Fascinating.

Anyway @Inis if you're finished doing your very incompetent Russian troll anti-EU thing, please run along, you have convinced no-one of anything except your own foolishness. And it's getting boring.

Fascinating.

Anyway Inis if you're finished doing your very incompetent Russian troll anti-EU thing, please run along, you have convinced no-one of anything except your own foolishness. And it's getting boring. — Baden

According to the Lisbon Treaty, you have no representation on the EU Commission. This is a verifiable fact.

So you asked me who Ireland's representative on the EU commission was knowing I'd answer Phil Hogan because he is the Irish commissioner, so that you could then contradict me on the basis that Phil Hogan represents the interests of all the EU not just Ireland. Fascinating. Now beyond trolling, do you have an actual point to make?

The EU does a bad job of explaining how it functions so your mistake is understandable. Meanwhile, what most people will be amazed to know is that the EU is fundamentally more democratic than the UK.

Here's a nice overview even if I don't agree with every point : https://eu-rope.ideasoneurope.eu/2018/10/21/which-is-more-democratic-uk-or-eu/

Again a lot of misrepresentation. Germany is not in a technical recession but close to it, which contradicts tour earlier statement. Italy had a technical recession where you claimed an actual recession. Etc. Etc.

A good article by Gary Young: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/01/poorer-brexiters-worse-off-working-class-leavers

The EU does a bad job of explaining how it functions so your mistake is understandable. Meanwhile, what most people will be amazed to know is that the EU is fundamentally more democratic than the UK. — Benkei

The basic difficult here is to understand that the EU, however it wants to be a federation, is still what you would call a confederation. In fact if someone argues that the EU has a lack of democracy because the EU Parliament doesn't have much say, I beg to differ. Strengthening the EU Parliament would just lead to taking power away from the parliaments of the member countries. I myself am far more happy with EU being an assortment of independent states rather than something else.

The basic difficult here is to understand that the EU, however it wants to be a federation, is still what you would call a confederation. In fact if someone argues that the EU has a lack of democracy because the EU Parliament doesn't have much say, I beg to differ. Strengthening the EU Parliament would just lead to taking power away from the parliaments of the member countries. I myself am far more happy with EU being an assortment of independent states rather than something else. — ssu

There's definitely a benefit to this sort of decentralisation. For one, if you want to lobby for something, you need to lobby in different countries, making the EU less suspectible to inappropriate lobbying efforts as we see in the USA (obviously, it still happens). I also prefer there not to be a single EU army for similar reasons that I don't think a powerful, centrally governed military-industrial complex is useful.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brexitinc/adam-ramsay/stop-calling-no-deal-brexiteers-idiots-they-know-exactly-what-they-re-doing?fbclid=IwAR2gnMJ7sHRgQcL8WuYjP7SMcR6DiB0Vrs-Qw99qsHtRtrAJG0EqDMU3AcI

Told you so!

A good title to bait hard brexiteers, but I think friends of mine who are of that persuasion will still probably fail to realise they are “rats in the oligarchs’ maze"

Also, when it mentions oligarchs, who is it specifically referring to?

I think friends of mine who are of that persuasion will still probably fail to realise they are “rats in the oligarchs’ maze" — Evil

I fear one of the lessons of the 2 world wars is that populism has a momentum that can only be dissipated by a monumental level of horror, and not always then. Folks are as we speak crawling around the ruins clutching their dying babies in one hand and their weapons in the other and reciting 'God is great'.

There's definitely a benefit to this sort of decentralisation. For one, if you want to lobby for something, you need to lobby in different countries, making the EU less suspectible to inappropriate lobbying efforts as we see in the USA (obviously, it still happens). — Benkei

There's strength in that different countries can handle things differently and everybody isn't pushed into the same mold. Historically large centralized states have not created an innovative environment, but have just given rise to bureaucracy and in the end stagnation.

I also prefer there not to be a single EU army for similar reasons that I don't think a powerful, centrally governed military-industrial complex is useful. — Benkei

This is one of the most stupid ideas out there, which a) won't work, b) won't get the benefits visioned about it and c) there is already a NATO that does work... President Trumpov won't have the US resign from it (so NATO is here to stay).

