Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[Wilf]

You’re assuming that the border situation in Ireland is the most important thing of all and so anything that threatens it is de facto evil. But other people have other priorities, and that’s is entirely fair enough. Why should somebody in Lincolnshire prioritise the desire of people in Ireland to travel effortlessly between north and south over the problems faced in their own life — their own lived reality? People aren’t racist, ignorant or “being a tosser” just because they have different priorities to you which make them willing to have different compromises.

Exactly. The other thing about the vote in 2016 was that it was called at a time when people weren't actually that fussed about the EU. The majority were Eurosceptic but it wasn't a high priority issue for voters. The Tories dragged it back centre stage, ensuring it was going to be messy plebiscite around lots of issues and, even more so, lots of experiences. I'm happy to admit that some voters - a fair number - were willing to pick immigration out of the list of reasons in the multiple choice opinion polls that followed brexit, but the wider set of motivations were complex. These absolutely included experiences of neo-liberalism. Wailing 'thick wacist' at people not only misses the mark, it also exemplifies how we got to bexit. Concerns with/experiences of free movement are not the same active racism. Neo-Liberalism itself is based on a much deeper racism.

 

[philosophical]

A hard border in Ireland is both practicable and workable — you’re just ideologically opposed to it. But this is the problem, isn’t it? The various things people want are in tension with each other (the things all wanted by the same person, even), so something has to give.

You’re assuming that the border situation in Ireland is the most important thing of all and so anything that threatens it is de facto evil. But other people have other priorities, and that’s is entirely fair enough. Why should somebody in Lincolnshire prioritise the desire of people in Ireland to travel effortlessly between north and south over the problems faced in their own life — their own lived reality? People aren’t racist, ignorant or “being a tosser” just because they have different priorities to you which make them willing to have different compromises.

Well I suppose it is practical if there is a 310 mile long 15 meter fence topped with razor wire, and machine gun nests suitably spaced along it, that is one idea...although it might not go down well with farming folk who have one farm in both countries.

It might be practical to use drones and check points and random spot checks on workers, or everybody has an ID card, or is obliged to be chipped in the ear lobe or something, these things might be workable. Is that kind of stuff what you think brexit voters mean by taking back control of the UK borders?

If not that, then what others solutions might there be, the notion that something has to give because the circle can't be squared as it were is an interesting one, until one comes up against the notion that people in the Republic are those who have to do the giving to help along the brexit vote result from the people in the UK.

Not only do I have ideological issues, I have issues regarding how the hard border will impact people day to day.

A 'fudge' has been proposed, but a friend in Northern Ireland sent me this:

' I do not believe that a fudge is possible, for the very simple reason that WTO rules would make such a fudge the default position for the external borders of both the EU and UK in trade terms, post Brexit.

There has to be a detailed agreement to define the relationship between the the two parties, in both of their interests.

As for the potential for violence, I have mentioned that the PSNI are convinced that the presence of any customs infrastructure on (or near) the border in Northern Ireland would be a target for dissidents. It's precisely what has happened before on the border, and could reasonably be expected to happen again (the post on the border at Aughnacloy was destroyed by a car bomb in the 1970s and the gutted remanats remained until about 10-15 years ago).

The key point about the GFA is that joint membership of the EU was assumed in terms of the relationship between the UK and Ireland - just like breathing is assumed for any of us discussing this.'

The reason the people in Lincolnshire should be concerned is that until things improve the brexit referendum was a UK wide vote, and when they voted, they voted for something that impacts the lives of those who are called UK citizens in Lincolnshire, and in Cornwall, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland whether that suits them or not.
Indeed it is frequently said that those struggling in various regions object to decisions made about their lives by the remote metropolitan elite in London, yet that is what they have done themselves, made decisions about the lives of people miles away.

You ask why folk in Lincolnshire should 'prioritise' their agenda to be subsumed by those in Ireland who wish to travel freely to and fro, and my answer is that if you don't wish to order your priorities, then you should have a solution ready if your own priorities have a negative impact on others.

It is a bit like polluting the water upstream because getting rid of that waste is your 'priority', and not caring about what happens to the people who depend on that water downstream.

If that analogy has any resonance or meaning, could it be that the people upstream see themselves as superior to the people downstream in some way? Would that kind of attitude be a doorway into a racist, ignorant and tosser like perspectives?

