Hauliers report problems with post-Brexit customs system but HMRC insists it is 'online and working as planned' Glitches in IT systems designed to manage the movement of goods from the EU to the UK are holding up shipments. According to Bloomberg, problems with the Goods Vehicle Movement Service (GVMS) – a UK government IT platform for moving goods into or out of Northern Ireland and Great Britain – have meant hauliers have not been …
Not working as advertised. I am still having issues with imports from the EU going back as far as February 2021 last year. I'm still waiting on paperwork from HMRC, and it is purely bureaucracy on this side of the channel that is the cause of the issues.
They simply have not caught up with the backlog. It got to the point where the hauliers over in the EU were rejecting jobs transporting goods to the UK, because it is HMRCs public opinion that their system is infallible, and any delays must be caused by either those pesky Europeans, or incompetent hauliers, and not that HMRC is simply a black hole that is sucking up all communications going in, with nothing coming back out leaving the hauliers just sitting there twiddling their thumbs and people like me waiting for the output from the CHIEF system so I can fulfil my VAT obligations going back almost a year.
A friend of mine works for a major manufacturer of a certain set of consumer and luxury brands... They were declared by HMRC as being one of the fast-tracking ones who bring in a lot of dosh to the UK economy. Needless to say, there's no functionality to correct a shipment. Instead they have to email HMRC to get it done. Sometimes, they'll get one who says "Oh, I've cancelled it for you, so you can resubmit a correct one" (which is the preferred option for this manufacturer), and sometimes they get the other that says "Well, you'll have to declare it scrapped then", which in turn precludes the goods (with serial numbers) from ever leaving the country since once they are declared scrapped, there's no unscrapping them. So they retry the email and pray that they get the former the second time around.
So yeah... some of the HMRC staff are trying their damnest to help the manufacturers get stuff in and out of the country as efficiently as possible, but others? Others seem to just not be bovvered, innit?
And yeah, hauliers being concerned about their loads from the continent (for the goods manufacturer in question) being rejected/blocked by HMRC is reality. The staff who deal with ExIm at this manufacturer are pretty much overwhelmed all of the time. When it's not the crapshoot at the end of the month when everything has to be up to date for HMRC to be satisfied (and keeping their preferred status for another month), then it's the overwhelming work that stacks up while the month-end is dealt with, and them simply never catching up unless they work overtime (which they're not meant to, and they shouldn't by rights either).
But yes... This is the reality. Britain has truly screwed the pooch. That small-ish-value stuff makes it through via Amazon or any couriers is a miracle. And I am not in the least surprised that trade with the continent (mostly out to the continent, but also some *from* the continent) has gone *down* in value, even when COVID is taken out of the equation.
"GVMS is online and is working as planned."
While avoiding the question of just what the 'planning' actually covered.
Reminds me of horrible memories of the Oracle storage system that has dual-controllers for redundancy but they would not fail-over if one stopped serving files (the primary activity of a file server), only if it had a kernel panic. When we raised this as a bug (among many others) it was dismissed as "working as designed".
>"Hauliers will be presented with screens showing stuff."
I'm assuming they mean words and numbers.
But it would be nice if HMRC had adopted a surrealist interface - your login is a melting clock and your customs documents are painted on the side of a cow wearing boots and a beret
Having been unfortunate enough to work in software development in the public sector I think I know exactly what "working as planned" means in this context.
Some clever and assiduous people came up with a project brief. Then some clever and assiduous people came up with a project plan. Some clever and assiduous people then came up with costings and timings. Then some stupid and negligent manager said "we need it quicker and cheaper than that" and chucked the brief, the plan and the costings and timing in the bin and came up with their own scribbled on a blotter. This then got implemented.
So the next stage will be for HMRC to finally insist that while the system is "working as planned" it is not working as required. The blame will then be levelled at all those clever and assiduous people (probably contractors) and the management that cocked it all up will get a promotion and a pay rise.
"So no users on any modern end device can use it..."
Well, they're planning to replace it:
"The PEACH system will be changing to a new IT system in early 2021."
