Should the UK remain a member of the EU

[AngryOfTuebrook]

So, am I understanding this (more or less) correctly? There are basically three options:

 

1. A hard border between NI and the Republic. Nobody in Ireland (North or South) wants this, it would violate some of the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and it would be vetoed by Dublin, so it's effectively off the table anyway.

 

2. A "border in the Irish Sea". This would be anomalous and hugely damaging to the UK- and especially the NI - economy. The DUP would never support it and without their support this Government falls.

 

3. Free movement of people, goods, services and capital throughout the island of Ireland and across the Irish Sea. This looks a lot like "Brexit doesn't really mean Brexit at all" and the hardcore gobshites in the press and in the Cabinet would raise Hell against it, probably leading to May's resignation (and hopefully leading to a General Election).

[Lee909]

If the North stayed in the EU without import tariffs etc they'd make a fucking fortune wouldn't they.

 

A complete backdoor over import export charges. Bring stuff into N. Ireland from the EU no customs then send it to the mainland

[The Guest]

Tell me if there is something I am missing here but isn’t the hard border problem the EU and Ireland’s problem. I can’t imagine the UK or the tories are that arsed about having a hard border with Ireland. We want free trade etc and despite not wanting freedom of movement with the EU I imagine they would be happy for that to be the case with Ireland as it was that way for a long time anyway.

 

The noise about this is coming from the EU’s side again.

 

Reading back over the last few pages this morning and it’s the same old hyperbolic one eyed nonsense. Nothing has been agreed yet and in terms of the “Brexit bill” I think everyone would be happy to pay an amount to guarantee free trade and that seems to be the case. The EU are trying to get that amount first and the tories won’t be going for that. I’m a remainder but I honestly find it completely mental that people would be happy for our government to hand over 50bn for absolutely fuck all guarantee of anything in return.

 

Every other day there’s more leaks and shite from the EU trying to weaken the UK’s position and half the people in this country are lapping it up. These people are as big arse holes as the tories are. Then at the end of the day you then see some actual quotes from these pricks and it’s the same thing - No movement on the bill yet so no trade talks.

[cloggypop]

If you think the agreed payment includes anything towards guaranteeing free trade then you are going to be very disappointed. The payment for access will be decided later as part of the trade discussions.

[The Guest]

We will see I suppose but why would we pay them 50bn for nothing?

[M_B]

to guarantee free trade and that seems to be the case

 

Really? I haven't read a thing about that. Do you have a link? As far as I was aware they haven't started talking about trade yet.

[Plev]

I can kind of see why Labour didn’t vote against the government now in the commons, they’ve basically let the Tories fuck it up on their own terms, whereas if they’d voted against it would have been Labours fault for thwarting the will of the people or some other bollocks.

[M_B]

We will see I suppose but why would we pay them 50bn for nothing?

 

Those were our agreed payment commitments before we opted to leave? Leaving doesn't mean we get to avoid honoring those commitments.

 

At least that's what I thought. Happy to be proved wrong.

[KMD7]

Tell me if there is something I am missing here but isn’t the hard border problem the EU and Ireland’s problem. I can’t imagine the UK or the tories are that arsed about having a hard border with Ireland. We want free trade etc and despite not wanting freedom of movement with the EU I imagine they would be happy for that to be the case with Ireland as it was that way for a long time anyway.

 

The noise about this is coming from the EU’s side again.

 

Reading back over the last few pages this morning and it’s the same old hyperbolic one eyed nonsense. Nothing has been agreed yet and in terms of the “Brexit bill” I think everyone would be happy to pay an amount to guarantee free trade and that seems to be the case. The EU are trying to get that amount first and the tories won’t be going for that. I’m a remainder but I honestly find it completely mental that people would be happy for our government to hand over 50bn for absolutely fuck all guarantee of anything in return.

 

Every other day there’s more leaks and shite from the EU trying to weaken the UK’s position and half the people in this country are lapping it up. These people are as big arse holes as the tories are. Then at the end of the day you then see some actual quotes from these pricks and it’s the same thing - No movement on the bill yet so no trade talks.