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

Oh Gawd, right, let's get this sorted. I'm going to book a church hall, maybe in Birmingham. Won't be many coming down from Scotland, but it should be pretty central for all the other guilty brexiteers to sneak along to. There'll be 3 options, powerpoint and everything. Not doing that shaky hands thing though, it's really shit. Can somebody do the teas and coffees?

I reckon I can get my remain-with -nose-held scottish comrades down, a lot of this was down to driving for Indy 2 though the loudest all sound like Dexter

 

[butchersapron]

The key point about the GFA is that joint membership of the EU was assumed in terms of the relationship between the UK and Ireland - just like breathing is assumed for any of us discussing this.'

Demonstrate this claim.

 

[kabbes]

Well I suppose it is practical if there is a 310 mile long 15 meter fence topped with razor wire, and machine gun nests suitably spaced along it, that is one idea...although it might not go down well with farming folk who have one farm in both countries.

It might be practical to use drones and check points and random spot checks on workers, or everybody has an ID card, or is obliged to be chipped in the ear lobe or something, these things might be workable. Is that kind of stuff what you think brexit voters mean by taking back control of the UK borders?

This is just nonsense. Borders don't need to be 15m fences with machine gun nests. They exist all around the world in all kinds of forms. It's this kind of over the top rhetoric that just makes people roll their eyes and get on with ignoring anything you have to say.

If not that, then what others solutions might there be, the notion that something has to give because the circle can't be squared as it were is an interesting one, until one comes up against the notion that people in the Republic are those who have to do the giving to help along the brexit vote result from the people in the UK.

Yes, if no deal can be reached then people both in the EU -- including the ROI -- and in the UK are going to have to give things up. That's what happens when a country leaves a free trade zone. That's what has been voted for and what is being implemented. People in France are also having to give things up as a result of Brexit, as are people in Romania and people in Greece. And so are people in Lincolnshire. There is the opportunity for things being given up to be minimised, if the EU would get on with prioritising this rather than prioritising the punishment of the UK in order to teach a lesson about the evils of leaving its club.

Not only do I have ideological issues, I have issues regarding how the hard border will impact people day to day.

A 'fudge' has been proposed, but a friend in Northern Ireland sent me this:

' I do not believe that a fudge is possible, for the very simple reason that WTO rules would make such a fudge the default position for the external borders of both the EU and UK in trade terms, post Brexit.

There has to be a detailed agreement to define the relationship between the the two parties, in both of their interests.

Since you are the only one apparently interested in the idea of a fudge, I'm not going to bother with it. I've given you two solutions now that both don't involve a fudge -- reunite Ireland or institute a hard border between NI and RoI. It may be that the Irish people will need to choose between these two options.

As for the potential for violence, I have mentioned that the PSNI are convinced that the presence of any customs infrastructure on (or near) the border in Northern Ireland would be a target for dissidents. It's precisely what has happened before on the border, and could reasonably be expected to happen again (the post on the border at Aughnacloy was destroyed by a car bomb in the 1970s and the gutted remanats remained until about 10-15 years ago).

The key point about the GFA is that joint membership of the EU was assumed in terms of the relationship between the UK and Ireland - just like breathing is assumed for any of us discussing this.'

So it's OK for people in Northern Ireland to expect that everybody in Britain should maintain a relationship with the EU that they, as a whole, do not want under threat of violence?

You have a very one-sided view of where responsibility to others should lie.

The reason the people in Lincolnshire should be concerned is that until things improve the brexit referendum was a UK wide vote, and when they voted, they voted for something that impacts the lives of those who are called UK citizens in Lincolnshire, and in Cornwall, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland whether that suits them or not.
Indeed it is frequently said that those struggling in various regions object to decisions made about their lives by the remote metropolitan elite in London, yet that is what they have done themselves, made decisions about the lives of people miles away.

You ask why folk in Lincolnshire should 'prioritise' their agenda to be subsumed by those in Ireland who wish to travel freely to and fro, and my answer is that if you don't wish to order your priorities, then you should have a solution ready if your own priorities have a negative impact on others.

It is a bit like polluting the water upstream because getting rid of that waste is your 'priority', and not caring about what happens to the people who depend on that water downstream.