We've seen on and on how ludicrous it comes when a Typhoon fighter is shipped around Europe to be made and how difficult it is for different countries to agree on what specifications their weapons have to have. In reality it doesn't improve much the European military industrial complex.

And the most simple nail to the coffin of a "single EU army" is that it will be nothing else but a hodgepodge assortment of units from various countries. That's the only thing some politicians want as NATO naturally goes the way the US wants.

There is absolutely no intention to truly create an interstate armed forces that would replace the national armed forces. Nobody truly has an idea that lets get rid of the national departments of defence have just one interstate department of defence and one single armed forces. It's as whacky as an idea that all police forces of EU member states would be merged into one organization lead from Brussels. Who would command it? How would it be financed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu7EYbMFOY8

The very first words out of Nigel Farage's mouth are a lie. David Cameron had wanted a referendum since he wrote the 2005 Tory manifesto for Micheal Howard. He again pushed for a referendum in the 2010 Tory manifesto, and finally made it a manifesto commitment in 2015 - that could not be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords.

UKIP were nowhere in 2005. They didn't make significant electoral gains until the 2013 EU elections, and 2014 Local government elections. That was after Cameron's 2010, absurd tens of thousands immigration pledge, and after Cameron had promised a referendum in January 2013. At the height of their powers, UKIP had one MP. They were never a threat to Cameron.

Cameron raised expectations on immigration with his tens of thousands pledge - adding, "or vote me out" - while Theresa May as Home Secretary spectacularly failed to deliver. Nonetheless, May remained in post as Home Secretary for six years - longest tenure in living memory; while Cameron provided for the referendum he had wanted for a long time. (See the youtube video on Cameron, Lisbon Treaty, 2009, below.) May allowed 660,000 migrants into Britain in 2015, and published those figures during the referendum campaign, and Cameron put himself on the wrong side of that manufactured failure as champion of Remain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNoJr0rqq54

Next step in the Brexit-saga: the Malthouse compromise.

The main thing for Ireland is that they'll have a border but it won't feel like one because they'll have a technical implementation to do the border control that people can move up and down between Northern-Ireland and Ireland without any delay.

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that mean there is a border? So what happens if the technical implementation fails or doesn't deliver? Who's going to pay for it? What if it's too expensive? etc. etc.

I wonder how the EU will react to it.

This is just a rehash of rejected ideas that Ireland and the EU consider unworkable. There was already a real compromise, which was the backstop, and that hasn't been reopened for negotiation. This 'compromise' is an attempt at keeping the warring factions of the Tory party together. The EU is likely to view it as irrelevant internal politics.

Selmayr seems to want none of it.

If these Brexiteers think it's like "not having a border" it should be fine to implement it between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK when the backstop comes into effect.

Maybe I'm a bit dim, but it seems to me that not having a border is like not having a fence round a field, it allows folks and stuff to pass in and out freely. And Brexiteers don't want that. So they want a border. So they want to end the Good Friday agreement.

Tax Justice Network agrees.

And we want our fish back. :roll:

It's pretty sad that we have more love for fishing territory than third generation (AKA natives with not-white grandparents) Pakistani immigrants.

The Irish border problem can, and in the end probably will, be solved by the UK staying in the EU Customs Union. I've yet to hear a good reason for not doing so. All that twaddle about being able to do our own trade deals is a red herring. Like most of the 'freedoms' we will gain by Brexit it's illusory.

Just read today, the plan in a no deal scenario is to wave traffic through customs unchecked.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47121225

Taking back control of our borders!

Ireland's not going to get into a kerfuffle with the EU. And it won't have to, seeing as a no-deal would pretty much ensure the Tories lose the next election. Self-preservation will rule and the UK will cave.

Taking back control of our borders!
— karl stone

The UK can have porous borders, but the EU won't, and if Ireland doesn't comply it will be kicked out of the EU.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1082829/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Ireland-border-backstop-Leo-Varadkar-Theresa-May — Evola

I don't know what you're saying here - or how this is a response to my post. The UK is planning to wave lorries, and presumably illegal immigrants through customs at the Dover/Calais crossing - as a consequence of a referendum sold on the idea of taking back control of our borders, and reducing immigration. The whole thing is a lie.

