Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
    Referring to all deserts as "Pudding" is a particularly English thing. I always find it strange.

    Savory pudding is usually a kind of sausage.
    In Ireland doesn't pudding commonly cross the line into cannibalism?

    I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gooner View Post

      Is the EU willing to negotiate?

      Personally I was in favour of having the negotiations out in the open. PMTM unfortunately was not.
      Is the UK government/PM prepared to erase some of those self-imposed "red lines"? If so, there might be something to talk about. The recent spate of UK parliamentary activity, not really...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
        No. It was pointing out the rather obvious fact that not every place works like the USA does. Nor would they want to.
        That's the kind of retort I'd expect from one of those Trump thumpers. Now you share two traits with that crowd.

        Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
        The problem is that 'chaff' you are so anxious to get rid off.
        You mean working, tax-paying, productive members of society?

        Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
        What you so arrogantly refer to as 'chaff' are still people.
        So? People or not, does that give them a sovereign right to perpetually sponge off of those who actually crawl out of bed every morning and work for a living?

        Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
        I'm not a Bible thumper so i have really no idea of that.
        But Finland is ostensibly a Cristian nation, going back several centuries, no? Apart from Christianity's inheritance, is there really any other point of cultural commonality that unites the disparate constituents of "Western Civilization"? I mean, is there a strong Greek or Latin influence on Finnish philosophy or culture? There certainly isn't on Finish language.

        Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
        If that is how you measure things then no wonder why your opinions are so offworldish (or is it outlandish?) to me. We don't really measure things like that here. Try learning of the Law of Jante for example.
        We're talking about jobs, right? Employment is a function of demand, demand for goods, demand for services. What do Finns do that the world demands?

        A conversation like this I can have with any one of the Trump lovers you view so contemptuously. Why on earth would you imitate their kind of deliberate obtuseness?

        Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
        Yes. It was a study. And one which is i believe the government messed up so that its result won't really actually be representative of anything.
        Have you a dog in that race, so to speak?

        Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
        Experimenting with basic income is for the future since practically all predictions indicate that in the future there simply won't be jobs for every one.
        Yeah, and I once heard that Tinder can end prostitution as we know it. Within the context of a modern developed economy, for any who are interested in actually separating their posteriors from their couches, there will always be ample opportunity for gainful employment.

        Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
        So in the end (not the one tested) the idea behind it is to create a system where the system guarantees basic income but with the caveat that any work actually done would contribute on top of it. So that there would be incentive to go to part time jobs and but without throwing the unemployed people under the bus either.
        In Japan they call them "hikikomori." In plain English they're called bums. As long as some one else is willing to pay the tab, there will always be some piece of garbage willing to feign an anxiety disorder as a means of sponging off of them. Natural Selection would have them just die off. Come to think of it, not even Christian theology dictates that we save bums from themselves. Even Bolsheviks dictated that those who do no work should enjoy no benefit. I see no problem with Natural Selection. My question to you is, since when did you convert to a simple-minded form of Christianity or socialism?
        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

