vc10 wrote:

I wonder if, just for my benefit, you could tell me what some of these other options were.which did not involve the UK having to pay a huge sum of money to the EU so as to allow their companies to trade with the UK

You still don't get it. The so called bill is just asking the UK to write down that they will pay their commitments and share of pensions. There is no link whatsoever with a trade deal besides in the mind of some retarded politicians.

vc10 wrote:

Hard Brexit has never been the first choice of the, but rather the last choice . The UK just wants to trade with the EU and does not want to get involved with all the political
jurisdiction that goes along with being a member of the EU,

Maybe but hey knew what the EU was up to, long before it joined: The Rome treaty is the EU foundation and the gaols are clearly speed. UK tried rather unsuccessfully to sabotage from the inside for 40 years. Since the brexit vote, the UK is making "generous" offers for trade that just have one problem: they are against EU pillars and they know it.

vc10 wrote:

I wonder if, just for my benefit, you could tell me what some of these other options were.which did not involve the UK having to pay a huge sum of money to the EU so as to allow their companies to trade with the UK

As for Northern Ireland we offer them a vote on staying with the UK or leaving, but either way would seem to require a hard border. If they leave it would only be after Eire agrees to take on responsibility for pension payments for all those living in Northern Island, offers a fair payment for assets in N.I. which will be transferred to Eire, and also accepts the end of the 1922 agreement . which allows free movement between Eire and the UK

Hard Brexit has never been the first choice of the, but rather the last choice . The UK just wants to trade with the EU and does not want to get involved with all the political
jurisdiction that goes along with being a member of the EU,

The payment isn't meant to allow trade. It's meant to avoid a rupture in ties over existing commitments and liabilities.

Once it's sorted out, Britain can pursue a Canada-style trade deal, which comes with no EU political jurisdiction or payment requirements. Its a standard third party deal that allows trade with the EU, but for whatever reason, Brits don't seem to like the idea of being treated like any other third country. At least that's how I interpreted the Florence speech.

Oldog, If you are correct then why does the EU keep saying that trade talks cannot begin unless we pay in full what they say we owe them.to cover our obligations

Now the important word in the last sentence w as "THEY" as just because the EU say something does not necessarily make it true. They must have some evidence to demand this or is it just some figure plucked out of the air.
Yes we did join the " European Common Market ", but a market is exactly what we thought we had joined . Now that has evolved into the EU over many years ,and many new treaties, but the British public has never been allowed to vote on whether that was the path we wanted to take, until last year when for many reasons the UK population voted to leave So as that is part of the :Lisbon Treaty that a country can leave, why not discuss our leaving obligations .

vc10 wrote:

Oldog, If you are correct then why does the EU keep saying that trade talks cannot begin unless we pay in full what they say we owe them.to cover our obligations

Now the important word in the last sentence w as "THEY" as just because the EU say something does not necessarily make it true. They must have some evidence to demand this or is it just some figure plucked out of the air.
Yes we did join the " European Common Market ", but a market is exactly what we thought we had joined . Now that has evolved into the EU over many years ,and many new treaties, but the British public has never been allowed to vote on whether that was the path we wanted to take, until last year when for many reasons the UK population voted to leave So as that is part of the :Lisbon Treaty that a country can leave, why not discuss our leaving obligations .

I won't speak for Olddog, but it's fairly obvious that it's difficult, if not impossible, to agree a trade deal with a country with which you have an active dispute, financial or otherwise. This is straightforward logic.

As for the amount, the UK is making an offer now to resolve the financial dispute, to pave the way for trade negotiations. One assumes that they have validated part or all of the EU's calculations in order to reach this figure.

The UK can refuse to pay and walk away, if it wants. It would be mistaken, however, to believe that paying existing obligations would provide it with more access than a country like Canada would get. Canada did not owe the EU any amount of money when it's negotiations with the EU began. The UK is paying the money so that it can enter negotiations on the same footing as Canada. Or Norway.

ElPistolero wrote:

vc10 wrote:

I wonder if, just for my benefit, you could tell me what some of these other options were.which did not involve the UK having to pay a huge sum of money to the EU so as to allow their companies to trade with the UK

As for Northern Ireland we offer them a vote on staying with the UK or leaving, but either way would seem to require a hard border. If they leave it would only be after Eire agrees to take on responsibility for pension payments for all those living in Northern Island, offers a fair payment for assets in N.I. which will be transferred to Eire, and also accepts the end of the 1922 agreement . which allows free movement between Eire and the UK

Hard Brexit has never been the first choice of the, but rather the last choice . The UK just wants to trade with the EU and does not want to get involved with all the political
jurisdiction that goes along with being a member of the EU,

The payment isn't meant to allow trade. It's meant to avoid a rupture in ties over existing commitments and liabilities.

