Regret it Brexit?

Got it!!!

“May has to produce a detailed backstop proposal in the next fortnight, to have any hope of agreement when June’s European summit attempts to reach an Irish border deal. That is looking ever less likely. The reality is that the Northern Irish question could be the Achilles’ heel that undermines the entire Brexit project.”

And I’ll just put it here again:
Peace should never be taken for granted.

“Arlene Foster, leader of the DUP, says she doesn’t want a “hard border”, either. But she also insists that “the only people stirring up myths of border checkpoints are those committed to unpicking the Union.” She accuses Dublin of using Brexit to “promote a united Ireland”.”

“There is no overall majority in the North in favour of a united Ireland. But what the poll suggests is that the Brexit process, not the Irish government, has boosted support for unification. Only 28% of Catholics say they would vote for a united Ireland if the UK stayed in the EU, but 53% would support the idea if the UK leaves with a hard Brexit. 68% of Catholics want a referendum on the issue, but only 29% of Protestants.”

“No wonder the opinion poll done for the UK in a Changing Europe this week showed a sharp increase in the percentage of the Northern Irish population who would vote to stay in the EU in another referendum: up from 56% in 2016 to 69% now. Those who would vote for Brexit again are down from 44% to 31%.”

“The same poll shows strong opposition in both unionist and nationalist communities to reintroduction of border controls, and overwhelming support for any solution that would ensure that there would continue to be no physical border, either north-south or east-west. 61% of Catholics and 62% of Protestants want the whole UK to remain in both the customs union and the single market.”

“For a start, both proposals floated by the UK government for a non-border regime – for a “highly streamlined” border crossing, or a fantastically complicated “new customs partnership”, under which the UK will collect EU tariffs – look utterly impractical.”

“As for proposed “backstop” solutions, they are all politically unacceptable to someone: keeping Northern Ireland in the EU customs union and single market for all cross-border traffic is anathema to the Democratic Unionists (DUP) whose votes keep Theresa May in power, because it would require a border between the province and Britain. As for May’s own suggestion of keeping the whole UK in a customs union and large parts of the single market, that looks unacceptable both to Brussels and the Brexiters on her back benches.”

“A terrible truth is finally starting to dawn on the British political establishment, and even the most blinkered of Brexiters. There is no way of combining an open and invisible Irish land border – to which London, Dublin and the EU have committed themselves – with Brexit. No solution on offer is both politically acceptable and practically workable.”
infacts.org/irish-border-is-the-achilles-heel-of-brexit/

Inattention to detail, lemon, doesn't lend itself to accurate reporting...

Maizie - your post of 10.53, quoting Sir Ivan Roger.
Those points have been in my mind from the date of the referendum.
Our current status in the EU follows multiple agreements and treaties which all need to be negated or re-negotiated before we can become free.
It's like someone who has entered into several marriage contracts in quick succession, with their legal and financial obligations, and now wants to be rid of them all at once.

MaizieD Nope, getting a posters name wrong has nothing to do with the credibility/ veracity of a post, just two posters who sound alike, and names begin with M.

That’s hardly ‘glorious past’ or days of Empire.
Of course we can rule/trade ourselves, it’s quite ridiculous to think otherwise.

I see the writings of leave voters on other sites and also hear them on radio/TV that is why I know many hark back to what they see as the glorious past. I think even on here people have said how we ‘did it before and can do it again’ but maybe you need to search the archives to find them Ally.

Thank you allyg for responding at length to each point I made in my post, not just once, but twice!
Confused yet again by posters’ names I notice.
I could respond in turn to each point but I can’t be bothered.
You advocate “playing the ball not the man” but you actually seem to find that impossible to achieve.

Allygran1 Fri 25-May-18 13:16:55 Corrected repost Mostlyharmless:
Mostly :"I really hate the thought of a culturally and economically isolated Britain, touting desperately round the world for trading partners with dodgy standards.

Your view on this is, as we would expect, different than mine. In fact just the opposite, the economic isolation I see as being in the EU/EEA. If you mean our isolation from the rest of the world and Europe, surely by being able to reach out to the world to trade without the restrictions placed upon us by the EU conditions for trading is the very opposite to isolation.