        Comment


        • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
          That's the kind of retort I'd expect from one of those Trump thumpers. Now you share two traits with that crowd.
          Yet it is a cold and hard fact. And something you need to realize if you intend to have this discussion. The US society is seen as alien and not something people would like to emulate. I guess you could say that here we try to view and rate the societies according to how to they treat those who are least well off.
          You mean working, tax-paying, productive members of society?
          The chaff you thought to get rid off.
          So? People or not, does that give them a sovereign right to perpetually sponge off of those who actually crawl out of bed every morning and work for a living?
          And here we see the chasm between the values the societies have. I would probably have better luck trying to explain how the system works here to a Martian.
          But Finland is ostensibly a Cristian nation, going back several centuries, no? Apart from Christianity's inheritance, is there really any other point of cultural commonality that unites the disparate constituents of "Western Civilization"? I mean, is there a strong Greek or Latin influence on Finnish philosophy or culture? There certainly isn't on Finish language.
          Religion, The Norden
          Watch for about 30 seconds (fairly good description as to how religion is viewed here). Nominally christian is probably the best description.
          We're talking about jobs, right? Employment is a function of demand, demand for goods, demand for services. What do Finns do that the world demands?
          And in general. If you ask that you really didn't understand the law of Jante. Besides if we do not produce anything special then there are very good reasons for use to have that global trade regulated in order to for us ourselves to have jobs. If there would not be jobs here then there wouldn't be any one to buy those imported goods either so without that regulation every one would stand to lose.
          Have you a dog in that race, so to speak?
          Personally? No. I don't know any one who would. I however do believe that progression in the post-industrial society with increasing automation will lead to reduction of jobs to a level where unemployment is not dependent on people 'actually separating their posteriors from their couches' like you so arrogantly put it.
          In Japan they call them "hikikomori." In plain English they're called bums. As long as some one else is willing to pay the tab, there will always be some piece of garbage willing to feign an anxiety disorder as a means of sponging off of them. Natural Selection would have them just die off. Come to think of it, not even Christian theology dictates that we save bums from themselves. Even Bolsheviks dictated that those who do no work should enjoy no benefit. I see no problem with Natural Selection. My question to you is, since when did you convert to a simple-minded form of Christianity or socialism?
          Yet if there are no jobs then are no jobs. If USA aims screw its own people by not preparing for such that is their choice. Perhaps Bolsheviks and USA have far more in common than any one thought.
          It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
            Is the UK government/PM prepared to erase some of those self-imposed "red lines"? If so, there might be something to talk about. The recent spate of UK parliamentary activity, not really...

            Has the 'backstop' now become an EU "red line"?
            The something to talk about is a deal with no backstop or no deal and no backstop.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
              Not blind loyalty. The EU has made its stance known couple of years back. Things listed in the suggested plan go against them.
              Haha, your own words betray you.

              If you follow the link that was provided then the the ones that are listed as amendments.

              "2. All relevant parties, namely the European Union, the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, agree not to place physical infrastructure or introduce related checks and controls on the Irish border in any circumstances. If the parties have not negotiated arrangements to guarantee this objective by the end of the Transition Period, the New Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland shall come into effect

              6. Nothing in the New Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland shall imply the creation, existence or maintenance of a single customs territory between the European Union and the United Kingdom."

              https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/bf4...ern_135205.pdf

              Most of the document explains how they could work. It's only a problem if the EU seeks to make it one.

              Seriously? Is that what you imagine? EU GDP is around $19T, divorce settlement is about $48B so what you are describing is about a quarter of a percent of the EU GDP except in this case the impact would be spread over several years so it would be even smaller. It's share of the EU's own budged is more sizable - about 30% of it but then again EU's budget is very small to begin with. Even if it came to the very worst it would still be just $100 per EU citizen. So I'm fairly confident that it won't be ruining the EU economy.
              Well about $16.5T EU GDP after the UK leaves.
              Of course it won't ruin the economies of the EU nations. It may ruin the spending plans of the EU itself though. And better in our pocket than yours.

              Seriously speaking the EU doesn't need it but it is a legal consequence of the separation so it is insisted upon. In order to create that clean break the UK so wished.
              It is not a legal consequence of the separation under UK law. That'll be the one that counts when we leave.
              The EU could, of course, put the settlement fee to independent arbitration. I rather think they wouldn't though. They will end up with a lot less than demanded and possibly actually owe the UK money due to the fair splitting of assets.

              The EU rejection of that is reported elsewhere too. So that line of argumentation doesn't help your case at all.
              Why did you link those articles then? Like most articles in the Grauniad it is without any semblance of balance.

              As to the rest... If the technology exists why are you objecting to the backstop? If it truly is as trivial and easy as you describe surely the new system could be implemented before the transition period would end? Because in such a case the backstop would never even be triggered. So what exactly is your problem with it? Or is that the technology doesn't really exist in a version that could be reliably adapted to the border?
              The backstop can only be removed with the EUs consent. And if its not Northern Ireland will in the EU customs union and not the UKs. That is unacceptable.

