ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Brexit

Reply
Old 8th August 2019, 02:17 AM   #361
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: I try to be a moving target
Posts: 14,707
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
You'd be foolish to believe all the claims made by any campaigners. During the Brexit campaign both sides lied. I think this happens with most election campaigns. Politicians are liars! (shock!)

I never expected that the EU would allow us to keep all EU privileges after we'd left - they would be mad to do that as it would encourage lots of other countries to also leave the EU.
What lies did remain say about the economic consequences and ease of trading by remaining?

It is not that leave told done lies. All leave said was lies. Where did leave say we would have a hard brexit, border posts in Ireland, airport car parks in Dover and massive job losses. Where were those posters?
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 02:29 AM   #362
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,324
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
Well, he's right on the GMO and Disney character thing. However I doubt Disney characters can be made into fearmongering propaganda quite as easily. Maybe when Disney makes a human-mouse hybrid that looks like Mickey and uses them as slaves in their parks, but that's twenty years away, maybe thirty.

Those ears need a support structure that is both light and stiff and convincing the metabolism to build it out of titanium is going to be tricky.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

Last edited by zooterkin; 8th August 2019 at 09:32 AM.
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 02:37 AM   #363
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,324
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
What lies did remain say about the economic consequences and ease of trading by remaining?

It is not that leave told done lies. All leave said was lies. Where did leave say we would have a hard brexit, border posts in Ireland, airport car parks in Dover and massive job losses. Where were those posters?
Found one!

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 02:43 AM   #364
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,707
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
No the backstop does not go away. The backstop remains. What it requires is that whatever changes there are in the EU in future the UK passively follows. If the EU decides to ban US goods or make Disney characters illegal* then the UK has to follow.

Now if you believe the EU is wonderful and can never do wrong then that is fine, I happen to think that at present staying in the EU is better than not; but I think that could change in the future. Leaving the EU has a mechanism article 50. There is no exit from the backstop. It requires the UK to be subject to EU law as it is now and as it will be in the future in perpetuity with no legal exit except as agreed by the EU.

*The EU is quite capable of irrational legislation e.g. on GMO. Their is a more rational basis for arguing that Disney's cultural appropriation and claimed ownership of e.g. Snow White, should be banned than GMO's.
You're saying that the UK should break the GFA now because there might unexpectedly(!) arise circumstances which would force the UK to break the WA. That makes no sense.
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 02:45 AM   #365
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,906
Jeebus...
Certain people really need to either:
1. Read the GFA, the NI backstop arrangements and the UK's Withdrawal Agreement
2. Stop pontificating about matters they clearly don't understand
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 02:47 AM   #366
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,906
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
All we need to do is negotiate a trade deal and the backstop goes away.
Given the level of competence of the Brexiteers that should be completed around 2070.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 02:48 AM   #367
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,906
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
I'm curious. What is this alternative to the backstop?
There was some rubbish from the Brexiteers about magic technology that could fix everything easily. Those who understand what was actually required debunked their nonsense however.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 02:52 AM   #368
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: I try to be a moving target
Posts: 14,707
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Found one!

McHrozni
Indeed. Whereas in the past lorry drivers would live a lonely existence, rolling on through borders as if they were not there. In the Brexit future they will be able to converse with and get to know a large variety of immigration, customs, and tax officials on route and will have hours to spend playing cards while parked up on the side of the A2. It will be a lot more sociable country as we abandon our mobile phones Tesco orders and rediscover the ability to make small talk while standing in food queues. Not to mention the benefit of having the opportunity to learn foreign languages as we fight for the limited visas available for jobs picking soft fruits in Romania or building sites in Poland. It will be truly great.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 02:57 AM   #369
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,324
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
Indeed. Whereas in the past lorry drivers would live a lonely existence, rolling on through borders as if they were not there. In the Brexit future they will be able to converse with and get to know a large variety of immigration, customs, and tax officials on route and will have hours to spend playing cards while parked up on the side of the A2. It will be a lot more sociable country as we abandon our mobile phones Tesco orders and rediscover the ability to make small talk while standing in food queues. Not to mention the benefit of having the opportunity to learn foreign languages as we fight for the limited visas available for jobs picking soft fruits in Romania or building sites in Poland. It will be truly great.
MaBGA!

