Brexit - the final throes....

What would a "hard border" actually look like in reality? Are we talking towers and machine guns or a sign saying "you are now leaving the EU, welcome to Northern Ireland"?

Be that as it may, the EU seems to have a habit of doing it's so-called negotiation in public which I find particularly distasteful and dare I say it, churlish. Tusk and Barnier are basically saying "we ain't moving and will reject any proposal out of principal, because we can. Oh, any by the way - we're not gonna give you any clue whatsoever as to what we will find acceptable. You're going to have to keep stabbing in the dark because we're actually quite enjoying your humiliation which we're also making public". Arrogant gits.

Jonners posted:

What would a "hard border" actually look like in reality? Are we talking towers and machine guns or a sign saying "you are now leaving the EU, welcome to Northern Ireland"?

Be that as it may, the EU seems to have a habit of doing it's so-called negotiation in public which I find particularly distasteful and dare I say it, churlish. Tusk and Barnier are basically saying "we ain't moving and will reject any proposal out of principal, because we can. Oh, any by the way - we're not gonna give you any clue whatsoever as to what we will find acceptable. You're going to have to keep stabbing in the dark because we're actually quite enjoying your humiliation which we're also making public". Arrogant gits.

I don't see the EU's behaviour as arrogant, Jonners.  The UK has decided to leave the UK. The EU did not decide to expel us.  So I think there is moral force in the EU implying 'you created this problem, so it is incumbent on the UK to say how it can leave the EU while at the same time not having border controls across the Irish land Boundary'.

Moreover, as I have said on here previously, this is not a negotiation of equals: the 27 remaining member states collectively massively outweigh the UK on its own.  In the circumstances I think the EU is behaving very civilly.  Can you imagine how the 'orange one' would be behaving if he were in charge of the EU negotiating team? I suspect he would be fully exploiting the unequal nature of this negotiation. No doubt the EU wants to continue to have a good relationship with the UK after it leaves, and its businesses will continue to want to sell the UK it goods and services but it still holds a better hand than we do.   

MDS posted:

I don't see the EU's behaviour as arrogant, Jonners.  The UK has decided to leave the UK. The EU did not decide to expel us.  So I think there is moral force in the EU implying 'you created this problem, so it is incumbent on the UK to say how it can leave the EU while at the same time not having border controls across the Irish land Boundary'.

100% on your reply Don,  however I don't see the Irish border as that simple.   The type of border we are talking about is a customs/tax/sanitation commercial border.   There will be the same borders between UK & all the rest of EU were we have commercial ferry services & airfreight,  that means each & every country in EU.   It seems to me that what the EU (& RoI) is asking for in the brexit negotiations is to make the RoI a unique country in the EU-27 w.r.t. its relations with UK.

The real problem is not customs/tax/sanitation but the politics,  a border-less Ireland is enshrined in the Belfast Agreement,  (Good Friday Agreement),   it maybe the solution is in that & not with the brexit negotiations.   

Mike-B posted:
The real problem is not customs/tax/sanitation but the politics,  a border-less Ireland is enshrined in the Belfast Agreement,  (Good Friday Agreement),   it maybe the solution is in that & not with the brexit negotiations.   

Yes - I recall being asked if I wanted to bugger that arrangement up when invited for my opinion on 'Brexit'.

Reference to Mr. Tusk and Mr. Barnier as 'Arrogant gits' is an ignorant little Englander, verbally hostile and insulting remark to the peoples of the UK who want the UK to remain as a member of the EU and rely on the expertise of EU negotiators to act on our behalf. I am disgusted that such a remark has been permitted by the mods on this forum.

 

 

MDS posted:
Jonners posted:

What would a "hard border" actually look like in reality? Are we talking towers and machine guns or a sign saying "you are now leaving the EU, welcome to Northern Ireland"?