Once it's sorted out, Britain can pursue a Canada-style trade deal, which comes with no EU political jurisdiction or payment requirements. Its a standard third party deal that allows trade with the EU, but for whatever reason, Brits don't seem to like the idea of being treated like any other third country. At least that's how I interpreted the Florence speech.

The Same interpretation here.

vc10 wrote:

Oldog, If you are correct then why does the EU keep saying that trade talks cannot begin unless we pay in full what they say we owe them.to cover our obligations

Now the important word in the last sentence w as "THEY" as just because the EU say something does not necessarily make it true. They must have some evidence to demand this or is it just some figure plucked out of the air.
Yes we did join the " European Common Market ", but a market is exactly what we thought we had joined . Now that has evolved into the EU over many years ,and many new treaties, but the British public has never been allowed to vote on whether that was the path we wanted to take, until last year when for many reasons the UK population voted to leave So as that is part of the :Lisbon Treaty that a country can leave, why not discuss our leaving obligations .

The EU does not ask the UK to pay but to write down officially what the UK recognize you are committed to pay. And they want that because they don't trust just words. I think all EU countries had to deal with perfidious albion....

In your mind, you may have joined just a common market, but your politicians were perfectly aware about the EU goals, the Rome treaty is not a secret.. You may have forgotten but in the sixties, UK was trying to build a competing structure that was just a market, and it failed.

vc10 wrote:

Oldog, If you are correct then why does the EU keep saying that trade talks cannot begin unless we pay in full what they say we owe them.to cover our obligations

Now the important word in the last sentence w as "THEY" as just because the EU say something does not necessarily make it true. They must have some evidence to demand this or is it just some figure plucked out of the air.

They obviously have some paperwork, they never said that there is that one amount X and this is amount is not open to accounts scrutiny. I would also be pretty sure that EU Budget and Project budgets together with data from Eurostat regarding EU employee numbers and ages would allow you to get to a a number in that ballpark, if you should decide to invest the time.
That will never be just one number, it is for example hard to say how many EU employees will retire early or what average live expectancy will be at the time they retire.

Trade talks can not beginn before that is out of the way, for the very simple reason that there is no need to negotiate any treaty with someone that doesn't keep commitments.
You know, fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice...

Best regards
Thomas

vc10 wrote:

If you are correct then why does the EU keep saying that trade talks cannot begin unless we pay in full what they say we owe them.to cover our obligation

I don't know where you are reading that, but that is not what the EU is asking for. The EU wants the UK to step up to the plate and acknowledge just what is owed. They don't want payment before trade talks begin.

vc10 wrote:

mmo wrote:

mmo wrote:

I think the EU has made it very clear what their position is. Why should that derail the talks when the UK refuses to consider anything other than a hard Brexit. There are plenty of options the EU has suggested and all have been turned down by the UK. You seem to be confused as the UK was the one who made the decision to leave.

I wonder if, just for my benefit, you could tell me what some of these other options were.which did not involve the UK having to pay a huge sum of money to the EU so as to allow their companies to trade with the UK

As for Northern Ireland we offer them a vote on staying with the UK or leaving, but either way would seem to require a hard border. If they leave it would only be after Eire agrees to take on responsibility for pension payments for all those living in Northern Island, offers a fair payment for assets in N.I. which will be transferred to Eire, and also accepts the end of the 1922 agreement . which allows free movement between Eire and the UK

Hard Brexit has never been the first choice of the, but rather the last choice . The UK just wants to trade with the EU and does not want to get involved with all the political
jurisdiction that goes along with being a member of the EU,

Northern Ireland did vote and they voted to remain! So, I don't know what your point is there. You ask for me to state some of the other options are, and my response is read the papers. There are plenty of pieces on that. For instance, have NI remain in the customs union. That would solve the issue of goods. As it is, the UK is going to be in a position where they have to hire 5000 customs/immigration officials. This I have to see.

