Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[Deleted member 15344]

The leader of the SNP was full of misinformation, hatred and bile. Funny how a nationalist in the rest of the U.K. are classed as extreme right wing. This idiot's main aim with his little point of order was to try and cause fear and suspicion amongst the people of NI IMO.

It was very poor bringing in the Good Friday agreement - it almost felt like a teddy throwing moment because his motion was severely beaten

Unfortunately immediately slapped down by Donald Tusk and the Irish government saying that the Withdrawal Agrrement is not open for renegotiation. If anything I think that tonight could have taken us closer to a No Deal exit than we were before despite a majority in the HoC being against it. Unless the EU are willing to change their minds and look again at the Irish Backstop I can't see how a deal is going to get through Parliament and before we know it we'll arrive at 29th March with no agreement and be leaving by default with no deal.

You would hope it’s someone just sounding off but whilst the EU need to look after themselves which is their right , there will also need to be some leeway - I still don’t think we will leave with a No Deal in 29th March

 

[ColchesterFC]

You would hope it’s someone just sounding off but whilst the EU need to look after themselves which is their right , there will also need to be some leeway - I still don’t think we will leave with a No Deal in 29th March

The EU do need to look after themselves but they also need to look after their member states and I suspect many of them are not going to be happy if the EU refuses to negotiate and it ends up with us leaving with no deal.

 

[Hacker Khan]

The EU do need to look after themselves but they also need to look after their member states and I suspect many of them are not going to be happy if the EU refuses to negotiate and it ends up with us leaving with no deal.

You could argue that they are looking after one of their member states, Ireland. And the current noises coming out of the EU is that they will not compromise on a hard border and the backstop for the sake of us threatening to not buy BMWs etc.

 

[ColchesterFC]

You could argue that they are looking after one of their member states, Ireland. And the current noises coming out of the EU is that they will not compromise on a hard border and the backstop for the sake of us threatening to not buy BMWs etc.

But are they looking after that one member to the detriment to others? And the EU have recently said that in the event of a No Deal Brexit they will look at other solutions to avoid a hard border in Ireland. So why can't they look at those solutions as an alternative to the backstop?

I have one question that isn't directly related to your reply...... why couldn't the 'border' be put in place around the whole island of Ireland and the UK rather than internally. I know technically this would create an internal border within the EU which I assume would be considered unacceptable but the vast majority of imports/exports to and from Ireland come or go via the UK through Liverpool/Holyhead and Dublin (see link below). If these lorries when arriving from the EU were checked, in some way, on arrival in the UK then they could be cleared for onward travel to Ireland/NI, and the same the other way when they arrived in the EU. It's possible/likely that I am missing a very good reason why this wouldn't work but I can't think of it. A No Deal Brexit would mean that all lorries from the EU would need to have some kind of checks on arrival at British ports. They would then travel across the UK and get on a ferry to Ireland where they would then need some more checks on arrival. This would be very bad news for Ireland as they rely heavily on their trade with the rest of the UK but also on their imports and exports travelling via the UK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44657460

 

[Sweep]

The cost of shunting to/from Strasbourg each month has been estimated at just over 100m Euros/year (more recent estimate £130-150m/year.
All EU folk involved would, apparently, prefer that it was scrapped, but that would require Treaty changes. That move/those clauses was/were insisted upon by France - the equivalent of a 'major shareholder in the company'. We've been through the myth of 'non-ratified' accounts before. Simply propaganda! And unless you can demonstrate significant 'self cert expenses' I'd call that propaganda too.

Btw. I'm not specifically defending the EU - simply asking for factual evidence!

EU procedures also reduce costs too. For example, there'll be lots more Border Control and Customs folk required by UK (and other countries) unless suitable arrangements are put in place! So the 'additional cost' argument doesn't hold water!

Just because they have all allegedly had an alleluia moment and realised that moving to Strasbourg and back is just stupid and costly doesn’t mean the EU is well managed. The very fact that changing this requires a treaty should tell you all you need to know about EU management. Still, one thing they are good at is treaties, so you would think they would have sorted this by now. Well, they would have done if they were well managed.