The Irish border is another issue entirely - one there's nothing much to say on, because currently Theresa May is going back to Brussels, again... supposedly to negotiate on an issue, that from the EU's point of view, is very firmly decided. It's utterly bizarre. Brexit does not work for anyone but disaster capitalists. It needs to stop.

Brexit does not work for anyone but disaster capitalists. It needs to stop. — karl stone

I agree. Unfortunately, about 45% of the UK public don't. (I'm allowing 5-10% more for law-of-the-jungle capitalists). The problem is to refute the simplistic 'take back control' justifications for Brexit. Those of us with sense know they're illusory, but many others are swayed by historical notions of Brittania ruling the waves, and anything that appeals to that jingoism gets their vote. The Leave campaign long ago figured this out and exploited it for all it's worth. Pity Remainers didn't, and Cameron fought an inept referendum campaign instead, refusing to engage with the histrionic rubbish talked about immigration and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...

Our best hope is that as MPs are more sensible than the voters, they will ignore pressure to parrot their constituents' simplistic ideas and vote out May's plan. Then the Commons can vote for a more moderate Brexit, at least forcing a delay - or a general election.

If Ireland refuses, too bad for them, they are out. — Evola

This fantasy scenario is based on what? Ireland has been in lockstep with the EU from day one and will continue to be. Over 90% of the Irish want to remain in the EU and the relationship is rock solid. So this idea that it would ever get to the point where Ireland would break from the EU and basically join the UK by having a soft border with them instead of the EU shows a serious lack of understanding of the relationship between Ireland and the UK, and Ireland and the EU (the latter two of which will quietly go behind doors and hammer out an agreement in the worst case no-deal scenario).

But yes, the UK are already signalling there is nowhere for them to go on this and they'll back down.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/05/brexit-latest-newsmay-promises-deal-honours-commitments-northern/

Wow. You don't understand that border traffic is in both directions? — Evola

More like which direction you're coming from. I'm still not sure. Saying something like "Brussels will not negotiate further. UK will be brought to heal or be cast out." plays right into the idea of the EU as a dictatorial foreign government that underlies brexiteer opinion. You're not, by any chance a Leave voter who's changed their mind, are you?

Brussels will not negotiate further. UK will be brought to heal or be cast out. Ireland better comply or it's curtains. See links I provided to mood of EU Parliament above. — Evola

I agree that Brussels is unlikely to make further changes to the backstop. But for me, the implication is that brexit doesn't work - it's a failed policy proposal that should never have been offered to the British public in a referendum in the first place. Kicking Ireland out of the EU, likely or otherwise - presupposes brexit goes ahead. I don't think it can, or should, or will.

There is only one way the UK can avoid paying the £39 billion penalty, revoke Article 50. — Evola

Ultimately, Theresa May has the ability to revoke Article 50 at any time - and that makes her alone responsible. There's all the reason in the world to revoke A50 - from the corrupt referendum, to the situation in Ireland, to the lack of preparedness on so many fronts, to the catastrophic economic consequences of a no-deal brexit. May has a choice, and if she walks this country off a cliff - it will be on purpose.

May has a choice, and if she walks this country off a cliff - it will be on purpose. — karl stone

Immaterial if you can blame someone else.

May has a choice, and if she walks this country off a cliff - it will be on purpose.
— karl stone

Immaterial if you can blame someone else. — Benkei

The old adage, "we are only ever three meals from revolution" is always worth keeping in mind. May can revoke Article 50, and she should. If she doesn't, and people are losing their jobs and businesses, their homes are being repossessed, and so on - blaming it on the EU and the will of the people isn't going to hold up to scrutiny - particularly when "the will of the people" was so obviously manufactured in 2016, and has changed dramatically since.

Cameron and May were brexiteers - who sabotaged Remain with impossible pledges, and a vast deliberate failure on immigration, while providing for a referendum that was all about immigration. They played a central and duplicitous part in manufacturing consent for an unplanned, uncosted, unplan - that two years later, still doesn't work. She alone has the power to stop brexit by revoking Article 50. If she doesn't - it's entirely on her shoulders.