Again, you seem confused about the divorce setlement. That sum is not to move onto trace but to acknowledge the funds are in fact, owed.

mmo wrote:

vc10 wrote:

If you are correct then why does the EU keep saying that trade talks cannot begin unless we pay in full what they say we owe them.to cover our obligation

I don't know where you are reading that, but that is not what the EU is asking for. The EU wants the UK to step up to the plate and acknowledge just what is owed. They don't want payment before trade talks begin.

Stapped approach: first settle the deforce then talks about the future. Not that strange.

And also take into account, to put some pressure on the UK government / Brexiteers to shift in their mindset: only good things will happen with the Brexit.

When Liam Fox tells the UK voters that the RoI border can't be solved before a trade deal is allowed, HE IS JUST A FUCKING LIAR.

The border problem comes from the fact that May has chosen to enforce the Brexit vote, not as a Norway option as touted by Farage and Owen before the vote, but as a total break from the single market and the custom union.

The closest deal left is something like the Canada deal. And it means a border somewhere in all cases.

mmo wrote:

I think the EU has made it very clear what their position is. Why should that derail the talks when the UK refuses to consider anything other than a hard Brexit. There are plenty of options the EU has suggested and all have been turned down by the UK. You seem to be confused as the UK was the one who made the decision to leave.

The UK has said they are leaving the EU, to them that means leaving the Customs Union and the jurisdiction of the ECJ, essentially they want to get rid of the four pillars.
Ireland says that to avoid a hard border they could remain in the customs union or leave NI in the union, as we all know one must have the 4 pillars for those, the option of paying dues without representation at the table was not given to the public as an option and most polls seem to indicate the public would not accept such an arrangement.
Now we are hearing rumor's that the divorce bill has been settled, so if Ireland uses their power to veto any progression without the border issue being settled to their satisfaction we will see how far the EU will go. In the UK the official line is that until a trade agreement in principle has been settled, they do not know the shape of the border, so time will tell.

Besides, the EU has also said that citizens rights have also not been settled to their satisfaction, TM has talked about the ECJ still having some say - no details yet - so just because the divorce bill seems to be making headway does not mean that trade negotiations will start in December, the EU red lines have not yet been settled.

Now as I have invested some time looking at how the EU get their money and it seems it's 3 main sources of revenue are the following
Import Duties----- Vat Contributions-------GNI contributions

Now in these 3 areas the UK contribution in 2015 was as follows

£42 per person-----import duty
£46 per person-----VAT contribution
£225 per person--=GNI

From this it can be seen that £88 person is variable and only due if a country belongs to the EU and represents some 28% of our total contributions per year
So as we leave the EU in March 20119 all these contributions will be paid because we are a normal member of the EU
Now after March 2019 we are honour bound to pay our share of the EU budget which we signed off on in 2014
ie 2 years of £8.5 billion pounds which equals £17 billion, add a bit for these famous pension so say it come to £25 billion or in Euros 28 billion
Now the EU might be saying you ow us the money from the other two revenues, which is a bit unfair as you are all predicting our economy will collapse when we lave the EU so this revenue will be almost non existent, but let us say we do pay this then
28% of £17 billion is £4.8 billion so total UK contribution £13.3 billion per year so for two years £27,2 plus say the same £5 billion for pensions comes to a grand total of £33.2 billion or 37.5 billion euros. This figure represents the very most the UK is honour bound to paye and is long way off the suggested 60 billion pounds or 68 billion Euros which is being asked for.


I hope i have not gone on too long

par13del wrote:

Now we are hearing rumor's that the divorce bill has been settled, so if Ireland uses their power to veto any progression without the border issue being settled to their satisfaction we will see how far the EU will go. In the UK the official line is that until a trade agreement in principle has been settled, they do not know the shape of the border, so time will tell.

On the radio (Europe1) in France, they say that Guy Verhofstadt on behalf of the EU parliament has just send a letter to Barnier saying that due to lack of progress on the irish border and citizen rights, negotiation should not move to next phase.

mmo wrote:

Northern Ireland did vote and they voted to remain! So, I don't know what your point is there. You ask for me to state some of the other options are, and my response is read the papers. There are plenty of pieces on that. For instance, have NI remain in the customs union. That would solve the issue of goods. As it is, the UK is going to be in a position where they have to hire 5000 customs/immigration officials. This I have to see.