              And If you honestly think there aren't already more porous borders in the EU than are ever likely between Northern and the Republic of Ireland I would consider you a bit daft.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                Haha, your own words betray you.
                So you are saying that if i happen to agree with the EU then i can not have formed my opinion? By similar analogue since you happen to agree with Pro-Brexit crowd doesn't that make you into a just another mindless drone? Or how exactly do those double standards of yours work?
                Most of the document explains how they could work. It's only a problem if the EU seeks to make it one.
                The difference here is that the EU wants a workable solution, not something which 'could work'. The whole point of the backstop is to make sure that in case it does not 'work' the open border on the island of Ireland could still be preserved. If the UK believed those solutions would actually work then they should have no objections to the backstop - after all if the solutions promised do work the backstop would never be even triggered. The only conclusion which can be drawn is that no one in the UK has that elusive solution to the border issue.
                Of course it won't ruin the economies of the EU nations. It may ruin the spending plans of the EU itself though. And better in our pocket than yours.
                Doubtful. It may force the EU to halt funding some public projects (blame for which will be placed to the British) for a bit that is all.
                The EU could, of course, put the settlement fee to independent arbitration. I rather think they wouldn't though. They will end up with a lot less than demanded and possibly actually owe the UK money due to the fair splitting of assets.
                They won't. It will likely be placed as a precondition for starting any kind of trade related discussions. There is no need for the UK to pay it but then again there is no need for the EU to make a trade agreement with the UK either.
                Why did you link those articles then? Like most articles in the Grauniad it is without any semblance of balance.
                Blame google. Those were the top results. I don't really care to delve too deeply into UK's internal political ballet and related theatrics so it is as good as any.
                The backstop can only be removed with the EUs consent. And if its not Northern Ireland will in the EU customs union and not the UKs. That is unacceptable.
                Well.. It is an international agreement. So i can't really think of a reason why the UK could not withdraw (cause a material breach) from it unilaterally (Vienna Convention, Art. 60 i think). It might hurt the UK reputation a bit though. And it would almost certainly crash the whole of the treaty. Besides the EU does not want to use the backstop. Granted that it is difficult to see to the future but i would be surprised if the EU wouldn't move to terminate the backstop the moment a workable solution is found - as many believe it gives far too much to the UK.
                And If you honestly think there aren't already more porous borders in the EU than are ever likely between Northern and the Republic of Ireland I would consider you a bit daft.
                That is mostly irrelevant. It is the international legal consequences which truly matter. Also as said before the EU will not allow that border to undermine the core structures of the EU.
                It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

                Comment


                • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                  Especially when you consider what you blokes call pudding: gelatinized animal entrails.

                  Here's a rather humorous treatment of the subject:



                  Nice plug in there for the late great Frank Deford, as well.

                  Then again, given how . . . . unappealing English pudding is, maybe the phrase derived from the test for determining alcohol content.



                  So does that mean that you had to burn the pudding to know if it was any good?
                  Re the last bit about burning the pudding. It is common to set alight a Christmas pudding to demonstrate that you have put sufficient branding and over alcoholis beverages into it.
                  "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
                    So you are saying that if i happen to agree with the EU then i can not have formed my opinion?
                    Yes. Or, better, I've not seen an opinion of yours that differs from the EU line or any criticism of such.

                    The difference here is that the EU wants a workable solution, not something which 'could work'. The whole point of the backstop is to make sure that in case it does not 'work' the open border on the island of Ireland could still be preserved.
                    A smart border can work. Is that better?

                    At over 300 miles long and with over 200 crossing points I think the EU must be insane if it thinks there can even be a hard border in Ireland.

                    If the UK believed those solutions would actually work then they should have no objections to the backstop - after all if the solutions promised do work the backstop would never be even triggered.


                    The only conclusion which can be drawn is that no one in the UK has that elusive solution to the border issue.
                    The smart border can only work between co-operative and friendly neighbours. If the EU refuses to be co-operative and friendly over it, what can they UK do.

                    They won't. It will likely be placed as a precondition for starting any kind of trade related discussions. There is no need for the UK to pay it but then again there is no need for the EU to make a trade agreement with the UK either.
                    Nope. The EU wants £39 billion regardless of any agreement or indeed negotiations. You probably now agree with this position.
                    Sure there is no need for the EU to have a trade agreement with its neighbour and largest export market.