Mostly:
"Every society needs peace, economic stability, good employment prospects, educational opportunities, good health and welfare provision, travel opportunities, cultural openness, good working conditions, environmental protections, cooperation over security and policing. The EU helped with all these things."

Some of the area's you mention above are domestic policy and not influenced at all by the EU. However, your right in some area's the EU has been fortunate to have us as a member sharing for instance our excellence in welfare provision and health care brought in by Bevan. Good working conditions largely established through the 'Factories Act" and it should be said the work of Trade Unions who had their place at that time in establishing good working conditions. Manchester was after all the first Industrialised city in the entire world. British security and intelligence services, the best in the world, established if one want to go back that far to Elizabeth 1. The British have always been explorers, travellers, even the Victorians did the "grand tour", at least those who could afford it did. I recall my in-laws going on the first package tours in 1960 £25 each as I recall to Italy. I understand that you are saying free movement made this easier because you did not have to have a bit of paper. But the EU did not give us the notion of travel.Nor did the need for a passport to travel in Europe before freedom of movement in the EU.

Mostly:
Peace, including in Northern Ireland, should never be taken for granted."

I agree. But you know the IRA or Sinn Fein in it's current disguise as a political party, has had the intention always, to have a reunited Ireland. They have fought and killed, maimed and we know to force a reunite Ireland. They realised the violent way would not do it. Now they are in the Political mode to achieve the same end. Which must be good. The DUP represent those who also fought to remain British and once the IRA became Sinn Fein they now fight through the ballot box to remain British. The ballot box is where this will be decided in Northern Ireland. It will only fall back to violence if the side that does not have the majority reject's the will of the people on a majority vote.Whichever way a vote on reunification of Ireland would go.

Peace in Northern Ireland, all comes down to democracy, respect for the ballot and honouring the majority vote. As it is here on the mainland of GB.

Allygran1 Fri 25-May-18 12:41:38
mostlyharmless Fri 25-May-18 10:57:44

In some ways Maizie I agree, in some area's the EU

Apology to Maizie this should read Mostly!

Sorry Maizie you are forever entwined with Harmless in my mind.

I do it to wind you up! Naughty I know.

"Welshwife Fri 25-May-18 08:55:45
‘Centralising culture’ - what is that about - Europe certainly does not have a centralised culture.

I have to say that I am certainly not looking at the past -the only people I have heard speaking like that are those who voted leave as they carry on talking about Britain’s glorious past (colonial much of it) and how we can have that again!"

Welshwife
The post's I have seen from leave voters on this site have been looking to the future, certainly not the past. The very act of voting for change as a leave voter is a commitment to change and the future.

Although the past in the EU in recent years has been instrumental in the decision to Brexit. Not one person I know, or have heard or seen their words who voted leave has ever mentioned the history of as you put it "Britains glorious past".

I do wonder why Britains colonial past is trotted out to act like a cross to a vampire in the popular films, to put us back in our box perhaps. For that to work one has to believe in the concept of the two superstition involved.

The colonial past is just that the past, we have evolved as human beings since then, with all the contrition and acknowledgment of the injustice and the inhumanity that on person can inflict on another and it must never be part of who we are again. You cannot judge the past from the present, you can assess it, disagree with it and learn from it, but you cannot judge it since it was of it's time a different place. We are not those people move on! It has no place in this debate in modernity. Since it is fallacious to introduce it.

Oh, Allyg. If you're going to write long answers to each individual post could you at least get the right person

Your post of 13.16 It wasn't me, it was harmless

Your inability to get a simple fact correct (and you were even copying and pasting from her post.. and no, we're not one and the same person) does cast doubt on what you say

Alexa Fri 25-May-18 09:10:47
"Allygran wrote:

Brexit is no small thing, it is more than the sum of us here in the UK I sense. It is testing our commitment to our Parliamentary electoral system, and democracy itself as we know it.

I like democracy but it is such that some people sometimes reflect that perhaps intellectuals should get to have an extra vote.
Optimists are scary."

I find the concept of anyone intellectuals particularly getting an extra vote horrifying! You cannot I am sure be saying that anything I said indicated that. It didn't.
I have never heard that before from anyone or anywhere.
One person one vote.

Your right optimism can be scary for some, nothing wrong with that. Pessimism is just as scary to optimists nothing wrong with that either. The best position is always to be balanced and that is very tricky for all of us. But that is the position to continue to strive for.