 

I think the majority of people in N. Ireland voted for remain and would prefer an open border.  Saw a piece on irish tv last week chatting to people living on the border and bringing in a hard border would affect them immensely.  1 lady's front door was in the north of the country and her back lawn was in the republic! 

[The Guest]

Really? I haven't read a thing about that. Do you have a link? As far as I was aware they haven't started talking about trade yet.

I don’t really understand what you’re getting at. I didn’t claim to quote anyone. I think the leavers generally have no issue with free trade and want it with the EU they just don’t want the freedom of movement that comes with the single market.

 

In terms of me saying that the UK govt don’t want to pay 50bn or whatever the Brexit bill might end up being unless they can guarantee free trade (or at least something close to it) is backed up by the fact the UK haven’t agreed an amount to pay them and anything that seems to be coming from the tories about it always comes with the caveat that any amount that may be agreed will depend on the trade agreement.

[The Guest]

I think the majority of people in N. Ireland voted for remain and would prefer an open border. Saw a piece on irish tv last week chatting to people living on the border and bringing in a hard border would affect them immensely. 1 lady's front door was in the north of the country and her back lawn was in the republic!

That is mental! I think both the north and the south want an open border and I think the UK govt would want it as well. The only people stopping that would be the EU as they would not want Northern Ireland benefitting from the free trade from an EU country in Ireland. This means that it would be the EU forcing Ireland to put up a hard border which is why they are kicking up a fuss.

[skend04]

That is mental! I think both the north and the south want an open border and I think the UK govt would want it as well. The only people stopping that would be the EU as they would not want Northern Ireland benefitting from the free trade from an EU country in Ireland. This means that it would be the EU forcing Ireland to put up a hard border which is why they are kicking up a fuss.

You don't want free movement of people so how do you ensure this? Here's a clue: begins with 'Hard' and ends with 'Border'.

[The Guest]

Those were our agreed payment commitments before we opted to leave? Leaving doesn't mean we get to avoid honoring those commitments.

 

At least that's what I thought. Happy to be proved wrong.

Have you just not read any of the news or do you just pick the bits you like? The UK can tell them to fuck off and not pay them a penny. This is basically the whole issue. The EU are tying to have their cake and eat it. They want the UK to agree a divorce bill up front and pay it and then they can pick and choose what trade deal they want because the UK has got to just go with whatever they offer (that could be the equivalent of no deal if the EU decide it).

 

In response the UK govt are refusing to agree to pay anything unless they agree a trade deal beforehand. That’s the stand off at the moment. The way it’s looking in my opinion is that the EU have no intention of giving us a good or even reasonable trade deal. If they did why would they demand the bill sorted out beforehand. It wouldn’t matter that much.

 

You can completely ignore the point if you want like everyone else seems to do whenever this gets raised and just rabbit on about how they’ve got every right to demand what they’re owed bla bla bla but that doesn’t answer the question. If the UK agree to pay a bill which they could walk away from and then end up with a shit trade deal anyway which is the equivalent of a no deal then why would they pay it. The worst case scenario if they don’t pay is a shit trade deal which we would have anyway with 50bn we didnt pay them.

[The Guest]

You don't want free movement of people so how do you ensure this? Here's a clue: begins with 'Hard' and ends with 'Border'.

I don’t care about freedom of movement. I’d be happy to stay in the EU. If you read a few posts back though you would see what I said about freedom of movement with the Irish and how I think leavers wouldn’t be too arsed about it.

 

And it’s free movement of labour skend not people.

[M_B]

Have you just not read any of the news or do you just pick the bits you like? The UK can tell them to fuck off and not pay them a penny. This is basically the whole issue. The EU are tying to have their cake and eat it. They want the UK to agree a divorce bill up front and pay it and then they can pick and choose what trade deal they want because the UK has got to just go with whatever they offer (that could be the equivalent of no deal if the EU decide it).