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/using-the-peach-system-to-import-plants-and-fresh-produce
Last updated 31 December 2020
Now remind me, what year are we living in?
@LionelB
"... and unsolves the ROI to UK."
Which amazingly doesnt make it any more complicated but less. Because that puts the border between the UK and EU without the grey area.
"It seems we decided exactly how much pain we wished to inflict upon ourselves in June 2016."
And you are welcome. Could have been worse. Could have remained.
Which amazingly doesnt make it any more complicated but less. Because that puts the border between the UK and EU without the grey area.
Yes, perfect (give or take a few hundred years of Irish history).
And you are welcome.
To the pain? That's a bit harsh, what did I ever do to you?
@LionelB
"Yes, perfect (give or take a few hundred years of Irish history)."
Again, the annexing of NI does not improve on that situation, makes it no better.
"To the pain? That's a bit harsh, what did I ever do to you?"
Assuming you are in the UK you were probably offered the vaccine while the EU tried to figure out its arse from its elbow. You also got out of the covid bailout fund. Thats a start.
"Again, the annexing of NI ..."
Curious... no, duplicitous usage of "annex" (as you well know).
"... does not improve on that situation, makes it no better."
He, he. I think you'll find that depends somewhat on which Irish person you ask (as you well know). Then there's that little thing called the Good Friday Agreement (as you well know).
"Assuming you are in the UK you were probably offered the vaccine ..."
Ah, that old chestnut, the Brexiters last grasp at the straw. Of course as an EU member the UK could have implemented it's vaccination program as it chose (as you well know).
Much though I respect the wisdom and knowledge of the commentators and journalists of the Register, I doubt that any solution to the issue of maintaining the Northern Ireland 'Good Friday' peace accord and being consistent with Northern Ireland being part of the UK (and therefore separate from the EU) and not having any customs border between Great Britain and NI is likely to appear in a comment or thread on this site.
Sorry, but it seems to me that this is a very difficult (maybe intractable) problem.
@LionelB
"Fully agree; intractable insofar as the Good Friday peace accord and Brexit are fundamentally incompatible (who knew?)"
So that would lead to either the GFA requiring competent renegotiating (yeah I laughed) or being at odds with the sovereignty of the UK and ROI. Last I checked ROI doesnt own the UK, so it does seem to be the agreement that needs either amending or scrapping (based on the desires of both parties).
The only rubbish is coming from you.
And I certainly haven't written many of the comments calling you out upon that.
And there are several styles of writing of the posts I didn't make.
And calling out far right opinions isn't always the best thing to do publicly.
(Or far left for that matter, apologies if I have lumped with the wrong side, the unholy Brexit alliance of far left and far right makes it hard to tell sides apart.)
@AC
"And there are several styles of writing of the posts I didn't make."
So hang on. A coward wants me to figure out who is posting to me by their style of writing because they dont wanna put their name to their comment (lest they look stupid I guess).
"(Or far left for that matter, apologies if I have lumped with the wrong side, the unholy Brexit alliance of far left and far right makes it hard to tell sides apart.)"
Actually a semi sensible observation that brexit isnt a left or right wing thing to do but something which can be agreed on across the political spectrum. Same with those who believed in remain. So per your observation you shouldnt need to be a coward from the far left/right but if your a coward for fear of being identified as a remain supporter I can only wonder why.
No-one can look as stupid as you. Your total lack of understanding of how Brexit undermines the UK, politically, economically, world influence, and unity, does that highly effectively.
As does your constant whining about what Brexit turned out to be, when 14 million people voted for it.
And a Hard Brexit IS only espoused by the far left and far right. (I'm not referring to just leaving the EU)
So what is your real identity then? Or is codejunky on your birth certificate?
Yes you are. You are whining about the Johnson NI protocol, despite it being voted for by 14 million people delivering majority of 80 seats.
If you can't see the common theme, (which is summed up by my first line) then you can't be very bright.
But I seriously suspect you do and are just feigning ignorance for effect, or more likely to dodge answering points you have no answer to.