Be that as it may, the EU seems to have a habit of doing it's so-called negotiation in public which I find particularly distasteful and dare I say it, churlish. Tusk and Barnier are basically saying "we ain't moving and will reject any proposal out of principal, because we can. Oh, any by the way - we're not gonna give you any clue whatsoever as to what we will find acceptable. You're going to have to keep stabbing in the dark because we're actually quite enjoying your humiliation which we're also making public". Arrogant gits.

I don't see the EU's behaviour as arrogant, Jonners.  The UK has decided to leave the UK. The EU did not decide to expel us.  So I think there is moral force in the EU implying 'you created this problem, so it is incumbent on the UK to say how it can leave the EU while at the same time not having border controls across the Irish land Boundary'.

Moreover, as I have said on here previously, this is not a negotiation of equals: the 27 remaining member states collectively massively outweigh the UK on its own.  In the circumstances I think the EU is behaving very civilly.  Can you imagine how the 'orange one' would be behaving if he were in charge of the EU negotiating team? I suspect he would be fully exploiting the unequal nature of this negotiation. No doubt the EU wants to continue to have a good relationship with the UK after it leaves, and its businesses will continue to want to sell the UK it goods and services but it still holds a better hand than we do.   

I see the manner of a member state leaving the EU as a joint problem. There are huge implications for the countries whose citizens live and work in the UK (and our citizens of course), as well as trading and security. rom my perspective the EU negotiators and leadership cares more for red tape and rule books rather than the health of the Union and the countries it represents.

Unfortunately, IMHO the UK government has totally botched these negotiations by allowing itself to be ridden over roughshod which now sets the tone moving forward. It cannot end well, even if TM and Raab do show some spine.

naim_nymph posted:

Reference to Mr. Tusk and Mr. Barnier as 'Arrogant gits' is an ignorant little Englander, verbally hostile and insulting remark to the peoples of the UK who want the UK to remain as a member of the EU and rely on the expertise of EU negotiators to act on our behalf. I am disgusted that such a remark has been permitted by the mods on this forum.

 

 

I fully endorse your comment Debs.

It is this sort of language that brings the UK into disrepute.

I'm not sure what sort of posts Richard was asked to moderate over the past day or so, but I am astonished that a post containing those two words in the context of that post, have been allowed to stand.

Don, I'm not enamoured of it, but have allowed it stand.  Compared to the language of the post I removed, it is not on that level by any measure. I will not be repeating it, but those who saw it and complained will understand. From where I stand I see a good deal of arrogance on all sides of the debate.  Under the circumstances, to complain about accusations of arrogance, is akin to complain about excessive speeding at a Grand Prix.

Richard Dane posted:

Don, I'm not enamoured of it, but have allowed it stand.  Compared to the language of the post I removed, it is not on that level by any measure. I will not be repeating it, but those who saw it and complained will understand. From where I stand I see a good deal of arrogance on all sides of the debate.  Under the circumstances, to complain about accusations of arrogance, is akin to complain about excessive speeding at a Grand Prix.

For my part, I apologise for using language which caused offence. In hindsight I should have chosen less colourful terminology and not allowed patriotism to affect my judgement. 

Richard Dane posted:

Don, I'm not enamoured of it, but have allowed it stand.  Compared to the language of the post I removed, it is not on that level by any measure. I will not be repeating it, but those who saw it and complained will understand. From where I stand I see a good deal of arrogance on all sides of the debate.  Under the circumstances, to complain about accusations of arrogance, is akin to complain about excessive speeding at a Grand Prix.

Thanks Richard.

No worries about the phrase 'arrogant git' Jonners - after all we are not in church and what is wrong with calling someone arrogant anyway if you think they are. Its more likely that they were offended because you wouldn't succumb to their intolerant left wing views.

I don't know what the deleted post said.

Jonners posted:
MDS posted:
Jonners posted:
 

  

 

Unfortunately, IMHO the UK government has totally botched these negotiations by allowing itself to be ridden over roughshod which now sets the tone moving forward. It cannot end well, even if TM and Raab do show some spine.