 

In response the UK govt are refusing to agree to pay anything unless they agree a trade deal beforehand. That’s the stand off at the moment. The way it’s looking in my opinion is that the EU have no intention of giving us a good or even reasonable trade deal. If they did why would they demand the bill sorted out beforehand. It wouldn’t matter that much.

 

You can completely ignore the point if you want like everyone else seems to do whenever this gets raised and just rabbit on about how they’ve got every right to demand what they’re owed bla bla bla but that doesn’t answer the question. If the UK agree to pay a bill which they could walk away from and then end up with a shit trade deal anyway which is the equivalent of a no deal then why would they pay it. The worst case scenario if they don’t pay is a shit trade deal which we would have anyway with 50bn we didnt pay them.

 

Well I read this

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/28/uk-and-eu-agree-brexit-divorce-bill-that-could-reach-57bn

 

Which says;

 

"The UK has bowed to EU demands on the Brexit divorce bill in a move that could result in the UK paying £50bn to Brussels, in an attempt to get France and Germany to agree to move negotiations to trade."

 

and

 

"A senior EU official told the Guardian that the UK appeared ready to honour its share of the EU’s unpaid bills, loans, pension and other liabilities accrued over 44 years of membership. “We have heard the UK wants to come along with the money,” the official said. “We have understood it covers the liabilities and what we consider the real commitments. But we have to see the fine print.”"

 

"The final sum is 13% of the £660bn total liabilities the UK has committed to as a member state, including the seven-year budget ending in 2020, pension costs and outstanding loans, such as those to Ukraine, and to cover the costs of keeping Chernobyl safe."

 

"The sum is reduced when payments that would have been made to EU projects in the UK, including structural funds, are taken into account, along with the UK’s capital share in the European Investment Bank. The divorce bill will not be paid in a lump sum but over time, under the agreement struck in behind-the-scenes talks between Olly Robbins, Downing Street’s Brexit adviser, and the EU’s article 50 task force."

 

"As the UK will continue to pay until all recipients of pensions have died, the final sum is unknown. It has long been expected that the final sum would land at between £40bn and £48bn."

 

and

 

"For EU diplomats the moment of truth will come at a lunch meeting between May and the European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, on Monday 4 December, when all three Brexit divorce issues will be on the table: the Brexit bill, the Irish border and protecting EU citizens’ rights. If the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, thinks the outcome is clear, he could issue his recommendation on sufficient progress the same day."

 

 

 

So the article is quite clear in stating that the bill is to be agreed before anyone even starts talking about trade. This article in the Economist states the same thing

 

https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21716629-bitter-argument-over-money-looms-multi-billion-euro-exit-charge-could-sink-brexit

 

 

 

You state: "In response the UK govt are refusing to agree to pay anything unless they agree a trade deal beforehand"

 

But this isn't true is it. They are agreeing the divorce bill before they start trade talks. At least that what it seems from what I have read.

 

 

You also state: "They want the UK to agree a divorce bill up front and pay it"

 

But is that true? Agreement yes, but payment before trade talks begin? I haven't read that anywhere. The above article states: "The divorce bill will not be paid in a lump sum but over time, under the agreement struck in behind-the-scenes talks between Olly Robbins, Downing Street’s Brexit adviser, and the EU’s article 50 task force."

 

 

 

And yes I understand your point that we could just walk away, but that would be cutting the nose to spite the face no?

[Jairzinho]

I can't stand her and i hate the Tories but a very smaall part of me feels sorry for May. On an absolute hiding to nothing.

 

Negged.

[cloggypop]

I suppose the UK could agree a deal to pay its debts and then refuse to pay it later. I don't see this leading to any good deals in the future with any other trading nations however. The UK would become untrustworthy pariahs. They would also still want to be buying stuff from the EU.

[The Guest]

Well I read this

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/28/uk-and-eu-agree-brexit-divorce-bill-that-could-reach-57bn

 

Which says;

 

"The UK has bowed to EU demands on the Brexit divorce bill in a move that could result in the UK paying £50bn to Brussels, in an attempt to get France and Germany to agree to move negotiations to trade."