@AC
"Yes you are. You are whining about the Johnson NI protocol"
Am I? This is why I assume cowards are the troll following me. I am responding to the article. Personally I dont think we should have abandoned NI but since the Irish, EU, and UK seem to take issue with it I point out the solution. If you call that whining then your definition is probably off.
"If you can't see the common theme, (which is summed up by my first line) then you can't be very bright."
I see a common theme but again bringing me back to the coward pet troll. Still not convinced you aint.
"or more likely to dodge answering points you have no answer to."
Says the coward responding to- "So you are a coward who refuses to link your posts together because I wont tell you my real name? Sorry but I dont think your my type.". Nice dodge coward.
"Am I? This is why I assume cowards are the troll following me. I am responding to the article. Personally I dont think we should have abandoned NI but since the Irish, EU, and UK seem to take issue with it I point out the solution. If you call that whining then your definition is probably off."
Why would you assume that every AC post calling you out is the same person?
I've no idea if I'm your troll, but I have certainly called out your nonsense in the past.
I suspect there are lots of ACs calling you out, whom you conflate. (Certainly there is at least one other on this forum, and likely (from the different styles of writing) quite a few.)
Especially now you have made it clear how much posting as AC annoys you. (If it didn't you'd not use it as an excuse not to address the points raised. Does that count as an ad hominem?)
And don't you say (or at least imply) those pointing out that rejoining the Single Market is a solution are whining?
@AC
"Why would you assume that every AC post calling you out is the same person?"
Because I do know there is an AC troll who likes to post garbage behind the cowards mask and was proud of saying it a while ago. Which is why I assume most stupid responses from AC are trolling. I sometimes respond to some but then I cant be sure the AC reply (which again can be pretty stupid) is the same one or a troll.
Often enough even with their name attached I will respond to commenters repeating the same nonsense I have shot down previously even from the same person. While it makes commenters easier to spot for spouting the same nonsense it doesnt do the same for cowards. So little point calling out a generic coward profile.
"Especially now you have made it clear how much posting as AC annoys you."
It was Jess who seemed to be bothered by it so I gave them a very easy demonstration of why I dont respond to anonymous stupid. I find the bleating amusing as mindless the entertainment might be.
Not that I call all cowards for that, there are reasons to post AC. But not in this situation.
"And don't you say (or at least imply) those pointing out that rejoining the Single Market is a solution are whining?"
Has someone posted that? Typically its whining about not remaining. Most of them seem to realise rejoining would mean without the opt outs and thats just a bad deal.
"Because I do know there is an AC troll who likes to post garbage behind the cowards mask and was proud of saying it a while ago."
And yet you post garbage from an alias.
"I gave them a very easy demonstration of why I dont respond to anonymous stupid"
It appears more like you have no answers, and it is easy do do some sort of ad hominem avoidance than actually defend the point you have made.
"Has someone posted that?"
Your position certainly implies it.
Brexit can be nothing but a long term disaster outside the Single Market. (The loss from leaving the Single Market already is bigger than the theoretical gains from excellent trade deals with the rest of the world, and the real gains need to be quoted to points of a percent to not round to zero.)
You are the coward because you decline to answer, your weasel words do not change that.
"Its a wonder how the majority of the world survives. Since most of the world is not in the EU nor single market."
And you call others trolls?
If you do not know the difference between not having something and losing something you have spent decades investing in then you would be an utter moron, I do not believe that, so it makes you a troll.
@AC
"And yet you post garbage from an alias."
The difference? You can see which comment I wrote. Attributed to me and so you know who you are carrying on a discussion. The coward is just a bunch of conflicting comments with no train of thought. Easily hijacked by anyone.
"Your position certainly implies it."
Aka nobody said it so you attribute it to me so you have something to argue against.
"Brexit can be nothing but a long term disaster outside the Single Market"
Its a wonder how the majority of the world survives. Since most of the world is not in the EU nor single market.
This post has been deleted by its author
@Jess
"Funny how you point this out and don't rebut anything."