I think we are very much in agreement on that, Jonners. 

thebigfredc posted:

No worries about the phrase 'arrogant git' Jonners - after all we are not in church and what is wrong with calling someone arrogant anyway if you think they are. Its more likely that they were offended because you wouldn't succumb to their intolerant left wing views.

I don't know what the deleted post said.

Well thebigfredc, a couple of Forum members were offended (and maybe more who didn't go on record), so I thought it prudent to say sorry for the choice of words used.

I thought the ‘arrogant gits’ referred to Tusk and Barnier, not any forum member (unless one or both of them are).

And I certainly see them as arrogant, even if though I also recognise that as EU representative they may be entirely justified in just sitting there and waiting for the UK to come up with something they can accept. As someone said, it is a strange approach to negotiation- but in practice I guess they simply don’t see anything to negotiate at all, just that if the leavers want terms rather than nothing, it is up to the leavers to make offers.

thebigfredc posted:

No worries about the phrase 'arrogant git' Jonners - after all we are not in church and what is wrong with calling someone arrogant anyway if you think they are. Its more likely that they were offended because you wouldn't succumb to their intolerant left wing views.

I don't know what the deleted post said.

You're making it worse, really - it's not the word "arrogant" that some object to.

And I suppose right-wing views cannot possibly be intolerant.

Innocent Bystander posted:

I thought the ‘arrogant gits’ referred to Tusk and Barnier, not any forum member (unless one or both of them are).

And I certainly see them as arrogant, even if though I also recognise that as EU representative they may be entirely justified in just sitting there and waiting for the UK to come up with something they can accept. As someone said, it is a strange approach to negotiation- but in practice I guess they simply don’t see anything to negotiate at all, just that if the leavers want terms rather than nothing, it is up to the leavers to make offers.

And how would our political leaders behave if the roles were reversed, I wonder? 

SamClaus posted:
thebigfredc posted:

No worries about the phrase 'arrogant git' Jonners - after all we are not in church and what is wrong with calling someone arrogant anyway if you think they are. Its more likely that they were offended because you wouldn't succumb to their intolerant left wing views.

I don't know what the deleted post said.

You're making it worse, really - it's not the word "arrogant" that some object to.

And I suppose right-wing views cannot possibly be intolerant.

So is it the word 'git' some took offence at. I just looked it up on Wikipedia and got this:

As a mild oath it is roughly on a par with prat and marginally less pejorative than berk. Typically a good-natured admonition with a strong implication of familiarity, git is more severe than twit or idiot but less severe than wanker, arsehole or **** when offence is intended.

Must have had a hoot when researching that one at Wikipedia.

Sounds fair enough to me in relation to Tutts and Barrier. 

thebigfredc posted:

No worries about the phrase 'arrogant git' Jonners - after all we are not in church and what is wrong with calling someone arrogant anyway if you think they are. Its more likely that they were offended because you wouldn't succumb to their intolerant left wing views.

I don't know what the deleted post said.

I don't know what the deleted posts said either. However, you really can't be following the Brexit threads very closely if you are of the opinion that "they" (I assume that your use of the word 'they' is intended to refer to forum members who don't agree with your views of Brexit) hold 'left wing' views of any sort at all, let alone 'intolerant left wing' views. It appears to me that many (if not most) of the members who regularly post here in favour of remaining in the EU come from the 'centre' or centre right of the British political scene.  

As a so called 'remainer' (or 'remoaner' if some of 'you' would prefer), I too had no particular objection to someone referring to Tusk and Barnier as 'Arrogant Gits' in a recent post. I simply don't agree with the poster's viewpoint. I don't particularly like Barnier's demeanour at times myself, but Tusk and Barnier are just doing their jobs, and are understandably sceptical about the British negotiators' stance on the Northern Ireland situation. The UK has simply not put forward a proposal that can possibly work. 