 

and

 

"A senior EU official told the Guardian that the UK appeared ready to honour its share of the EU’s unpaid bills, loans, pension and other liabilities accrued over 44 years of membership. “We have heard the UK wants to come along with the money,” the official said. “We have understood it covers the liabilities and what we consider the real commitments. But we have to see the fine print.”"

 

"The final sum is 13% of the £660bn total liabilities the UK has committed to as a member state, including the seven-year budget ending in 2020, pension costs and outstanding loans, such as those to Ukraine, and to cover the costs of keeping Chernobyl safe."

 

"The sum is reduced when payments that would have been made to EU projects in the UK, including structural funds, are taken into account, along with the UK’s capital share in the European Investment Bank. The divorce bill will not be paid in a lump sum but over time, under the agreement struck in behind-the-scenes talks between Olly Robbins, Downing Street’s Brexit adviser, and the EU’s article 50 task force."

 

"As the UK will continue to pay until all recipients of pensions have died, the final sum is unknown. It has long been expected that the final sum would land at between £40bn and £48bn."

 

and

 

"For EU diplomats the moment of truth will come at a lunch meeting between May and the European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, on Monday 4 December, when all three Brexit divorce issues will be on the table: the Brexit bill, the Irish border and protecting EU citizens’ rights. If the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, thinks the outcome is clear, he could issue his recommendation on sufficient progress the same day."

 

 

 

So the article is quite clear in stating that the bill is to be agreed before anyone even starts talking about trade. This article in the Economist states the same thing

 

https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21716629-bitter-argument-over-money-looms-multi-billion-euro-exit-charge-could-sink-brexit

 

 

 

You state: "In response the UK govt are refusing to agree to pay anything unless they agree a trade deal beforehand"

 

But this isn't true is it. They are agreeing the divorce bill before they start trade talks. At least that what it seems from what I have read.

 

 

You also state: "They want the UK to agree a divorce bill up front and pay it"

 

But is that true? Agreement yes, but payment before trade talks begin? I haven't read that anywhere.

A senior EU official told the guardian is the equivalent of Jacob Rees Mogg talking to the daily fail. I read the guardian every day and I like a lot of the content but you would have to be a blind fool to not see how pro-EU they are. They are trying to be the news in that regard rather than reporting and commenting on it. You can post these links all you want but you seem to be a bit on the dense side regardless. Have you actually read any of it?

 

As I said in my posts a few times earlier all the talk about agreeing a Brexit bill figure is coming from the EU side as proven by your guardian article. The point I’ve made and I will make again as it seems to be struggling to go in your brain is that the EU want a Brexit bill agreed and essentially paid (probably a poor choice of words but in terms of not being able to go back onit) for before we talk trade. The UK govt were happy to talk about the final bill at the same time as talking about trade but the EU refused. That was the stand off.

 

Since then it appears the UK have tried to go to the halfway house of detailing a Brexit bill they would be happy to pay as long as they are happy with the trade deal. As I said earlier I think people would be happy for the govt to pay a Brexit bill as long as it gave us a good trade deal. If we are getting a bad trade deal then why would we pay it?

[skend04]

The EU have never outlined a sum for the bill. The first phase was just agreeing to what the UK will pay towards as was agreed at the last EU budget. No one can work out what's owed until later because the contribution all depends on the size of the economy. Figures are coming purely from the British side.

[deiseach]

Tell me if there is something I am missing here but isn’t the hard border problem the EU and Ireland’s problem. I can’t imagine the UK or the tories are that arsed about having a hard border with Ireland. We want free trade etc and despite not wanting freedom of movement with the EU I imagine they would be happy for that to be the case with Ireland as it was that way for a long time anyway.