Are you one of the AC's? If so feel free to put your comment to your name and we can discuss. A while back I got a pet troll who continually posted lies and rubbish wherever I went but at least put their name to it so it was fairly obvious. After telling me they were finally gonna stop following me around I ended up with an AC troll following me around and writing rubbish but as a coward their tripe never associated to their name.
So I reduced my responses to cowards particularly on certain subjects. I understand AC can be needed by some in certain circumstances. I am also aware that it helps idiotic comments from showing against the writer.
So if you are one of the AC's please put your post under your name and we can discuss if you like.
"... or [the GFA] being at odds with the sovereignty of the UK and ROI."
Yes it is! But pre-Brexit it worked - less people were being shot at and blown up. Did the loss of national sovereignty puncture someone's jingoistic pride? Probably, but who cares, when the alternative - which people lived daily - was so appalling?
Sovereignty is not sacrosanct, and also operates at many levels - the city I live in is not sovereign with respect to the UK; the UK is not sovereign with respect to international law; and so on. The people of Ireland (well, most of them) rather sensibly agreed that maintaining national sovereignties to the letter was less important than not getting blown up.
Of course the same issues pertain to Brexit - what have we sacrificed in the name of some idealistic notion of national sovereignty? Was it worth it? (You can guess my answer.)
@LionelB
"But pre-Brexit it worked - less people were being shot at and blown up."
Reading that whole paragraph I wonder how your advice goes for al qaeda, ISIS or basically any attacks on others by a politically motivated terrorist group? Also your suggestion seems to suggest the UK was conquered by ROI and that the UK only exists under Irish control.
Except to apply the same logic ROI is responsible for leaving the EU as they are under UK control. Because we left they need to as well in order to keep the peace (not the GFA as you seem to accept its not in there).
But you dont agree because for some reason whats good for the goose isnt good for the gander or something. Or as I look at it, the UK is sovereign and the EU is sovereign (ROI being limited by the EU and NI being limited by UK) meaning it is up to them to meet some agreement.
"Of course the same issues pertain to Brexit - what have we sacrificed in the name of some idealistic notion of national sovereignty? Was it worth it? (You can guess my answer.)"
And you can guess mine. You call sacrificed yet immediate benefits of brexit demonstrated the problems brexiters had been pointing out. You like to say stupid stuff like jingoistic pride yet its the same nationalistic spirit the EU has been desperate to foster in the people in the member countries for the EU. The same pride you are showing for the supranational institution and immediate brexit benefits plus ongoing crises of the EU show it being a problematic entity to defend.
"ongoing crises of the EU"
Have you read the BBC new's home page recently? There's some plonker who can't find his comb nor his old phone[1] running our country. When I look for a word to describe him 'competence' isn't even in my top 100 list. Lots of four-letter words are, however.
[1] The one with the details of which roll of wallpaper he would like.
"Reading that whole paragraph..."
I cannot begin to fathom how you read that garbage into what I wrote.
You know, I would be very happy if there were a politically-negotiated accord which lead to the abandonment of terror tactics by Al Qaeda, Daesh, et. al - exactly as I (and I imagine most people) were with the accords that lead to the abandonment of terror tactics by the IRA, ETA, et. al.
The next two paragraphs are incoherent rambling, with no relevance to what I said. You appear to have a fixation with national sovereignty which overrides humane considerations. Personally, I can't be doing with that.
"immediate benefits of brexit"
Oh, yeah, like we can put a crown stamp on our sovereign pint glasses now. No, wait, we could actually do that when we were in the EU. Errm... nope, can't think of anything else.
"You like to say stupid stuff like jingoistic pride ..."
More wibble. You're floundering.
@LionelB
"I cannot begin to fathom how you read that garbage into what I wrote."
I just read your comment, sorry if I misunderstood.
"I would be very happy if there were a politically-negotiated accord which lead to the abandonment of terror tactics"
On the one hand you dont want to give in to terrorists but you do need to talk to your enemy to negotiate a peace. I read your comment as if you thought we needed to remain in the EU to keep the peace. Aka cave in to terrorists. The alternative is to negotiate a peace between the two parties (as I would prefer).