In my view the label of 'Arrogant Gits' would be much more aptly applied to the unsavoury trio of Farage, Rees-Mogg and Johnson.   

I don’t think it matters what they said. The important thing is to stop silly name calling and applying left wing / right wing labels, accusations of racism etc and discuss the issues like sensible adults, in the same way you would across the table with friends. After our local Labour Party meeting last night a few of us adjourned to the pub for a couple of beers and of the four of us, three are remainers and one is a leaver. Nobody changed their mind by the end of the evening but we all learned something. What we did all agree on is that there is no way we can cope with another three years of hearing people droning on about Brexit every time the radio is switched on. All it’s doing is diverting everyone from what’s important: decent public services, and NHS for those who need it, a fair tax and benefits system, public safety, environmental standards and so on. 

My personal view is that the Irish border issue will never be solved without membership of the customs union. Simply extending the transition phase is just kicking the can down the road and avoiding facing up to the issues. The only hope of cutting through the impasse is likely to come if/when May fails to make a deal and the government falls. Even then there is no guarantee of a change of government and the same old same old may continue even longer. What a nightmare. What a waste of energy. 

HH, 

I agree with your view that the Irish border issue will not be resolved without membership of the customs union, and that simply "kicking the can down the road" is not going to result in a magical solution at a later date.  

I also agree that the really important issues facing Britain today are those relating to the NHS, public services and a fair tax and benefits system. Unfortunately, if May's position becomes untenable, it is likely that the front runners to replace her will be even less likely to champion these issues in a way that you or I would welcome. 

 

 

Hmack posted:
 

As a so called 'remainer' (or 'remoaner' if some of 'you' would prefer), I too had no particular objection to someone referring to Tusk and Barnier as 'Arrogant Gits' in a recent post. I simply don't agree with the poster's viewpoint. I don't particularly like Barnier's demeanour at times myself, but Tusk and Barnier are just doing their jobs, and are understandably sceptical about the British negotiators' stance on the Northern Ireland situation. The UK has simply not put forward a proposal that can possibly work. 

 

I agree with what you're saying but just a point of order 

It's true, the EU negotiating team, which include Tusk and Barnier, have shown excellent integrity, intelligence, and patience protecting the interests of the EU which includes us in the UK because we are also a member of the EU at this moment in time, and bearing in mind the majority of UK people really want to remain in the EU. So we are fortunate to have them represent us against some pretty ugly 'British' political types who claim to represent 'us'.

The so called 'British negotiators' representing the so called UK are noting but a rag-bag bunch of fanatical Brexit Tory Political Party gang of hardened liars and greedy financial opportunists with a mandate to represent the interests of a particular nasty UKIP inspired future Tory Party Political dogma, even though this is clearly not and never has been in the UK national interest or the will or the people of the UK. 

Us, Our, We, ...the peoples of the UK do not have any Brexit representation from this corrupt Tory government team of double-dealing back room secret negotiators, and that lack of representation also includes people who voted Leave because IF they [ them ] in the Tory Brexit Party ever do get their way and succeed in breaking ties with the EU, the new Brexit Bonkers World Order UK will be just as much a disaster for them as it will be for the majority of us.

thebigfredc posted:

Good timing Debs.....ladies and Gents, I present to you the intolerant (and in this case also hysterical) left. Fatcat will be along later too. 

Ah, you forgot about me, Ray - I'm feeling quite hurt . Labels (such as "left wing") may not be all that helpful at the moment, as Brexit transcends traditional party politics. You may well find that on Brexit that there are many MPs in the Tory party that are completely as one with their compadres in the Labour Party as to their desired outcome to the Brexit negotiations.

I'm no "socialist", but I do believe in social democracy, and Debs is right on the money in terms of her description of many within the Tory party as "a rag-bag bunch of fanatical Brexit Tory Political Party gang of hardened liars and greedy financial opportunists". I think the lies that have been told to the electorate are well enough known to not need me to repeat them (£350m per week for the NHS et al), and I think many see BJ as an opportunist seeking political advancement, and Jacob Rees-Mogg as an opportunist seeking to protect his offshore millions from the 2019 EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive (along no doubt with very many of his back and front bench colleagues). 