 

Yes, you are missing something. The WTO will insist on a border. The only states that have ever had no borders without any form of agreement with other states were pirate ones. I'm also guessing that when you say there was no border between Ireland and the UK 'for a long time anyway' you think that there was the case post-Irish independence. Nope. There were customs checks between the two countries with occasional queues for miles and perpetual aggro from mountains of paperwork until the establishment of the single market in 1993. If you think that's a price worth paying for Brexit, fine. But take ownership of that reality rather than blaming the other ones.

 

What happened yesterday was astonishing. The moment I saw the outlines of the agreement, I thought the British government had decided to tell the DUP to ram it. The alternative was they had thought it would be okay, which would have been utterly ridiculous. Yet that seems to have been what they did. Cross your fingers and hope for the best. What an absolute clusterfuck.

[clangers]

So we're paying £50 billion to stay in an unofficial customs union now? Sorry, regulatory alignment.

[skend04]

So we're paying £50 billion to stay in an unofficial customs union now? Sorry regulatory convergence.

Reading the UQ thread and it's brilliant how DD was trying to find difference in 2 words that are virtually the same in a thesaurus.

[deiseach]

So we're paying £50 billion to stay in an unofficial customs union now? Sorry, regulatory alignment.

 

The €50 billion is to cover the pensions of Nigel Farage and his ilk.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

The EU have never outlined a sum for the bill. The first phase was just agreeing to what the UK will pay towards as was agreed at the last EU budget. No one can work out what's owed until later because the contribution all depends on the size of the economy. Figures are coming purely from the British side.

 

Yep. Plus the bill includes the work for projects already agreed to. These projects just don't spring up overnight, some will take years to complete. The price of materials etc fluctuates depending on the market. You also have to factor in the cost of the planning, some of which has already been done. The final sum agreed doesn't get paid straight away, it will be paid over years and years as and when things are done. There will be an initial payment, part of which is to pay the pensions of the likes of Farage. Certain members of parliament are just relying on the UK public to go into full fume mode as they blame/or use the fact many people don't actually have a clue about the complexities of a divorce bill of this nature, so the EU is painted in the wrong light. It kind of highlights why the vote should never have gone to a referendum. 

[The Guest]

Yes, you are missing something. The WTO will insist on a border. The only states that have ever had no borders without any form of agreement with other states were pirate ones. I'm also guessing that when you say there was no border between Ireland and the UK 'for a long time anyway' you think that there was the case post-Irish independence. Nope. There were customs checks between the two countries with occasional queues for miles and perpetual aggro from mountains of paperwork until the establishment of the single market in 1993. If you think that's a price worth paying for Brexit, fine. But take ownership of that reality rather than blaming the other ones.

 

What happened yesterday was astonishing. The moment I saw the outlines of the agreement, I thought the British government had decided to tell the DUP to ram it. The alternative was they had thought it would be okay, which would have been utterly ridiculous. Yet that seems to have been what they did. Cross your fingers and hope for the best. What an absolute clusterfuck.

I was about to say thank you for pointing the WTO position out which would mean we would have to put a border up and then I read the article. Did you bother reading it? It’s not what you are saying at all and not a position the WTO have outlined whatsoever. It’s this sort of bollocks that’s had people in a spin half the time coming out with hyperbolic nonsense. “The WTO will insist on a border.” Fucking brilliant.

 

In that article it’s the opinion of a former WTO leader saying that there will have to be a border because the UK will be out of the single market which is exactly why I was saying this is Ireland and the EU’s problem not the UK’s. The UK wants free trade and will be comfortable with the level of goods coming from the EU. The UK doesn’t need a border with Ireland, Ireland and the EU will want a border with the UK to stop any goods being sold or bought without their tariffs and minimum levels of requirement. Absolutely nothing to do with the WTO’s position.

 

When did I say there was no border between the UK and Ireland for a long time? It seems like you’re another one of these people reading what you wanted to read. What I said was that the Irish has been able to work in the UK for a long time so the freedom of movement of Labour between the UK and Ireland isn’t something I imagine the brexiteers were too arsed about. I’ve just looked it up and it dates back to 1922.