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 02:58 AM   #370
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 16,551
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
I am sure many people voted for Brexit for many different reasons. I do not believe you know what all those people thought would be the consequence of Brexit. I do know people who thought there would be a worsening of the economy post Brexit but who thought there would be a longer term gain. People who thought a short term sacrifice was justified for the longer term benefits. One person I know argues that with global warming the EU would be flooded with refugees and the global warming would impact central and southern europe more than the UK. That looking 30 years ahead the UK needed to be able to adopt its own policies.
You seem to be saying that immigration is the problem. Truth is, we have a divided world: the rich world and the poor world. As long as that is the case, the poor world will be susceptible to exploitative dictatorships, civil wars, poverty, hunger, natural disasters (infrastructures that crumble at first sign of severe weather, earthquakes or flooding), so of course, there is economic migration. If you were born by an accidental of birth on the flood plains of Bangladeshi, you too, would be keen to get out and try your hand at an 'Indian' Restaurant in Soho or a sweatshop tailors in the East End.

In the meantime, first world countries are crying out for menial labourers, cleaners, agricultural workers, construction workers or even doctors, nurses and engineers because there is a shortage of such staff in their own country with the indigenous population preferring light service 9 to 5 work.

So Merkel may or may not have made a huge mistake allowing in over a million or so asylum seekers from war torn Syria and Afghanistan and there is the reasonable fear that we in the UK will be obliged to take in large numbers when lack of housing is already near crisis point. Truth is, migration is nothing new. It is as old as mankind itself. Even if the UK were to leave with deal or no deal it still has a humanitarian obligation to admit asylum seekers.

Stopping immigration doesn't solve anything much as they are often vital to the wealth of the country.

The problem starts when the immigrants become 'ghetto'-ised into certain areas and become associated with crime and poverty.

Then there is a perception they are a burden on the welfare service.

'Taking back control of our borders' isn't going to solve this.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 03:21 AM   #371
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,936
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
They don't still want to play the course as if they were a member. They just want to leave. If the club is prepared to offer a way of paying per round, and if the cost is reasonable, then they might still play there. If not they will play at different clubs.

What is not acceptable is for the club to dictate to ex-members that they can never play at any other club.
Correct. Which is why the EU is doing no such thing.

The UK is entirely free to negotiate any treaty or trade deal it wants with any third party it wants after it has left.

It is UK incompetence that means it has not left yet.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 03:28 AM   #372
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,324
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Stopping immigration doesn't solve anything much as they are often vital to the wealth of the country.
Actually stopping immigration would be in the long-term interests of the countries providing the said immigrants.

Why? Because those that leave tend to be better educated, more flexible and more capable than those who remain. The longer emigration goes on the more the ratio skews towards the less educated, less flexible and less capable people remaining. This is not a problem if the rate emigration is low enough for the available talent pool to be continuosly replenished, but mass emigration over a generation or so may well produce a failed state that will take several generations to repair. Truly massive emigration of a a third of population has the potential to do that in half the time.

I have nothing against immigrants and as you say they often are vital to the wealth of their target country. Bring in too many however and that will be determinal to their origin country for the foreseeable future.

It's easy to name countries that are at risk of this or have passed the treshold: Venezuela, Syria, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe and Somalia. All of these will be far more difficult to repair from their own respective collapses than they would be if it wasn't for the mass emigration robbing the country of talent. There are others that are at risk (Argentina comes to mind), some are in Europe, some may even be members of the EU. I don't expect them to fall down quite as deep at those five, but they will still feel the consequences.

Stoping excessive immigration therefore does something in that regard: it makes the rise from poverty less difficult for the poor countries.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

Last edited by McHrozni; 8th August 2019 at 03:32 AM.
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 03:31 AM   #373
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,455
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
There was some rubbish from the Brexiteers about magic technology that could fix everything easily. Those who understand what was actually required debunked their nonsense however.
It was self-debunking anyway, because if the magic technology had existed then it would have been put in place on day 1 and there would have been no need for the backstop to continue. The backstop is required, purely and simply, because the magic technology doesn't exist yet.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 03:57 AM   #374
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 40,710
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
There was some rubbish from the Brexiteers about magic technology that could fix everything easily. Those who understand what was actually required debunked their nonsense however.

What was to be negotiated with the EU about this magic? Can the EU negotiate magic?
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 04:37 AM   #375
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,906
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
It was self-debunking anyway, because if the magic technology had existed then it would have been put in place on day 1 and there would have been no need for the backstop to continue. The backstop is required, purely and simply, because the magic technology doesn't exist yet.