So, there's nothing hysterical about Deb's post, or particularly intolerant. It's just, well, on the money. This is realpolitik at play. 

Duncan Mann posted:
thebigfredc posted:

Good timing Debs.....ladies and Gents, I present to you the intolerant (and in this case also hysterical) left. Fatcat will be along later too. 

Ah, you forgot about me, Ray - I'm feeling quite hurt . Labels (such as "left wing") may not be all that helpful at the moment, as Brexit transcends traditional party politics. You may well find that on Brexit that there are many MPs in the Tory party that are completely as one with their compadres in the Labour Party as to their desired outcome to the Brexit negotiations.

I'm no "socialist", but I do believe in social democracy, and Debs is right on the money in terms of her description of many within the Tory party as "a rag-bag bunch of fanatical Brexit Tory Political Party gang of hardened liars and greedy financial opportunists". I think the lies that have been told to the electorate are well enough known to not need me to repeat them (£350m per week for the NHS et al), and I think many see BJ as an opportunist seeking political advancement, and Jacob Rees-Mogg as an opportunist seeking to protect his offshore millions from the 2019 EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive (along no doubt with very many of his back and front bench colleagues). 

So, there's nothing hysterical about Deb's post, or particularly intolerant. It's just, well, on the money. This is realpolitik at play. 

In your opinion of course

Talking of opportunism, I was fortunate to hear Sir Nick Clegg's interview on LBC yesterday. I expect the majority of people in the UK will be heartened to learn there's another negotiating team acting on our behalf - Sir Nick Clegg, Tony Blair, Michael Heseltine and Sir John Major. It's great to know this new "gang of four" has our collective backs.

Drewy posted:
Duncan Mann posted:
thebigfredc posted:

Good timing Debs.....ladies and Gents, I present to you the intolerant (and in this case also hysterical) left. Fatcat will be along later too. 

Ah, you forgot about me, Ray - I'm feeling quite hurt . Labels (such as "left wing") may not be all that helpful at the moment, as Brexit transcends traditional party politics. You may well find that on Brexit that there are many MPs in the Tory party that are completely as one with their compadres in the Labour Party as to their desired outcome to the Brexit negotiations.

I'm no "socialist", but I do believe in social democracy, and Debs is right on the money in terms of her description of many within the Tory party as "a rag-bag bunch of fanatical Brexit Tory Political Party gang of hardened liars and greedy financial opportunists". I think the lies that have been told to the electorate are well enough known to not need me to repeat them (£350m per week for the NHS et al), and I think many see BJ as an opportunist seeking political advancement, and Jacob Rees-Mogg as an opportunist seeking to protect his offshore millions from the 2019 EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive (along no doubt with very many of his back and front bench colleagues). 

So, there's nothing hysterical about Deb's post, or particularly intolerant. It's just, well, on the money. This is realpolitik at play. 

In your opinion of course

And in mine.

thebigfredc posted:

Good timing Debs.....ladies and Gents, I present to you the intolerant (and in this case also hysterical) left. Fatcat will be along later too. 

 Fred, using your persistent  Ad Hominem problem to misrepresent my good character will win you no arguments.

FYI i am no supporter of Corbyn, although i do agree and support much of Labour policy i'm not a Labour Party member, or of any other political party. I also support a lot of Green Party policy, and some Lib dem. If you believe these political tendencies are intolerant or hysterically left wing then i can only assume you have normalised your own extreme right wing way of thinking into some kind of imaginary political centre-ground.

My GE voting strategy is nearly always tactful: with the exception of the Conservative git and UKIP git candidates, vote for whichever other candidate has the best chance of winning [ beating the Tory ] and in my election ward this creates the need to vote Lib Dem.