How is the EU going to allow a section of the UK to remain in the Customs union without the 4 pillars, NI would have to be treated as an independent country. The EU has already told Scotland that they cannot remain, they have to leave with the UK since they joined as one, are you saying that the border makes NI different from Scotland?
Unfortunately for NI and Scotland, the UK vote was a national majority, not whether certain sections voted remain or leave, imagine if EU laws / rules / regulations were only implemented in the sections of countries that supported them....

Olddog wrote:

On the radio (Europe1) in France, they say that Guy Verhofstadt on behalf of the EU parliament has just send a letter to Barnier saying that due to lack of progress on the irish border and citizen rights, negotiation should not move to next phase.

...they have also said that the divorce bill must have something in writing, to do that TM would have to reveal to the UK what she is agreeing to pay, that alone will get the Brexiters riled up and will show Grove and Boris who the true Brexiters are, since they signed off on the increase in contributions while hard core folks are still saying the 20 bill offered was too much.

As to the principles of the divorce bill, the EU does not have a pension fund - how that came about is another story - the obligations are funded directly from member contributions, so more than anything, that will be a huge moving target, now the UK would probably like a fund to be established, but if they could not accomplish that as a member good luck trying that when they are due to leave in little over a year, they will be paying into that pension fund till all current EU members and the spouses pass away..

Olddog wrote:

When Liam Fox tells the UK voters that the RoI border can't be solved before a trade deal is allowed, HE IS JUST A FUCKING LIAR.

The border problem comes from the fact that May has chosen to enforce the Brexit vote, not as a Norway option as touted by Farage and Owen before the vote, but as a total break from the single market and the custom union.

The closest deal left is something like the Canada deal. And it means a border somewhere in all cases.

...but did they really have a choice?
1. When 400+ members of parliament voted to give the people a choice, they did not really intend them to choose (my opinion) hence the vote was IN or OUT, everyone knew they would vote in, the referendum could easily have been framed to give the option of In, Out or the Norway model.

2. Yes the vote was not legally binding, the binding was moral since the PM at the time said they would implement the people's choice. All and sundry including Labor accepted that Brexit has to happen since it is what was voted for, the silly thing is, all they had to do was implement it quickly then have another vote to rejoin, if the majority of the population want to be in the customs union or EEA the results would be a no brainer, they have already lost their rebate since they woudld be paying a divorce bill
3. I watched a couple shows with Farage, will have to review, I thought he like JRM wanted out from under the 4 pillars, JRM especially want the ECJ gone, and since those are fundamental to the customs union or the EEA....unless as usual, he was mistaken on what he believes was / is possible.

I know its the mail, but if true, is this internal sabotage, does he expect TM to be able to get the public on board when he makes these public statement?
If one believes that the politicians alone should make the decisions without people input then fine.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rexit.html

As for this one, I guess we now know who is looking at the divorce payment as a bribe, among the Brexiters he may have not done his leadership chances any hope.
I must admit I am hoping the offer get's rejected..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... CADES.html

par13del wrote:

How is the EU going to allow a section of the UK to remain in the Customs union without the 4 pillars, NI would have to be treated as an independent country. The EU has already told Scotland that they cannot remain, they have to leave with the UK since they joined as one, are you saying that the border makes NI different from Scotland?
Unfortunately for NI and Scotland, the UK vote was a national majority, not whether certain sections voted remain or leave, imagine if EU laws / rules / regulations were only implemented in the sections of countries that supported them....

I am sorry but several mistakes.

First the fast one: EU did not say to Scotland to leave because they joined with the rest of the UK but because THEY ARE LEGALLY PART of the UK (remember Catalonia).

Secondly: what the EU is saying to UK is if they really want to abide by the GFA, they should put the border in the irish sea so no problem for the 4 pillars. What the UK would like is force an Irexit with a border between RoI and EU. Good luck with that

Olddog wrote:

First the fast one: EU did not say to Scotland to leave because they joined with the rest of the UK but because THEY ARE LEGALLY PART of the UK (remember Catalonia).

Secondly: what the EU is saying to UK is if they really want to abide by the GFA, they should put the border in the irish sea so no problem for the 4 pillars. What the UK would like is force an Irexit with a border between RoI and EU. Good luck with that

Scots also voted to stay, and immediately after and up to the filing of article 50 were making presentations to stay, which were all rejected.
Northern Ireland is also a part of the UK like Scotland, it is not a province of Ireland, hence the troubles and the GFA, NI cannot remain in the Customs union if the UK leaves.
Putting the border in the Irish sea would defacto make NI a province of the ROI, good luck with that one also, unless the EU wants to take over the running of NI versus the ROI.