Claiming that the EU saves costs on things like border control is utter nonsense. The Irish border is in the news right now. What costs did it save there? Has the EU saved anyone even the £150m a year you say moving to Strasbourg and back costs? This is all additional costs that other nations the world over don’t pay. They don’t need it and neither do we. It’s just another level of government brought in to run a trade deal.
As for expenses a 4 second google search will confirm it for you. This one, from the pro EU Guardian tells us how an EU court ruled against making EU expense claims transparent. Who would have guessed that was going to happen? It tells us all about an MEP’s £7,705 per month salary, plus pension. It tells us how, even when they lose their seat or just leave they get up to €206,000 golden goodbye. It goes on to say how they receive €4,416 a month to run their office with no receipts required, which alone costs us all €40 million a year. And if that’s not enough they receive €313 a day for hotel and living costs when in Brussels and Strasbourg, no receipts required. In addition they are refunded for all first class travel expenses, details of which are kept secret from the public, civil society and the press.
So, are you still calling “self cert expenses” propaganda? Thought not.
Well managed my arse.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/25/mep-expenses-eu-court-ruling

 

[Sweep]

EU accounts have been signed off every year since 2007. However, with the rider that there were "significant errors."

Imagine a limited company trying to get away with that. Oh, and best not mention before 2007.

 

[Sweep]

Not unlike an awful lot of big organisation’s accounts/audits.

Awful lot? Can you name any?
I will give you two. Tesco, business and staff in deep poo for it and Patisserie Valerie with ex company officials looking at jail. Can you name one EU official who has gone to jail for “significant errors” in EU accounts?
Three more small but significant points:
1. EU accounts are dealing with huge sums of money. Billions in fact.
2. EU money is not EU money. It’s public money.
3. Just because a few companies acted wrongly and illegally does not mean a government can do too.

 

[Dando]

Correct it was a once in a life time vote (although Rees Mogg did tweet we could have another if he did not get what he wanted) the vote was on leave the EU or Stay, the new referendum will be leave with deal, leave with no deal, or stay.
But you don’t want this because it splits the leave vote up and gives stay a large majority.
Things have changed, a deal has been offered, it hadn’t before, your answer is incorrect.
I am sure your 5 yr old grandson is a very bright lad and would put most of the Tories to shame, but he may find the European negotiators a challenge, but hey in desperate times desperate measures. Suit and boot the boy up and send him in.
Regards Boris, I know it’s embarrassing, take consolation that he has now suckered a young lady 20+yrs his junior
Your right the leavers should have negotiated, they did not, in fact they avoided the opportunity. Pretty poor effort on their part. Might be a good omen they did not, if they could not contrive to win a leadership competition in their own party.
I am glad.

Why will the new vote have to have a stay option when its already been decided to leave?
you’re like a broken record

 

[Sweep]

But are they looking after that one member to the detriment to others? And the EU have recently said that in the event of a No Deal Brexit they will look at other solutions to avoid a hard border in Ireland. So why can't they look at those solutions as an alternative to the backstop?

I have one question that isn't directly related to your reply...... why couldn't the 'border' be put in place around the whole island of Ireland and the UK rather than internally. I know technically this would create an internal border within the EU which I assume would be considered unacceptable but the vast majority of imports/exports to and from Ireland come or go via the UK through Liverpool/Holyhead and Dublin (see link below). If these lorries when arriving from the EU were checked, in some way, on arrival in the UK then they could be cleared for onward travel to Ireland/NI, and the same the other way when they arrived in the EU. It's possible/likely that I am missing a very good reason why this wouldn't work but I can't think of it. A No Deal Brexit would mean that all lorries from the EU would need to have some kind of checks on arrival at British ports. They would then travel across the UK and get on a ferry to Ireland where they would then need some more checks on arrival. This would be very bad news for Ireland as they rely heavily on their trade with the rest of the UK but also on their imports and exports travelling via the UK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44657460