If that analogy has any resonance or meaning, could it be that the people upstream see themselves as superior to the people downstream in some way? Would that kind of attitude be a doorway into a racist, ignorant and tosser like perspectives?

Fuck me, you really do think that people in Lincolnshire are morally repugnant if they prioritise their own existence over the right of Irish people to travel unimpeded between north and south. And you are apparently willing to tell them this on the grounds that the people of Northern Ireland can't cope with political change without killing others, and that's a fair enough reason. I thought I might have gone too far, but apparently I didn't go far enough.

And you wonder why Remain lost.

 

[philosophical]

Exactly. The other thing about the vote in 2016 was that it was called at a time when people weren't actually that fussed about the EU. The majority were Eurosceptic but it wasn't a high priority issue for voters. The Tories dragged it back centre stage, ensuring it was going to be messy plebiscite around lots of issues and, even more so, lots of experiences. I'm happy to admit that some voters - a fair number - were willing to pick immigration out of the list of reasons in the multiple choice opinion polls that followed brexit, but the wider set of motivations were complex. These absolutely included experiences of neo-liberalism. Wailing 'thick wacist' at people not only misses the mark, it also exemplifies how we got to bexit. Concerns with/experiences of free movement are not the same active racism. Neo-Liberalism itself is based on a much deeper racism.

Does this whole, to quote Lord Buckethead 'shitshow', now have to be dealt with whatever the motivations of the voters? You attempt to mock those with rhotacism as if they are somehow chinless wonders, but if they were not wailing 'thick racist' before the vote, many are wailing it now, and it could be caused by alarm at the open racism that has been ushered in by the result and consequence of the vote, and therefore easy to understand.
Many EU migrants have expressed how they thought they were accepted in a community in the UK, but the vote, and subsequent outwardly racist behaviour shown by those they once thought were their friends, means that their friends were in disguise all along, and secretly hated them, but now hate them openly. The latent anti Irish racism has been awarded similar licence to bestride the land as a result of the brexit vote.
My concern that brexit voters were racist has been pushed back at by many here many times, but my contention is that the vote is over, we are where we are, and this land is far more openly racist as a result, and it is the result of the brexit referendum. Not many people who have responded to me on this thread seem to want to accept that.
Indeed I posted above that possibly not all brexit voters are racist, and when discussing 'Lexit' accepted that there may have been other reasons why people voted brexit, but those people have ushered in and given licence to more open racism whether they want to admit to it or not in my view. Maybe brexit voters could express regret at that, and focus on the Irish border as a symbol that at least that they don't want the racist result of brexit to prevail. Again that kind of concept has been dismissed with distain by many posting here who said nobody considered Ireland before the vote, why should it matter now.

 

[philosophical]

Demonstrate this claim.

I don't have to, read my post more carefully and you will realise why.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't have to, read my post more carefully and you will realise why.

You mean that you can't.

The idea that something exists and therefore must always exist actually destroys any idea of history - and with it, any politics whatsoever - including whatever nonsense that you've posted about why the eu is great. It's religious bullshit and should not be tolerated as debate or argument.

 

[butchersapron]

As i suspected, you're a total blagger as regards the GFA.

 

[philosophical]

This is just nonsense. Borders don't need to be 15m fences with machine gun nests. They exist all around the world in all kinds of forms. It's this kind of over the top rhetoric that just makes people roll their eyes and get on with ignoring anything you have to say.

Yes, if no deal can be reached then people both in the EU -- including the ROI -- and in the UK are going to have to give things up. That's what happens when a country leaves a free trade zone. That's what has been voted for and what is being implemented. People in France are also having to give things up as a result of Brexit, as are people in Romania and people in Greece. And so are people in Lincolnshire. There is the opportunity for things being given up to be minimised, if the EU would get on with prioritising this rather than prioritising the punishment of the UK in order to teach a lesson about the evils of leaving its club.

Since you are the only one apparently interested in the idea of a fudge, I'm not going to bother with it. I've given you two solutions now that both don't involve a fudge -- reunite Ireland or institute a hard border between NI and RoI. It may be that the Irish people will need to choose between these two options.


So it's OK for people in Northern Ireland to expect that everybody in Britain should maintain a relationship with the EU that they, as a whole, do not want under threat of violence?