                    Well.. It is an international agreement. So i can't really think of a reason why the UK could not withdraw (cause a material breach) from it unilaterally (Vienna Convention, Art. 60 i think). It might hurt the UK reputation a bit though. And it would almost certainly crash the whole of the treaty.
                    You can't think of a reason why the UK could not withdraw from the treaty and then give two reasons why they would not.

                    Besides the EU does not want to use the backstop.
                    It wants the UK locked into the customs union.

                    Granted that it is difficult to see to the future but i would be surprised if the EU wouldn't move to terminate the backstop the moment a workable solution is found - as many believe it gives far too much to the UK.
                    Yeah, sure.

                    Comment


                    • This is worth a read on the backstop and why it is unacceptable: https://policyexchange.org.uk/public...sis-a-way-out/
                      The ‘Backstop’ Paralysis: A Way Out

                      Or just the summary:

                      1. The UK Government has allowed the Irish Government to weaponise the 1998 Good Friday Agreement in a way that prevents compromise on the Backstop. This partial reading of the Good Friday Agreement risks generating further difficulties for the peace process in Northern Ireland.
                      2. The Backstop, by placing key areas of North-South co-operation under the operation of a new regime, without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly, would turn the Good Friday Agreement on its head.
                      3. Unless the delicate structure of the Good Friday Agreement is preserved, the current deterioration in North-South relations might intensify in unpredictable and dangerous ways. Unionists especially could regard the Backstop as a betrayal.
                      4. But the opportunity remains for Britain to defend the Good Friday Agreement and transform the terms of the debate around the Withdrawal Agreement of 2018.
                      5. This is because, alongside the Good Friday Agreement, the UK and Irish Governments signed the British-Irish Agreement of 1998, which pledges a ‘solemn commitment’ to the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement in international law. The UK Government must insist that these are preserved and that the Backstop is made temporary – in explicit and legally binding terms.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                        It wants the UK locked into the customs union.
                        That would be better for everyone, but the EU only wants it if the UK does so as well.

                        The backstop was the British government's idea and construct.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                          This is worth a read on the backstop and why it is unacceptable: https://policyexchange.org.uk/public...sis-a-way-out/
                          The ‘Backstop’ Paralysis: A Way Out

                          Or just the summary:

                          1. The UK Government has allowed the Irish Government to weaponise the 1998 Good Friday Agreement in a way that prevents compromise on the Backstop. This partial reading of the Good Friday Agreement risks generating further difficulties for the peace process in Northern Ireland.
                          2. The Backstop, by placing key areas of North-South co-operation under the operation of a new regime, without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly, would turn the Good Friday Agreement on its head.
                          3. Unless the delicate structure of the Good Friday Agreement is preserved, the current deterioration in North-South relations might intensify in unpredictable and dangerous ways. Unionists especially could regard the Backstop as a betrayal.
                          4. But the opportunity remains for Britain to defend the Good Friday Agreement and transform the terms of the debate around the Withdrawal Agreement of 2018.
                          5. This is because, alongside the Good Friday Agreement, the UK and Irish Governments signed the British-Irish Agreement of 1998, which pledges a ‘solemn commitment’ to the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement in international law. The UK Government must insist that these are preserved and that the Backstop is made temporary – in explicit and legally binding terms.
                          That's just emotive gibberish which turns the facts on their head.
                          The UK government is the main architect of the Backstop. It was done so in order to preserve "the delicate structure of the Good Friday Agreement".
                          The Backstop is the thing which "defend(s) the Good Friday Agreement"
                          What "new regime" are they talking about?
                          The GFA is predicated on the UK being in the EU and there being an open border. It is the UK which is, in effect, changing the GFA simply by leaving the EU.