Maisie :"I really hate the thought of a culturally and economically isolated Britain, touting desperately round the world for trading partners with dodgy standards.

Your view on this is, as we would expect, different than mine. In fact just the opposite, the economic isolation I see as being in the EU/EEA. If you mean our isolation from the rest of the world and Europe, surely by being able to reach out to the world to trade without the restrictions placed upon us by the EU conditions for trading is the very opposite to isolation.

Maizie:
"Every society needs peace, economic stability, good employment prospects, educational opportunities, good health and welfare provision, travel opportunities, cultural openness, good working conditions, environmental protections, cooperation over security and policing. The EU helped with all these things."

Some of the area's you mention above are domestic policy and not influenced at all by the EU. However, your right in some area's the EU has been fortunate to have us as a member sharing for instance our excellence in welfare provision and health care brought in by Bevan. Good working conditions largely established through the 'Factories Act" and it should be said the work of Trade Unions who had their place at that time in establishing good working conditions. Manchester was after all the first Industrialised city in the entire world. British security and intelligence services, the best in the world, established if one want to go back that far to Elizabeth 1. The British have always been explorers, travellers, even the Victorians did the "grand tour", at least those who could afford it did. I recall my in-laws going on the first package tours in 1960 £25 each as I recall to Italy. I understand that you are saying free movement made this easier because you did not have to have a bit of paper. But the EU did not give us the notion of travel.Nor did the need for a passport to travel in Europe before freedom of movement in the EU.

Maizie:
Peace, including in Northern Ireland, should never be taken for granted."

I agree. But you know the IRA or Sinn Fein in it's current disguise as a political party, has had the intention always, to have a reunited Ireland. They have fought and killed, maimed and we know to force a reunite Ireland. They realised the violent way would not do it. Now they are in the Political mode to achieve the same end. Which must be good. The DUP represent those who also fought to remain British and once the IRA became Sinn Fein they now fight through the ballot box to remain British. The ballot box is where this will be decided in Northern Ireland. It will only fall back to violence if the side that does not have the majority reject's the will of the people on a majority vote.Whichever way a vote on reunification of Ireland would go.

Peace in Northern Ireland, all comes down to democracy, respect for the ballot and honouring the majority vote. As it is here on the mainland of GB.

mostlyharmless Fri 25-May-18 10:57:44
"I voted Remain to help ensure peace and a stable economy for future generations.

I firmly believe that membership of the EU has been good for the U.K. and as one of the three biggest EU countries, we would have been able to continue to shape and influence the EU going forward. "

In some ways Maizie I agree, in some area's the EU has been good for the UK in the past. Over the past twenty years or so it has become less so to the point that the entire EEA has grown to a size that is unsustainable without bringing down the three richer Country's. One currency inevitably made the EEA country's vulnerable to the influences and fluctuations of the economic and trading world at large. Being able to protect ones currency is constant adjustment to threat. This has not been possible in a single currency. We were "difficult" and chose not to tie our own hands and stayed out of the single currency.

The initial concept of a few nations grouping together to trade was lost on the expansion of the EEA, as well as the gradual enforcement by stealth of a United Nations of Europe centralising individuality as part of their intent. As Sir Ivan said, 'it was on the tin", sadly most of us where too busy consuming the content of the tin to notice the warnings on the label.

Gerispringer Fri 25-May-18 05:01:31
"Life is too short to read all of the above post just looked at the end bit. ““If your not of the time then your of the past”??? Sorry. I didn’t understand the ramblings. Must be of the past. Good luck."

Don't worry about it Geri.

MaizieD Fri 25-May-18 10:53:41"But to make the point that Brexit does indeed mean Brexit. And that the Eurosceptic contention, with which personally I agree, that the EU had developed hugely beyond a free trading bloc – where I differ is just that I think that was always extremely clearly the intention stated on the tin – needed to be accompanied by the recognition that leaving such an extraordinarily complex and deep legal order for a new, much looser, but hopefully co-operative deal, was bound to be a very lengthy tortuous process."

Sir Ivan Rogers as one might expect has got it in one in one respect. It is tortuous negotiating and we can't expect detailed answers guarantee's on perfection as we move forward. Change is uncomfortable we have to expect that.
Sir Ivan says:" Because if we are leaving it is because we want to diverge and differentiate in substantial areas." Exactly right.