I just don't get what you can't grasp. If Scotland has a legal independence referendum and succeed, they could ask to join the EU. Until that: not a chance.

Yes Scotland voted to stay in the EU, but they are an UK minority so...

Olddog wrote:

I just don't get what you can't grasp. If Scotland has a legal independence referendum and succeed, they could ask to join the EU. Until that: not a chance.

Yes Scotland voted to stay in the EU, but they are an UK minority so...

So is Northern Ireland, so how could Brexit be used to get Northern Ireland to stay in the Customs union while the UK leaves?

Maybe because of the GFA ?

I don't see how, the GFA was a result of the conflict between north and south, it did not reunite the sides under a single government body.
NI still has its own form of UK devolution and the ROI is a full member of the EU.

So once again, how can the EU use Brexit to get NI to remain in the customs union while the UK leave?
I understand what the ROI want, if they can use Brexit to unite the country they will go for it, however, there will be conflict since the Protestants in the north so far have shown no preference to become Catholic so one would expect trouble, hence my earlier post about the EU getting to use its new army to keep the peace.

You are using the same trick than the UK Team: asking the EU to solve the problem you created. And no a magical border does not work. Read that:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... passe-near

While Ireland’s situation has generated sympathy in the rest of the EU, there is also wariness about any special arrangement on the border that could give British companies, and smugglers, a backdoor into the EU market, or compromise EU standards on animal welfare.

“There is a lot of solidarity for Ireland here, but everyone is worried about the issue,” said one diplomat. “If there is no border we might as well do away with the internal market. The UK is already the biggest source of counterfeit goods.

“It brought ‘mad cow disease’, it is not like they have a glorious past to lean on. Everyone is very worried about this for very good reasons.”

The trick is that the present UK government and the current PM are mostly folks who support the UK remaining in the EU, they just have no clue how to accomplish that goal while meeting their obligations to the voters, hence the terms Hard and Soft Brexit, does anyone know what Soft Brexit is...it can't be the Norway model since that was never offered and during the campaign and most polls indicate that the population at large are not in favour. As far as I know, that is all there is, either fully in the EU or the Norway model, everything else is fully out.

If the UK does not want the 4 pillars it means a hard border between between the UK and the EU unless some accommodation is made, as the 4 pillars are required to access the Customs Union, if that is incorrect point me in the right direction.

Both sides have had issues with tainted produce, as for counterfeit goods, I would be shocked if the EU allows the UK to be so huge in that market, the UK is regarded as obstructionist, but as seen when DC was running around trying to get concessions, their clout in the EU is not as big as some of the remainers would like to believe.

par13del wrote:

Olddog wrote:

I just don't get what you can't grasp. If Scotland has a legal independence referendum and succeed, they could ask to join the EU. Until that: not a chance.

Yes Scotland voted to stay in the EU, but they are an UK minority so...

So is Northern Ireland, so how could Brexit be used to get Northern Ireland to stay in the Customs union while the UK leaves?

So, the EU is willing to offer a solution to a UK made problem, and you complain they don´t offer the same to Scotland? On Ireland this would solve a problem, no hard border required, in Scotland it would create one.
They could just say the RI/NI border will then be a Schengen outside border, and that the Republic of Irland is required by treaty to make it a hard one. End of story.

best regards
Thomas

Read

http://sluggerotoole.com/2017/11/26/exc ... -controls/

I bet that if the DUP was not needed, that problem would be already solved.

tommy1808 wrote:

So, the EU is willing to offer a solution to a UK made problem, and you complain they don´t offer the same to Scotland? On Ireland this would solve a problem, no hard border required, in Scotland it would create one.
They could just say the RI/NI border will then be a Schengen outside border, and that the Republic of Irland is required by treaty to make it a hard one. End of story.
best regards
Thomas

Well a simple question, would Northern Ireland have to maintain the 4 pillars?

par13del wrote:

Well a simple question, would Northern Ireland have to maintain the 4 pillars?

Without a border they obviously would have to.

best regards
Thomas

So if and when the UK transition period ends and they leave the EU, one section of the nation would be under English law and a section Norther Ireland would be under EU law and the fact that no one wants a hard border in Ireland would be the foundation.

So as I said a few weeks ago, the de facto annexation of Northern Ireland.