Dave
Exactly. If the magic technology existed the Brexiteers wouldn't have cared about the NI backstop.

Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
What was to be negotiated with the EU about this magic? Can the EU negotiate magic?
I'm sure the EU has an office responsible for planning for the return of magic.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 04:41 AM   #376
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 40,710
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Well, he's right on the GMO and Disney character thing. However I doubt Disney characters can be made into fearmongering propaganda quite as easily. Maybe when Disney makes a human-mouse hybrid that looks like Mickey and uses them as slaves in their parks, but that's twenty years away, maybe thirty.

Those ears need a support structure that is both light and stiff and convincing the metabolism to build it out of titanium is going to be tricky.

McHrozni

__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 04:56 AM   #377
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,809
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
It was self-debunking anyway, because if the magic technology had existed then it would have been put in place on day 1 and there would have been no need for the backstop to continue. The backstop is required, purely and simply, because the magic technology doesn't exist yet.

Dave
The backstop called their bluff, which is why they're opposed to it.

As someone has already suggested, if it didn't exist then something else would have been found to complain about.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 04:57 AM   #378
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,359
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
We've made many proposals to the EU. It's rather a waste of time if they just reject them out of hand, or insist they can't be discussed until after Brexit.
Can you name 3?
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 07:33 AM   #379
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 5,916
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Correct. Which is why the EU is doing no such thing.

The UK is entirely free to negotiate any treaty or trade deal it wants with any third party it wants after it has left.
Yes, if we leave properly. That wouldn't have been the case had we accepted "Mrs May's deal" which bound us into the backstop and prevented us negotiating any treaties or trade deals with other countries.
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 07:56 AM   #380
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: I try to be a moving target
Posts: 14,707
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Yes, if we leave properly. That wouldn't have been the case had we accepted "Mrs May's deal" which bound us into the backstop and prevented us negotiating any treaties or trade deals with other countries.
It broadly continued the existing membership obligations and rights until termination. A simple exercise running to a mere 557 pages.
I dare say that all EU law could have been reviewed in light of the UK's intended departure and amore nuanced transition agreement could have been agreed where the number of pages could have gone into 5 figures. The agreement was meant to be quick and dirty to maximize the time for discussions about the 1/1/2021 and onwards arrangements. That is why for the key areas what was documented was simply 'as is' or 'scrap'.
Negotiating new treaties is 'as is'. As you will know the existing law does not prevent us negotiating new trade deals. We have agreed some already with the likes of the faroe islands. If it doesn't stop us negotiating deals now it will not stop us negotiating deals in transition.
As ever this is not a genuine complaint simply a brexiteer* lie to hide their objective of orchestrating a model.

The lie are generally promoted by those shorting the UK's economic welfare for personal gain albeit spread by those deluded into a fantasy.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 08:09 AM   #381
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 5,916
The problem wasn't with the transition period - it was obvious that we'd not be able to complete new trade deals while still in the single market and customs union.

The problem was that the backstop didn't have an end date or an exit mechanism. If the EU were so confident that the backstop was only needed temporarily, they could have specified an end date, but they weren't able, or willing, to do that.

Last edited by ceptimus; 8th August 2019 at 08:11 AM.
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 08:13 AM   #382
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,872
becausea deal might not have been reached by that date.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 08:34 AM   #383
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,809
And there was/is an exit.
Our Prime Minister is currently planning on using the very mechanism that was always available to us to leave the backstop.

So why, exactly, is he doing that now if the backstop is the only thing that is an issue?

Because it isn't.
It's an excuse.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 09:07 AM   #384
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 5,916
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
And there was/is an exit.
Our Prime Minister is currently planning on using the very mechanism that was always available to us to leave the backstop.

So why, exactly, is he doing that now if the backstop is the only thing that is an issue?

Because it isn't.
It's an excuse.
I don't think you understand.

The backstop hasn't begun yet and won't begin unless we agree to the Withdrawal Agreement. If we do agree to the WA, the backstop still doesn't kick in until after the transition period (maybe two years?) and only then if the EU says a solution to the Northern Ireland border hasn't been agreed. If and when the backstop does ever kick in then there's no exit mechanism: it stays in force until the EU says otherwise.

MPs aren't prepared to accept the WA. Many of them say they would accept it if the backstop was removed, but the EU say they can't/won't remove it.

If the WA isn't signed off by Halloween (and the PM doesn't request an extension that is then granted by the EU) then we leave without a deal, and the backstop, in its current form, dies - though the EU say they will still demand something similar before any trade negotiations can begin.