He also has identified the huge development by stealth beyond the free trading bloc, which was the original referendum intention in 1973. He is also right, as it turns out that the intention of the EU to encompass us entirely was on the "tin" as he put it so well. Myself I would say it was in the small print, not quite the same thing. Successive Government have been identified by the EU as "difficult" since we have never quite fit into the mould that the EU has formed for the EEA country's. I imagine that economic contributions that we make to the EU aside, they will be quite glad to be shot of us on some levels.

Excellent questions Cunco!

I voted Remain to help ensure peace and a stable economy for future generations.

I firmly believe that membership of the EU has been good for the U.K. and as one of the three biggest EU countries, we would have been able to continue to shape and influence the EU going forward.

I really hate the thought of a culturally and economically isolated Britain, touting desperately round the world for trading partners with dodgy standards.

Every society needs peace, economic stability, good employment prospects, educational opportunities, good health and welfare provision, travel opportunities, cultural openness, good working conditions, environmental protections, cooperation over security and policing. The EU helped with all these things.

Peace, including in Northern Ireland, should never be taken for granted.

Has anyone else read the text of Sir Ivan Roger's lecture on the EU and Brexit?

It is a very long read, but as it is by someone who has had many years direct experience of working and negotiating within the EU framework it is worth the effort.

Just a snippet:

_Start-

And finally, we have the whole issue of the very large tracts of the UK economy in which regulatory agencies at the EU level either administer EU law or supply expert advice to underpin policy – in other words, supply key government functions which we no longer have at the national level. Post Brexit, we either have to take back full control and re-learn how to conduct those functions or we have to find a way to remain part of or affiliated to these agencies, but, inevitably, with less of a voice than we had within on policy direction.

There is a plethora of these bodies, managing critical issues from aviation safety to chemicals, from food safety to the energy internal market, from medicines to trademarks, from telecommunications and broadcasting to fisheries. They cover, in other words, large tracts of the most successful business sectors the UK has.

I do not want to be unfair about the UK papers and speeches here – and there will be a vast volume of work going on in each area to examine what can and should be done and at what speed. No single post Brexit model will work for all. But if we want, in areas , genuinely to go it alone – or have to, because we cannot accept the jurisdictional and dispute resolution implications of staying in agencies run at the EU level in which our voice is lessened – then we have to be going full tilt in developing that regulatory capability at huge speed, rather than assuming the EU is bound to give us both associate membership and a serious role from outside in policy setting, when the only way that can happen is if we shift our red line on jurisdiction questions.

That was promulgated as a red line when no serious thought at all had been given to these questions.

The fact that, in so many areas, we are obviously NOT doing that, and both regulators and industries are making it clear that they have no intention of replicating, at great cost, regulatory capability which already exists, is yet another reason why the EU side has long since concluded that the UK would not walk out.

Because it could not.

No amount of “be careful: we could still walk out, you know” sabre rattling makes the slightest odds when the other side knows that the day after doing so, we would be back pleading for continuity and for the ongoing delivery of, and access to, functions the British State has no capability to provide.

I make all these points not to disparage the idea of close and deep co-operation on a huge number of fronts with our former EU partners. That is self-evidently in both sides’ interests. All sides need to recognise what is at stake here.

But to make the point that Brexit does indeed mean Brexit. And that the Eurosceptic contention, with which personally I agree, that the EU had developed hugely beyond a free trading bloc – where I differ is just that I think that was always extremely clearly the intention stated on the tin – needed to be accompanied by the recognition that leaving such an extraordinarily complex and deep legal order for a new, much looser, but hopefully co-operative deal, was bound to be a very lengthy tortuous process.

And was bound therefore to require serious time because in every one of these economic areas, as well as in internal and external security, there will need to be new legal agreements negotiated , often of great detail, specifying the new relationship, which will not be at all the same – cannot be the same – as the one pre-exit.

No number of repetitions of the line that “we start convergent, so doing a trade and security deal with us is the work of weeks” makes it true.

Because if we are leaving it is because we want to diverge and differentiate in substantial areas. For the other side, continuity on Day 1 is the reddest of red herrings. They want to know where we intend to end up on Day 2, day 200 and day 2000.

End

pastebin.com/jMkxVUjs