Also, if someone could ask Barnier to keep his stupid remarks about solidarity in the face of terrorism where the sun doesn't shine. We don't need any lectures from him about fighting the likes of ISIS.

par13del wrote:

So if and when the UK transition period ends and they leave the EU, one section of the nation would be under English law and a section Norther Ireland would be under EU law and the fact that no one wants a hard border in Ireland would be the foundation.

Pretty much.

"No regulatory divergence from the Republic of Ireland" is an English public more palatable version of sacrificing sovereignty in NI to regain it on GB.

It's a bit like a reverse partition of Ireland for the UK and I can definitely see the DUP and other unionists taking a hard stance against it.

par13del wrote:

So if and when the UK transition period ends and they leave the EU, one section of the nation would be under English law and a section Norther Ireland would be under EU law and the fact that no one wants a hard border in Ireland would be the foundation.

Exactly. Perfect solution, NI can stay where it wants to stay, inside the common market, and the border hassle is minimal.

Best regards
Thomas

Please let's not try to pretend that EU wants NI as a precious gain. They just try to make a lemonade out of the lemons they are presented with.

Olddog wrote:

Please let's not try to pretend that EU wants NI as a precious gain. They just try to make a lemonade out of the lemons they are presented with.

The EU is a bystander on this. It's the Brits who need to reconcile their wish of leaving the EU and at the same time keep with the Good Friday Agreements.

Incidentally the Northern Irish voted remain, and favour a border on the sea, so that's the cherry on top.

The only issue I see if this happens and goes on long term is the increased powers that would have to be devolved to Northern Ireland, in essence the UK would have to "grant" them independence, now what that means for Ireland as a whole is another story.
So far, the GFA does not seem to have decreased the number of persons in the North who do not want to be united under the ROI banner.
The funny thing about pollsters, there questions are based on the positions that the sponsor want to push, a couple simple question in Northern Ireland would have been do you want independence from the UK, do you want to be re-united with the ROI, instead we get the question in the link by Olddog posted above where one shows that 49% have no problem with a hard border, 39% disagree, then they create more confusion with the second question, the fact that they decide to break those responses down by religion....it will be interesting to see if the UK government decides to cut NI loose, I say government because I'm not sure anyone wants to risk giving the people another voice in any important matters other than a general election unless they are forced to.

Anyway independence is coming with or without EU. Latest numbers I have seen are that in Belfast catholics are already at 49 % and protestants down to 42 %...

Interesting stuff, especially about the American investments after the GFA. Hopefully in the long run we are not looking at troubles in the reverse, I think not since most could relocate to the mainland if they do not consider themselves more Irish.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland ... -1.3030921
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opin ... 65222.html

There is an assumption here that Ireland is seeking unity by stealth. This is not correct. There is a significant minority (close to 50%) of the NI population who have Irish citizenship and therefore are also EU citizens. Many of these people have businesses, which will be undermined by Brexit and by a hard border. Over the past 20 years, since the GFA, the NI economy has grown and people are used to travelling between NI and the Republic without even being aware they had done so.

I am sure that the DUP suspects that the Republic is using the whole Brexit issue as a way to obtain unity by the back door (and perhaps with justification, because some commentators and politicians in the South have suggested as much). However, the key focus needs to be on the economy. If the economy can be allowed to continue to grow, then the threat of a reversal into violence and a regression to the bad old days can be avoided. Threaten that with hard borders and restrictions, the NI economy will be undermined, there will be unemployment and there will be a social cost to that.

Ireland does not wish to do anything which would undermine the GFA. We do not want to see violence on either side and our government does not wish to do anything which would exacerbate mistrust. There is a logic to an "all Ireland" economy and both communities will benefit from this. A hard border is not only undesirable, but - given the length of it and the terrain - very costly to build and maintain. And you can be pretty sure the Irish government will not contribute a cent to it.

If there is concern about counterfeit goods or illegal immigration between the Republic and NI, then perhaps the best option would be to ensure that anyone entering NI should carry identity cards. Don't call it a border; those who reside in NI and those travelling from the "mainland" to the UK won't have any problems. Those from outside the EU would have to state why they need to travel to NI and could be taken aside and refused entry. Air carriers and sea transport companies would have responsibilities here. There are ways around this, without having to throw tens of billions down the drain on a border than no one wants.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

So as I said a few weeks ago, the de facto annexation of Northern Ireland.