It's complicated isn't it?

Last edited by ceptimus; 8th August 2019 at 09:09 AM.
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 09:26 AM   #385
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,954
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
No the backstop does not go away. The backstop remains. What it requires is that whatever changes there are in the EU in future the UK passively follows. If the EU decides to ban US goods or make Disney characters illegal* then the UK has to follow.

.
Obviously, and itís a perfectly reasonable demand on their part. The border is how they would enforce such a ban on US products therefore you need to either agree to implementing the same ban or agree to implementing controls at the border. You can choose one or the other but you can't have it both ways and no other country in the world would not make the same demand.


Once again itís not the EU being unreasonable here, rather it Breixiters acting like spoiled whiny children finding out for the first time that the word doesnít work exactly how they want.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 09:35 AM   #386
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,954
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
If the backstop had an exit mechanism, I would support the WA.
It has 2 exit mechanisms
1) Come to a mutual agreement on trade, customs and travel
2) Implement customs and travel checkpoints at the border.

This isnít rocket science. The whole world works this way.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 09:36 AM   #387
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,203
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Well, he's right on the GMO and Disney character thing. However I doubt Disney characters can be made into fearmongering propaganda quite as easily. Maybe when Disney makes a human-mouse hybrid that looks like Mickey and uses them as slaves in their parks, but that's twenty years away, maybe thirty.

Those ears need a support structure that is both light and stiff and convincing the metabolism to build it out of titanium is going to be tricky.

McHrozni
OK it was an attempt at hyperbole. The point I was trying to make was that the backstop ties the UK into the EU decisions in the future, with no participation in the decision making mechanism. In essence it appears to require the UK to remain functionally part of the EU, but with no political participation. If Ireland changes its status with regards to Schengen, then the UK would have to do so. The UK would be subject to EU laws and the ECJ, as they are now and as they become in the future. With no equivalent to article 50, it is the Hotel California option. This is certainly not what people who voted for Brexit wanted.

Just to be clear, I think remaining in the EU is the best option, pointing out that the backstop as is, is undemocratic is not arguing for Brexit. If the current transition arrangements meet the backstop requirements then the backstop is unnecessary at present. If insisting on the backstop results in a hard border due to a hard Brexit and dropping the backstop (deferring agreement on implementation?) for the transition agreement results in a transparent border then the pragmatic thing is to kick the issue into the long grass, and come back to it as part of the post Brexit agreement.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 09:45 AM   #388
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,203
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
It has 2 exit mechanisms
1) Come to a mutual agreement on trade, customs and travel
2) Implement customs and travel checkpoints at the border.

This isnít rocket science. The whole world works this way.
I may be misunderstanding you. The backstop does not allow a mutual agreement, it means a unilateral agreement as defined by the EU view on free trade and movement. Agreement to the backstop does not legally allow the UK to have checkpoints at the border with the EU.

The backstop is currently not agreed. The agreement was that it was not agreed until all ( the complete transition arrangement) was agreed. The imbalance is that the UK is being asked to sign up to a permanent precondition on future relationships with the EU in return for a transitional arrangement. Once signed up the UK cannot exit in the two ways you give.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 09:49 AM   #389
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,954
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
The problem wasn't with the transition period - it was obvious that we'd not be able to complete new trade deals while still in the single market and customs union.
You could negotiate the deals you just couldnít bring them into effect for somewhat obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post

If the EU were so confident that the backstop was only needed temporarily, they could have specified an end date, but they weren't able, or willing, to do that.
It's the Brexiters that claimed such a deal would only be needed temporarily because they had some magic technology that would solve everything. The EU, pretty clearly felt they were spouting nonsense but was still willing to offer them a chance to try.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 09:53 AM   #390
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,203
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Obviously, and itís a perfectly reasonable demand on their part. The border is how they would enforce such a ban on US products therefore you need to either agree to implementing the same ban or agree to implementing controls at the border. You can choose one or the other but you can't have it both ways and no other country in the world would not make the same demand.