                          If that's the sort of garbage and lies which passes for analysis in the UK then it's no wonder so many people there are confused and think the EU is hostile and/or adversarial. Although even a cursory level of examination of the facts would so it to be nonsense.
                          "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
                          validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
                          "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                            Yes. Or, better, I've not seen an opinion of yours that differs from the EU line or any criticism of such.
                            Mainly because i find it fairly difficult to find much flaws in it. They set the goals very early on. They informed the UK of the limits the EU would not be crossing, even gave the UK a notice of the reasons why certain things would be impossible. They have backed the Republic of Ireland the all the way - making sure the interests of the EU27 and the ROI are both kept at forefront. I'm not fond of the backstop but i haven't personally been able to figure what else could have been done within the limitation described above. I would have hoped that they would have made several smaller agreements on other topics too instead of one huge all-in-one package.

                            However contrary to your delusions i do not think the EU is perfect or infallible. The mess they made with Greece underlines that - even though it wasn't the EU but the Eurozone (not the same thing). The handling was awful. IMO they should have left those banks which lent (sp?) too much to face the heat - thrown their CEOs to the pyres. And then used the EU funds to help the private individuals who might have suffered. Then again the Greece was leaking money like a sieve and it too needed to be made stop doing it. Would they have done so if they would have been left off the hook? I don't know.
                            A smart border can work. Is that better?
                            All you need to do is to prove it. If it is that easy (like you repeatedly claim) why is it so complicated for the UK to prove it?
                            If the UK believed that the 'alternative methods' what ever they might be would be functional and could be applied before the end of the transition period why are they complaining so much about the backstop which would not even come to effect if anything you wrote were true.
                            The smart border can only work between co-operative and friendly neighbours. If the EU refuses to be co-operative and friendly over it, what can they UK do.
                            Assuming the WA is agreed the UK has the whole transition period time to prove and demonstrate how that smart border would work. The EU is co-operative and even welcoming to the concept but it won't place its bets on hoping that a solution which no one has yet been able to describe in detail would be workable and functional by the time the transition period ends. That is the reason why the backstop is needed. The EU hopes that the suggested solutions would work but they ain't going to be trusting blindly on them like you seem to be doing.

                            Keep in mind that person who stated the very things you said - Raab about rejecting May's Brexit - is the same person who in public hearing managed to testify that despite of having being the Minister responsible for Brexit he has never read the 35 page long GFA (essentially stating that it was too boring for him, not too 'cracking to read'). So you shouldn't be surprised if the EU stance towards the alternative methods can roughly be summarized that they will trust them when they see them actually working.
                            Nope. The EU wants £39 billion regardless of any agreement or indeed negotiations. You probably now agree with this position.
                            Sure there is no need for the EU to have a trade agreement with its neighbour and largest export market.
                            The EU wants the UK shoulder its share of the responsibilities. But it seems that 'shouldering responsibility' seems somewhat alien concept for some. Don't get me wrong here, the EU would like to have that trade agreement but it is very likely that the divorce payment need to be done before that.
                            You can't think of a reason why the UK could not withdraw from the treaty and then give two reasons why they would not.
                            I'm not sure what you are smoking. I merely analyzed the options available and the probable consequences there-off. Besides i didn't say the UK could not leave - i said the UK could cause 'a material breach' to the agreement and renege it (assuming i got the terms right - but you should get the message regardless) so there always is a 'way out'.
                            It wants the UK locked into the customs union.
                            If that was all of it, then maybe. But it ain't. It also gives privileged access to the EU for the UK. From the EU point of view: the sooner we can rid off the backstop the better. It gives very little to the EU at the expense of allowing the UK to have access.
                            It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

                            Comment


                            • Just a thought. The GFA is a treaty that is equally binding on both the UK and the Republic of Ireland. If the UK leaves without an agreement but takes no steps to set up a hard border but the RoI is forced by EU legal requirements to do so then it is the RoI that has unilaterally broken an international treaty. Would there be an International Court in which the UK could bring a case?
                              Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                              Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MarkV View Post
                                Just a thought. The GFA is a treaty that is equally binding on both the UK and the Republic of Ireland. If the UK leaves without an agreement but takes no steps to set up a hard border but the RoI is forced by EU legal requirements to do so then it is the RoI that has unilaterally broken an international treaty. Would there be an International Court in which the UK could bring a case?
                                Good question. I think the fact that the change would be a consequence of the action of the UK would mean they would be seem as the party which changed the agreement and the border would be a result of their action.
                                "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
                                validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
                                "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X