Debs

thebigfredc posted:

What about HH - he was saying in an earlier post that he had just come back from being down  the boozer with his Labour luvvies - are we allowed to say he’s left wing? It would appear he’s proud of the fact. 

Yes, I’m a member of our CLP general committee, which makes me a paid up lefty. But..... left wing or right wing makes no difference here. Brexit is not a party political issue. Why do you persist in unnecessary name calling? Why the need to call my friends luvvies? Are you capable of intelligent nuanced debate? I’m sure you are, so why not have a try, and this thread will be all the better for it. 

As the OP of this thread I did request NO branding of left and right. Whether or not someone has particular political leanings, branding them as one persuasion or another is in no way of any relevance whatsoever to conversations about Brexit.

Should someone choose to identify themselves as having particular political leanings is entirely their prerogative, likewise if someone chooses to label themselves as left or right wing.

And I would observe that aside from anything else, one can be a member of a political party yet be very near the ‘centre’ ground, and that in UK politics the ‘centre’ seems not always to have been a fixed point.

 

Duncan posted '... Debs is right on the money in terms of her description of many within the Tory party as "a rag-bag bunch of fanatical Brexit Tory Political Party gang of hardened liars and greedy financial opportunists"

She was actually referring to the UKs brexit negotiators. Here's what the BBC says about them:

Raab is a former lawyer who is well recognised for his endeavours to bring war criminals to justice in the Hague and is on good terms with Remainers in his party

Robbins is a civil servant who served in the Blair and Brown governments

Barrow is a diplomat who previous;y worked under Robin Cook

Sarah Healey is a civil servant with a record of advocating woman rites

Just saying and I hope I didn't offend anyone with the use of the words 'war criminal' as it might be seen as casting them in a negative light and unduly prejudicing their future life chances.

Ray

 

 

 

hungryhalibut posted:
 
left wing or right wing makes no difference here. Brexit is not a party political issue. 

However the truth and facts in the real world that have unfolded over the past three years have proved that Brexit is a very right wing populist concern, with the uncertainty of Brexit even fuelling fascism in Europe. The UKIP Brexit Tory Party is committed to using Brexit as it's very right wing political vehicle to peddle it's new post Brexit oppressive ideology upon the people of the UK, and that will involve  both leavers and remainers.

People in the Labour Party who support Brexit have been suckered in by the right wing Brexit mantra, very sad really : (

thebigfredc posted:

Duncan posted '... Debs is right on the money in terms of her description of many within the Tory party as "a rag-bag bunch of fanatical Brexit Tory Political Party gang of hardened liars and greedy financial opportunists"

She was actually referring to the UKs brexit negotiators. Here's what the BBC says about them:

Raab is a former lawyer who is well recognised for his endeavours to bring war criminals to justice in the Hague and is on good terms with Remainers in his party

Robbins is a civil servant who served in the Blair and Brown governments

Barrow is a diplomat who previous;y worked under Robin Cook

Sarah Healey is a civil servant with a record of advocating woman rites

Just saying and I hope I didn't offend anyone with the use of the words 'war criminal' as it might be seen as casting them in a negative light and unduly prejudicing their future life chances.

Ray

 

 

 

A fair point about Raab, Ray, but let's not confuse matters by involving the civil servants. They will be taking their instructions from ministers and are unable to express any personal opinion in public.  What you see them do and say in public will tightly constrained to the views and policies of their ministers.  I say this because some ex-civil servants eg former Cabinet Secretaries like Gus O-Donnell have spoken publicly and personally on the Brexit issue.  They are free to do so because they are no longer civil servants. 

MDS,

You are right that civil servants are constrained in airing their views in public whilst in office. It is not unreasonable though for an organisation such as the BBC to look into their histories and backgrounds which look pretty good to me and nothing like the characterisations attributed to them by Debs i.e. greedy, fanatical, liars seems a bit harsh.

Ray

Add Reply

Likes (1)
Pcd
×
×
×
×