If I understand you correctly your question has effectively outlined the problem. In a customs union, you cannot have an internal border. That’s the whole point of it. The EU cannot treat Ireland differently from other EU countries, especially to accommodate a non member. Irish goods to and from the EU via the UK would be subject to customs checks and delays which renders the customs union useless for one member state (Ireland). Just in time deliveries may not be possible which is a big argument remainers make for the UK staying in. The UK would be effectively checking the EU - Ireland goods traffic. I can’t see anyone being happy with that.
The EU won’t let the UK remain in the customs union and do trade deals elsewhere, because we could technically buy things cheaper abroad and sell them to EU countries duty free. It would be (and will be) very easy to buy some things cheaper once outside the EU, especially things that the EU has placed tariffs or quotas on. Labour wittering on about staying in “a” customs union is just nonsensical waffle that even they know is daft, for the same reasons.

The whole Irish border issue could be a red herring. As you rightly say, the EU has done a bit of a U-Turn and said it will look at other solutions in the event of a no deal. This is the opposite to what they were saying a week ago. Veradka went from no border to a hard border to an armed border in one day last week, so things are fluid. The UK has said it won’t impose a hard border in NI. We all know it’s virtually impossible to secure the border anyway. So, who is going to build it? As Noel would say, deal or no deal there won’t be an effective hard border between NI and Ireland.

You also raise an interesting point. If all the traffic of goods between the EU and Ireland no longer goes through the UK, that may be a big chunk of traffic not clogging up UK ports. We might not need to use the whole of Kent as a car park after all 😀

 

[oxymoron]

If I understand you correctly your question has effectively outlined the problem. In a customs union, you cannot have an internal border. That’s the whole point of it. The EU cannot treat Ireland differently from other EU countries, especially to accommodate a non member. Irish goods to and from the EU via the UK would be subject to customs checks and delays which renders the customs union useless for one member state (Ireland). Just in time deliveries may not be possible which is a big argument remainers make for the UK staying in. The UK would be effectively checking the EU - Ireland goods traffic. I can’t see anyone being happy with that.
The EU won’t let the UK remain in the customs union and do trade deals elsewhere, because we could technically buy things cheaper abroad and sell them to EU countries duty free. It would be (and will be) very easy to buy some things cheaper once outside the EU, especially things that the EU has placed tariffs or quotas on. Labour wittering on about staying in “a” customs union is just nonsensical waffle that even they know is daft, for the same reasons.

The whole Irish border issue could be a red herring. As you rightly say, the EU has done a bit of a U-Turn and said it will look at other solutions in the event of a no deal. This is the opposite to what they were saying a week ago. Veradka went from no border to a hard border to an armed border in one day last week, so things are fluid. The UK has said it won’t impose a hard border in NI. We all know it’s virtually impossible to secure the border anyway. So, who is going to build it? As Noel would say, deal or no deal there won’t be an effective hard border between NI and Ireland.

You also raise an interesting point. If all the traffic of goods between the EU and Ireland no longer goes through the UK, that may be a big chunk of traffic not clogging up UK ports. We might not need to use the whole of Kent as a car park after all 😀

So reading this , the EU can go back and look again but only if it suits them ? I would not be surprised if there is a way around this in the background that the EU can pull out of thin air at the last moment
to give the impression of how magnanimous they are , giving the bad old UK a deal\way past this blockage . Why do we have to find the solution ? Is it not a mutual problem ? The Irish bloke reminds me a bit of a
school gang member , good when he has a few mates behind him but on his own ,,,well i bet he would be a bit more open to negotiation.

 

[Sweep]

So reading this , the EU can go back and look again but only if it suits them ? I would not be surprised if there is a way around this in the background that the EU can pull out of thin air at the last moment
to give the impression of how magnanimous they are , giving the bad old UK a deal\way past this blockage . Why do we have to find the solution ? Is it not a mutual problem ? The Irish bloke reminds me a bit of a
school gang member , good when he has a few mates behind him but on his own ,,,well i bet he would be a bit more open to negotiation.