You have a very one-sided view of where responsibility to others should lie.


Fuck me, you really do think that people in Lincolnshire are morally repugnant if they prioritise their own existence over the right of Irish people to travel unimpeded between north and south. And you are apparently willing to tell them this on the grounds that the people of Northern Ireland can't cope with political change without killing others, and that's a fair enough reason. I thought I might have gone too far, but apparently I didn't go far enough.

And you wonder why Remain lost.

I wish the people in Northern Ireland could cope with change without killing others, however it is not only me that sees a risk here, the police service of Northern Ireland see it as a risk too.
(incidentally I have a niece in the Wolds, and another in Normanby by Spital and have been to Lincolnshire rather a lot), and isn't it you who said that the Lincolnshire people should or did put their own priorities first without having to think of the wider impact? This is what you wrote above:

Why should somebody in Lincolnshire prioritise the desire of people in Ireland to travel effortlessly between north and south over the problems faced in their own life — their own lived reality?

And now you seem to be saying they would be morally repugnant for doing so. Unless I am missing something obvious here.

We fundamentally disagree on one thing. This bit:

'if the EU would get on with prioritising this rather than prioritising the punishment of the UK in order to teach a lesson about the evils of leaving its club.'

The club that is being left was helped in its structures by the actions of the UK for the past over 40 years, including people from the UK representing Lincolnshire. The UK knew full well what the rules of the club were and are. I think it is 100% down to the UK, and brexiters to do the prioritising and suggesting, and I would expect the EU to stick to it's rules, because they are it's rules, and they are not sticking to them to 'punish' anybody but simply being themselves. If a person divorces their partner it is unreasonable of them to expect their partner to have plastic surgery during the process because it suits them.
The UK is doing the suggesting, the EU is doing the reacting, nothing to see there is there?

 

[kabbes]

I am missing something obvious here.

 

[philosophical]

You mean that you can't.

The idea that something exists and therefore must always exist actually destroys any idea of history - and with it, any politics whatsoever - including whatever nonsense that you've posted about why the eu is great. It's religious bullshit and should not be tolerated as debate or argument.

No, I mean that I was quoting somebody else.
However the situation where both the Republic and the UK were both in the EU helped the peace process considerably, however that may not be possible to demonstrate to your satisfaction.
I think the rest of what you say about history and politics is wrong because I have never said something should always exist, indeed I have repeatedly said the brexit vote has happened and things have changed. If anybody is acting like a fundamentalist preacher here it isn't me, but it might be somebody who thunders that something 'should not be tolerated'.

 

[philosophical]

As i suspected, you're a total blagger as regards the GFA.

I posted a link to article 6 of the GFA on this thread some days ago regarding the processes required to have a vote on a United Ireland, so you misuse the word 'total'.

 

[Pickman's model]

Well, Farage's birthday is April 3rd, so I'll see if it's free then. Only trouble will be if I book it on behalf of 'The Thick Much Hated Racists', the church might get a bit anxious.

Oh, by the way, presume you voted Labour, say in 2005 (or libdem?)? Presume you went into the voting booth with at least outline plans for postwar reconstruction in Iraq, improving the cost-benefit calculations done by NICE, school repairs budget...

Not to mention the 2001 election with detailed costed plans for the rebuilding of Serbia

 

[Pickman's model]

I posted a link to article 6 of the GFA on this thread some days ago regarding the processes required to have a vote on a United Ireland, so you misuse the word 'total'.

Entire. Complete. Utter.

 

[philosophical]

You missed out the first word which was 'unless'.

 

[butchersapron]

No, I mean that I was quoting somebody else.
However the situation where both the Republic and the UK were both in the EU helped the peace process considerably, however that may not be possible to demonstrate to your satisfaction.
I think the rest of what you say about history and politics is wrong because I have never said something should always exist, indeed I have repeatedly said the brexit vote has happened and things have changed. If anybody is acting like a fundamentalist preacher here it isn't me, but it might be somebody who thunders that something 'should not be tolerated'.

Why are you quoting someone else unless you both agree and think it correct? Now you think that it's not correct?