Also, if someone could ask Barnier to keep his stupid remarks about solidarity in the face of terrorism where the sun doesn't shine. We don't need any lectures from him about fighting the likes of ISIS.

Maybe it's time for you Brexiteers to stop playing the victim and start taking responsibility.

The reality is that status quo is working, and Brexiteers are hell bent on disrupting it. The onus is on you Brexiteers to not screw up what has worked this far on the island of Ireland. Whatever follows - hard border or customs union- will be the direct consequence of Brexit Britain's conscious decisions and actions.

The Taoiseach correctly pointed out that Brexiteers have been dreaming of a Brexit for years. I've never attached much weight to the intellectual acuity of Brexit ideologues, but even I thought you lot would have seen this coming from a mile away. Why attack others for the consequences of your own poor planning?

As for Barnier, is he wrong to point out that Brexit daftness (e.g. Boris comparing the EU to Hitler's Germany) has eroded UK-EU solidarity writ large, which by definition includes common threats like terrorism? Refusing to take responsibility for ones words and behaviour seems to be fast became a defining trait of some Brexiteers, like yourself.

Who are you going to blame for your ills after Brexit? Non-EU immigrants? Lizard people? Global (elite/insert scapegoat) cabal?

ElPistolero wrote:

Maybe it's time for you Brexiteers to stop playing the victim and start taking responsibility.

The reality is that status quo is working, and Brexiteers are hell bent on disrupting it. The onus is on you Brexiteers to not screw up what has worked this far on the island of Ireland. Whatever follows - hard border or customs union- will be the direct consequence of Brexit Britain's conscious decisions and actions.

The only thing I would add is that fails to take into consideration that the Brexit vote was more than just trade, the whole mess taking place now in the UK is from those who do not want to leave the EU struggling to find a way to stay and remain at the same time, now many Brexiters are in that camp.

par13del wrote:

The only thing I would add is that fails to take into consideration that the Brexit vote was more than just trade, the whole mess taking place now in the UK is from those who do not want to leave the EU struggling to find a way to stay and remain at the same time, now many Brexiters are in that camp.

I think that the EU commission was totally surprised when May said what she wanted as Brexit. The EU thought that UK was going the Norway option. I guess that BoJo said the UK wanted to have the cake and eat it, the EU diplomats went mad.

Olddog wrote:

The EU thought that UK was going the Norway option.

This is what always confused me, if that is what they (UK) wanted they could have given the people that choice, all the politicians, all 400+ of them who approved the referendum agreed on the wording of straight In or Out, it would not have created any more confusion to state the only 3 options, In, Out, Norway.
Another reason why I have struggled to understand how Soft Brexit means Norway model and that is what the majority wanted, it was never offered.

Brexit is a fantastic thing, keep up the good work.

ElPistolero wrote:

As for Barnier, is he wrong to point out that Brexit daftness (e.g. Boris comparing the EU to Hitler's Germany) has eroded UK-EU solidarity writ large, which by definition includes common threats like terrorism?

You mean like those streets in France named for IRA member Bobby Sands?

Great solidarity considering all the effort we made to liberate them from that jumped up Austrian corporal. Then again considering how incompetent the information sharing between French and Belgian police was two years ago, maybe Barnier should be looking a little closer to home before saying such things shouldn't he?

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

As for Barnier, is he wrong to point out that Brexit daftness (e.g. Boris comparing the EU to Hitler's Germany) has eroded UK-EU solidarity writ large, which by definition includes common threats like terrorism?

You mean like those streets in France named for IRA member Bobby Sands?

Great solidarity considering all the effort we made to liberate them from that jumped up Austrian corporal. Then again considering how incompetent the information sharing between French and Belgian police was two years ago, maybe Barnier should be looking a little closer to home before saying such things shouldn't he?

U-Tiger, you are trying to derail this thread off topic. Barnier is the EU chief negotiator of Brexit. Whether he was was born in France, Estonia, Portugal or Hungary is totally irrelevant for his job.

Please instead try to discuss how Brexit can be handled by the UK in an intelligent way. I know it is difficult because for the time being the whole British press spend all efforts on one thing only, to badmouth EU27. But please try.

Not that the badmouthing really means anything, because Brexit is not a hot issue within EU27. It's an UK issue which is going to be handled by the UK in accordance with existing EU rules. Therefore here on the continent we hear about Brexit only when something funny takes place, and then only among other stupid jokes on the back page of papers.