Well, people do seem to have forgotten that by definition a border has two sides. If Ireland / EU want to have a hard border, it doesn’t mean the UK does too and vice versa.
You are quite right, the EU has form on taking negotiations to the 11th hour and beyond. I wouldn’t be surprised if they did so with this, despite all the calls for certainty etc. It’s not in their interest to make leaving easy for us. It’s just unfortunate that a lot of our own MP’s have assisted them in this regard.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Awful lot? Can you name any?
I will give you two. Tesco, business and staff in deep poo for it and Patisserie Valerie with ex company officials looking at jail. Can you name one EU official who has gone to jail for “significant errors” in EU accounts?
Three more small but significant points:
1. EU accounts are dealing with huge sums of money. Billions in fact.
2. EU money is not EU money. It’s public money.
3. Just because a few companies acted wrongly and illegally does not mean a government can do too.

Calm down dear...
You’re right, only Tesco & Pat Val have ever been naughty in the corporate world!
1 - Multi National Companies also deal in Billions
2- Company money isn’t company money, it’s shareholder money
3- no one is allowed to act outside of the rules. I don’t remember stating that they could. Can you point it out for me?

 

[Colonel Bogey]

I watched most of yesterdays farce. The two leaders spoke for ages, everyone (90%) cleared off to get a bit of snappin' whilst the rest whined on an on about what they thought. The scottish bloke who kicked it off had to be told to shut up as other wanted a go. They all trooped back in after a good feed and voted on party lines barring the one where the Cons wanted it but couldn't enforce it. The best bit was when Labour didn't even bother to vote on an SNP amendment as they, apparently, never vote with the SNP as they don't like them.
It's about time we removed all these bluddy idiots and put in some sensible people to run it all. Their are far too many of them. They are nothing but a load of porkers with their noses in the trough.

 

[jp5]

EU accounts have been signed off every year since 2007. However, with the rider that there were "significant errors."

Yep, partly due to the UK electing UKIP MEPs who misspent funds.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

You could argue that they are looking after one of their member states, Ireland. And the current noises coming out of the EU is that they will not compromise on a hard border and the backstop for the sake of us threatening to not buy BMWs etc.

How is it looking after Ireland? The UK has said repeatedly that it has no intention of putting up hard borders in Ireland, we know what happens to hard borders there and no one wants to go back to that. The only ones talking borders are the EU and Ireland. The UK are talking alternatives to hard borders.

The country that is likely to be most affected economically by this is Ireland, they will look after Ireland best of all by removing the issue of hard borders. It is within their powers if they so wish but it would mean not punishing the UK. It depends what means most to them.

 

[Old Skier]

Yep, partly due to the UK electing UKIP MEPs who misspent funds.

Correct but I expect they are the only ones so once we go everything will be above board.

How is it possible to sign off accounts when the EU is regularly criticised for spending millions of euros every year on expenses that don't have to be accounted for.

No transparency in their systems will always lead to mistrust.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

May's triumph states the Express and Mail.
Really.....given a mandate by Wastemonster to go back to the EU with a deal she signed off on and to be told yet again......sorry that was the deal you negotiated.
Nothing has changed.

 

[Old Skier]

May's triumph states the Express and Mail.
Really.....given a mandate by Wastemonster to go back to the EU with a deal she signed off on and to be told yet again......sorry that was the deal you negotiated.
Nothing has changed.

It was worth it just to see how low the leader of the SNP was willing to sink.

 

[IanM]

Yep, partly due to the UK electing UKIP MEPs who misspent funds.

Actually, no. Read the auditors reports and you will see what they refer to . I am talk procurement irregularities, empty lorries and buildings owned by a commissioner.... MEP's expenses are a different matter.... of course it is all UKIPs fault. (a minor Party with little sway)

The EU have won this over the past 30 years...... little ref on here to what is comming. But you were warned.

 

[SocketRocket]

Calm down dear...
You’re right, only Tesco & Pat Val have ever been naughty in the corporate world!
1 - Multi National Companies also deal in Billions
2- Company money isn’t company money, it’s shareholder money
3- no one is allowed to act outside of the rules. I don’t remember stating that they could. Can you point it out for me?

Technically Company money is not Shareholders money where the company is incorporated. The Company and Shareholders are seen as two separate entities.