap.

sounds good to me :)
Click to expand...
Sounds good to me too.

Unfortunately whatever SNP guy you heard is almost as deluded as the right-wing nutters who claim "no-deal" will have no consequences.
Appetite for Scottish independence has subsided, partly because the SNP have squandered a lot of good will and are now rather unpopular compared to a few years ago.
 
Robert said:
That depends on your definition of "enforce".
The EU has many ways it can punish Ireland if they don't comply with their rules.
Click to expand...
Which is more or less the point. There is no natural law here - but there is a corporation (in the general sense) that must punish to force compliance to their will, as they did in Greece and to a certain extent in Italy - and that ability to compel has to be balanced against the reaction to that compulsion. Sanctions against Iraq hurt the country but hurt Saddam much less, partly because of his political domination, but also because the population rightly recognised the American aggression. Punishing Ireland could favour the political left which is starting to recognize the EU as the neo-liberal project it is. As an Island, and a part of the Angloshpere, Ireland's natural ally (and massive bargaining chip) is the UK and US axis.

However, since Ireland has been a net recipient of EU subsidies, they are basically a bought nation - and cutting the subsidies will hurt - but other countries have money to spare - will a subsidy cut simply drive the Irish to find a new friend with cash? I don't think the EU has as strong a hand as the ruling classes receiving the cheques are trying to make it sound.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Which is more or less the point. There is no natural law here - but there is a corporation (in the general sense) that must punish to force compliance to their will, as they did in Greece and to a certain extent in Italy - and that ability to compel has to be balanced against the reaction to that compulsion.
Click to expand...

As things stand, Ireland is very much on the side of the EU and vice-versa.
Ireland's claims of not accepting a border are aimed at the UK, not the EU.
They don't appear to have any intention of defying the EU but if they did....

However, since Ireland has been a net recipient of EU subsidies, they are basically a bought nation - and cutting the subsidies will hurt - but other countries have money to spare - will a subsidy cut simply drive the Irish to find a new friend with cash?
Click to expand...
That's a part of it but doesn't really convey the problem which has been looming for the last couple of years.

To put it more simply and starkly - Ireland may ultimately be left with the choice of either:
a) accept a hard border and all that might mean
b) prepare to leave the EU on similar terms to the UK

If it comes to that, I'd expect them to choose the first option.

I don't think the EU has as strong a hand as the ruling classes receiving the cheques are trying to make it sound.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not but it's easy to play imaginary poker when you don't have a potential outbreak of murder and terrorism to worry about if your bluff fails.
 
Robert said:
To put it more simply and starkly - Ireland may ultimately be left with the choice of either:
a) accept a hard border and all that might mean
b) prepare to leave the EU on similar terms to the UK
Click to expand...
An option (b) which is more attractive if the UK leave without a deal.
Perhaps not but it's easy to play imaginary poker when you don't have a potential outbreak of murder and terrorism to worry about if your bluff fails.
Click to expand...
Yes, the EU could fund proxy forces to stir things up to the point where both sides militarise the border. That is an option. However, there would be plenty of motivation to expose those connections too and I don't suppose it would play well in public (or, in the absence of facts it's still a productive propaganda ploy if violence is organic).
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Yes, the EU could fund proxy forces to stir things up to the point where both sides militarise the border.
Click to expand...

The EU?
They won't have to do anything.
There were two car bombs in Londonderry last week. It wasn't the EU who planted them.
 
Robert said:
The EU?
They won't have to do anything.
There were two car bombs in Londonderry last week. It wasn't the EU who planted them.
Click to expand...
Who want border friction? The US isn't ISIS either but they do seem to bomb things that seem to need bombing. There is no real reason to bomb at this time. The troubles wrapped up with political agreement in 1998 and the demographic that does bombings tends to be young adult males, who, in this case, will have grown up in peace time. Who are the bombers and how were they radicalised?
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Who want border friction?
Click to expand...

Ah, can always rely on you for a good conspiracy theory.:p
The troubles wrapped up with political agreement in 1998....
Click to expand...
"Wrapped up" depends on your definition.
There is no real reason to bomb at this time.
Click to expand...
There have been bombings and shootings almost every year since 1998, usually claimed by some dissident republican group.
By the same logic, perhaps they've all been radicalised by the EU? After all, there was "no real reason to bomb". Or perhaps religion, civil rights or nationalism still raise enough tension to drive some to violence?

Come to think of it, "Bloody Sunday" was in 1972.
That's just one year before the UK *and* Ireland both joined the EEC.
Maybe "Europe" were behind that too and everything "troubles-related" since.
Too much of a coincidence not to be, eh?

in this case, will have grown up in peace time.
Click to expand...

As above, only for a given definition of "peace time".
Irish republican extremism didn't go away in 1998. However, it has reduced dramatically and part of that has been attributed to the introduction of the "soft-border" in 1993.
Then again, maybe it was just the EU easing back on the radicalisation programmes... :D
 
Last edited:
cecilia said:
I believe I heard the SNP guy say he wanted to get Scotland to be Independent because they (Scotland) didn't vote for this Brexit crap.

sounds good to me :)
Click to expand...
The SNP were already looking like a busted flush before today.
Now this:
Former Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has appeared in court charged with attempted rape and sexual assault.
He faced a total of 14 charges at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, also including breach of the peace and indecent assault.
Click to expand...

Salmond was pretty much the face of the independence movement.

His alleged criminal behaviour shouldn't be a factor in whether or not Scots favour independence.
But it will.
For some people at least.

And the jokes are already flying about:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1088388292595384321
https://twitter.com/x/status/1088459612485869568
 
Robert said:
There have been bombings and shootings almost every year since 1998, usually claimed by some dissident republican group.
Click to expand...
I did not realise there had been ongoing bombings. I left the UK in 1982 and I thought that the political solution of 1998 had ended all that as I heard no further news of troubles out here in Canada. If it has been an ongoing problem then there is nothing special about it happening now but I had thought that this was something new and the implication was that the border issue was behind it. Apparently that is not the case. Further to that, then there is no reason going forward that it should be the case in the future - in other words, this seems now like a red herring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top