Once again itís not the EU being unreasonable here, rather it Breixiters acting like spoiled whiny children finding out for the first time that the word doesnít work exactly how they want.
If we take the case of e.g. Norway or Switzerland and their arrangements with the EU, if the EU develops a new trade policy, then Norway or Switzerland have the option of renegotiating their arrangements with the EU or ceasing current arrangements, the backstop does not allow this option. The UK cannot legally withdraw without EU consent.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 10:09 AM   #391
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,954
No. The backstop is there solely because the UK doesnít want a controlled border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. The UK has claimed that it can develop another solution that would work for both sides. EU is obviously doubtful but willing to let the UK try provided EU borders are not compromised. The backstop is how the EU will protect itís borders while awaiting the UKís ďsolutionĒ and obvious cannot end until the ďsolutionĒ exists.

Should the UK agree to a controlled border the backstop is moot and no longer required. Doing so would allow the UK to exit the backstop agreement at any time with no other consequences.
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
The imbalance is that the UK is being asked to sign up to a permanent precondition on future relationships with the EU in return for a transitional arrangement.
Border controls are always a permanent precondition for having independent trade/travel/customs rules the world over. Being in the EU is the only reason you donít have them already. When you ask for Brexit, borders are an implicit part of what you are asking for and always have been.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 10:12 AM   #392
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,203
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You seem to be saying that immigration is the problem. Truth is, we have a divided world: the rich world and the poor world. As long as that is the case, the poor world will be susceptible to exploitative dictatorships, civil wars, poverty, hunger, natural disasters (infrastructures that crumble at first sign of severe weather, earthquakes or flooding), so of course, there is economic migration. If you were born by an accidental of birth on the flood plains of Bangladeshi, you too, would be keen to get out and try your hand at an 'Indian' Restaurant in Soho or a sweatshop tailors in the East End.

In the meantime, first world countries are crying out for menial labourers, cleaners, agricultural workers, construction workers or even doctors, nurses and engineers because there is a shortage of such staff in their own country with the indigenous population preferring light service 9 to 5 work.

So Merkel may or may not have made a huge mistake allowing in over a million or so asylum seekers from war torn Syria and Afghanistan and there is the reasonable fear that we in the UK will be obliged to take in large numbers when lack of housing is already near crisis point. Truth is, migration is nothing new. It is as old as mankind itself. Even if the UK were to leave with deal or no deal it still has a humanitarian obligation to admit asylum seekers.

Stopping immigration doesn't solve anything much as they are often vital to the wealth of the country.

The problem starts when the immigrants become 'ghetto'-ised into certain areas and become associated with crime and poverty.

Then there is a perception they are a burden on the welfare service.

'Taking back control of our borders' isn't going to solve this.
As a BME woman whose parents came to the UK from what you describe as the flood plains of Bangladesh, I can assure you I am personally very aware of the issues of racism and migration. What I was trying to say was that people had many reasons (some imho irrational) for voting for Brexit, concerns over migration was I believe a factor in the minds of many who voted for Brexit. The recent EU election suggests that despite the issues now perhaps being clearer about the consequences of Brexit, many who voted for Brexit would still vote for Brexit. I realise that one only needs a 10% shift in Brexit voters to change the outcome if there was a second referendum, but I am not convinced that most of those who voted for Brexit would change their vote.

At this point if the UK fails to leave the EU then the issue just becomes a worsening ulcer in the body politic. Even a second referendum with a change in vote to remain would not deal with the issue unless the vote was very clearly in favour of remain e.g. >60%.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 10:23 AM   #393
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,954
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
If we take the case of e.g. Norway or Switzerland and their arrangements with the EU, if the EU develops a new trade policy, then Norway or Switzerland have the option of renegotiating their arrangements with the EU or ceasing current arrangements, the backstop does not allow this option.
Those countries have agreements with the EU on borders and customs that protect both sides when they deal with third parties. The UK explicitly rejected similar agreements.

Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
The UK cannot legally withdraw without EU consent.
This is nonsensical. Countries cancel agreements all the time, all that happens is that the other side is no longer bound by them either. In this case that means the EU would resume it's requirement for customs and travel checkpoints at border crossings.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 10:31 AM   #394
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,203
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
No. The backstop is there solely because the UK doesnít want a controlled border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. The UK has claimed that it can develop another solution that would work for both sides. EU is obviously doubtful but willing to let the UK try provided EU borders are not compromised. The backstop is how the EU will protect itís borders while awaiting the UKís ďsolutionĒ and obvious cannot end until the ďsolutionĒ exists.

Should the UK agree to a controlled border the backstop is moot and no longer required. Doing so would allow the UK to exit the backstop agreement at any time with no other consequences.