And no, i don't think think religious style arguments should be tolerated as grounds for social-political issues. I don't think that you understand what this means though.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

I wish the people in Northern Ireland could cope with change without killing others, however it is not only me that sees a risk here, the police service of Northern Ireland see it as a risk too.
(incidentally I have a niece in the Wolds, and another in Normanby by Spital and have been to Lincolnshire rather a lot), and isn't it you who said that the Lincolnshire people should or did put their own priorities first without having to think of the wider impact? This is what you wrote above:

Why should somebody in Lincolnshire prioritise the desire of people in Ireland to travel effortlessly between north and south over the problems faced in their own life — their own lived reality?

And now you seem to be saying they would be morally repugnant for doing so. Unless I am missing something obvious here.

We fundamentally disagree on one thing. This bit:

'if the EU would get on with prioritising this rather than prioritising the punishment of the UK in order to teach a lesson about the evils of leaving its club.'

The club that is being left was helped in its structures by the actions of the UK for the past over 40 years, including people from the UK representing Lincolnshire. The UK knew full well what the rules of the club were and are. I think it is 100% down to the UK, and brexiters to do the prioritising and suggesting, and I would expect the EU to stick to it's rules, because they are it's rules, and they are not sticking to them to 'punish' anybody but simply being themselves. If a person divorces their partner it is unreasonable of them to expect their partner to have plastic surgery during the process because it suits them.
The UK is doing the suggesting, the EU is doing the reacting, nothing to see there is there?

Could you at least try and stick to either the state or people who voted Brexit in the one sentence just for clarity? Those who voted to stay in the common market in 1975 had no idea what changes the Tories/EU would force through decades later.

 

[butchersapron]

I posted a link to article 6 of the GFA on this thread some days ago regarding the processes required to have a vote on a United Ireland, so you misuse the word 'total'.

I think the ability to type GFA into google then C&P some results is exactly the sort of thing blaggers rely on.

 

[philosophical]

Why are you quoting someone else unless you both agree and think it correct? Now you think that it's not correct?

I quoted another person to inform you that there are perspectives other than mine. I do agree with that post as it happens so that should please your narrative.

And no, i don't think think religious style arguments should be tolerated as grounds for social-political issues. I don't think that you understand what this means though.

If you can't see the connection between your saying something 'should not be tolerated' and religious fundamentalists who say the same thing, then I can't help you I'm afraid.

 

[butchersapron]

See

 

[philosophical]

I think the ability to type GFA into google then C&P some results is exactly the sort of thing blaggers rely on.

Well I bow to your expertise, you are prolific yourself at providing links from googled sources.

 

[philosophical]

Could you at least try and stick to either the state or people who voted Brexit in the one sentence just for clarity? Those who voted to stay in the common market in 1975 had no idea what changes the Tories/EU would force through decades later.

I shall try to be more precise in making that distinction.

 

[butchersapron]

Well I bow to your expertise, you are prolific yourself at providing links from googled sources.

Relevant, interesting and possibly unseen ones - yes, i am.

 

[philosophical]

Relevant, interesting and possibly unseen ones - yes, i am.

Others do it and they are blaggers, you do it and you're being relevant, interesting, and revealing stuff.
Yeah right.
The link you provided about Selmayr was all over the internet way before you posted it on here, so in terms of 'revealing' it was already out there.

 

[butchersapron]

Others do it and they are blaggers, you do it and you're being relevant, interesting, and revealing stuff.
Yeah right.
The link you provided about Selmayr was all over the internet way before you posted it on here, so in terms of 'revealing' it was already out there.

Oh lord.

 

[toblerone3]

Yet he crumbled when he actually got the opportunity to put his words into action.

You would have probably done exactly the same thing in the circumstances.

 

[kabbes]

You missed out the first word which was 'unless'.

Nope.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Well I suppose it is practical if there is a 310 mile long 15 meter fence topped with razor wire...

The EU has exactly that, well 325 miles long, on its eastern flank, erected to explicitly keep brown people from entering EU territory. And after a week of your rubbish not one thing you have posted has changed my opinion of you as a massive wanker.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

The EU has exactly that, well 325 miles long, on it eastern flank, erected to explicitly keep brown people from entering EU territory. And after a week of your rubbish not one thing you have posted has changed my opinion of you as a massive wanker.

I was thinking that's where he got the idea from.