Border controls are always a permanent precondition for having independent trade/travel/customs rules the world over. Being in the EU is the only reason you donít have them already. When you ask for Brexit, borders are an implicit part of what you are asking for and always have been.
I feel we are arguing past each other, I am obviously missing something, and it may be my ignorance of the issue, so I am happy to be corrected. The backstop is a precondition of the EU because the EU says that no future arrangements between the UK and the EU should result in a 'policed' land border. The EU will not enter into negotiations that would result in a 'policed' border. The only way that the EU currently can conceive of the land border is if the common travel and trade areas exist in the UK, which if the UK agreed to would prevent the UK from e.g. growing GMO plants, entering into trade agreements with non EU countries.

The UK has offered as an alternative a networked' border where instead of having a customs post on the border customs forms are completed on line. Currently the tax regimes differ across the border between NI and Ireland. Smuggling occurs. The customs officers stop vehicles once they cross the border or when they unload if they suspect smuggling. What is proposed is an extension of current arrangements. I do not know if this would work, it could perhaps be trialled during the transition period with an agreed definition of success. The EU has refused to consider this option.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 11:12 AM   #395
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,788
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
I feel we are arguing past each other, I am obviously missing something, and it may be my ignorance of the issue, so I am happy to be corrected. The backstop is a precondition of the EU because the EU says that no future arrangements between the UK and the EU should result in a 'policed' land border. The EU will not enter into negotiations that would result in a 'policed' border. The only way that the EU currently can conceive of the land border is if the common travel and trade areas exist in the UK, which if the UK agreed to would prevent the UK from e.g. growing GMO plants, entering into trade agreements with non EU countries.

The UK has offered as an alternative a networked' border where instead of having a customs post on the border customs forms are completed on line. Currently the tax regimes differ across the border between NI and Ireland. Smuggling occurs. The customs officers stop vehicles once they cross the border or when they unload if they suspect smuggling. What is proposed is an extension of current arrangements. I do not know if this would work, it could perhaps be trialled during the transition period with an agreed definition of success. The EU has refused to consider this option.
That is not an extension of current arrangements, there is currently an open border between NI and the Republic courtesy of the CTA. This is the reason why the practical necessity of a hard border between an EU and Non-EU country is such an issue, and one greatly magnified by the political implications of such a border in terms of a future united Ireland.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 11:39 AM   #396
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 5,916
Originally Posted by lomiller
It has 2 exit mechanisms
1) Come to a mutual agreement on trade, customs and travel
2) Implement customs and travel checkpoints at the border.

This isn’t rocket science. The whole world works this way.
2) is in contravention of the GFA
1) the 'mutual' part means that the EU have a veto on ending the backstop - so they can keep it forever if they wish.

Unacceptable
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 12:05 PM   #397
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,707
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
OK it was an attempt at hyperbole. The point I was trying to make was that the backstop ties the UK into the EU decisions in the future, with no participation in the decision making mechanism. In essence it appears to require the UK to remain functionally part of the EU, but with no political participation.
That is a choice the UK is making. The GFA is only relevant to northern ireland. It is purely an internal UK decision to extend the backstop to the whole of the UK.

Quote:
If Ireland changes its status with regards to Schengen, then the UK would have to do so.
Can you try to justify that assertion?
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 12:06 PM   #398
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,203
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
2) is in contravention of the GFA
1) the 'mutual' part means that the EU have a veto on ending the backstop - so they can keep it forever if they wish.

Unacceptable
Re 2) No The GFA does not say anything about the border other than it should be demilitarised; it would not be in contravention to the GFA.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 12:11 PM   #399
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,954
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
2) is in contravention of the GFA
That isnít the EUís fault so why would it be up to the EU to solve the problem for you?
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
1) the 'mutual' part means that the EU have a veto
No *****. Of course the EU is going to require a veto on something that could violate the integrity of itís borders. How dumb would you need to be to think there is any possibility they would not make it a requirement.
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Unacceptable
If using standards that are accepted the world over for travel between friendly countries that are not part of a common trade/customs/travel area isnít acceptable maybe you should reconsider if being outside such an area is what you really want.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 12:12 PM   #400
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 26,892
According to the UK Prime Minister, compromise is a one way street...

Quote:
The EU should show "common sense" and agree to make changes to the Brexit withdrawal deal, Boris Johnson has told the BBC.

The prime minister said there was "bags of time" for the EU to compromise on the Irish border backstop plan before the Brexit deadline of 31 October.
Of course there's no need for the UK to assess any of its red lines - only foreigners need to do that

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49280689
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:18 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.