"You appear to have a fixation with national sovereignty which overrides humane considerations"
You must have misinterpreted that somehow. The two paragraphs that confused you are related to not caving to terrorists.
"Errm... nope, can't think of anything else."
You still cant think of any benefits of brexit, not even the immediate ones that affected the populations of the UK and EU right away showing a severe lacking in the EU and proving we got out just in time? I suggest you read through some of my other comments, look for the word vaccine. If your in the EU I understand you not knowing about this as I upset a few EU friends when I mentioned it was available in the UK already while they waited.
"More wibble. You're floundering."
You really do struggle when you have no answer and are caught out. I bet you forgot about the EU anthem didnt you?
So if France wasn't a sovereign state, why could it close the border to the UK?
Both my partner and a friend were due to be in the Yard of Ale when it was blown up. About 15 years ago I bumped into a chap whose brother had been in there and lost his life. It was the first time he had been in Birmingham since that day. We went there and raised a glass to his brother.
Anyone who thinks the GFA is a political negotiating too for their xenophobic, nationalistic agenda is not right in the head. People died.
So the benefits (apart from job creation from Brexshit bureaucracy) are a reduction in tampon tax and glorious crowns on our pint glasses. What a win!
Fcuking idiots.
There’s a simple solution: Reunion of NI and ROI. Not that it is something the Brexiters want, and half the people in NI would be unhappy, but it is a simple solution.
My prediction has been for a while that in 20 years time we’ll be living in the United Kingdom of England and Wales.
This post has been deleted by its author
@LionelB
"Curious... no, duplicitous usage of "annex" (as you well know)."
Not at all. It is about right.
"He, he. I think you'll find that depends somewhat on which Irish person you ask"
I am fairly sure that is the case with placing the border in the sea or in Ireland, it depends which person you ask.
"Then there's that little thing called the Good Friday Agreement (as you well know)."
Yes, which doesnt mention much about the border. But even if it did its an agreement between the UK and ROI, and since the UK clearly stated no desire to break it while expressing our sovereign right not to be part of the EU you must be talking about the other side breaking it.
"Ah, that old chestnut, the Brexiters last grasp at the straw."
Eh what? Are you seriously trying to brush off the absolute failure and devastatingly bad management of vaccine procurement by the EU as a last straw or amusingly 'old' chestnut??? Are you stupid or just acting it? A clear and damaging failure demonstrating clearly why leaving was a good idea and an immediate benefit of brexit which is both recent and fresh in the minds?
"Of course as an EU member the UK could have implemented it's vaccination program as it chose (as you well know)."
Yes, except every single member country chose to go with the plan, even members such as Germany who already had a plan abandoned it to show solidarity etc. So are you claiming the UK is better run than every member country in the EU? To me that is UK supremacist.
Also after failing so publicly the EU literally suggested and acted to steal vaccine destined for the UK and others. Had we remained in the EU and followed your hypothetical freedom to still go our own way, do you believe the EU wouldnt have tried to steal the vaccine and used membership as an excuse to do so?
Also assuming you are a believer in the need for vaccine as a life saving tool (not a dig, this might not apply to you) dont you recognise that the EU's slow pace to approve vaccine nor will to actually sign the orders killed people? Made the infection situation worse?
"the absolute failure and devastatingly bad management of vaccine procurement by the EU"
I'm not familiar with the details, but I get the impression that vaccine procurement is now going perfectly well, and that the EU negotiated lower prices than the UK.
"EU's slow pace to approve vaccine nor will to actually sign the orders killed people?"
Interesting point: do you rush through approval so you can start vaccinating early, or do you have a more thorough approval because you're going to give a new vaccine to millions of people and want to be confident it's going to do more good than harm? Any medical statisticians out there who could comment on this?
Incidentally, as far as I'm aware the implementation of the vaccination programmes is a matter for national governments, not the EU. NL made a slow start but the booster programme now seems to be going well and I think by the end of January everybody will have been able to get jabbed.
@H in The Hague
"I'm not familiar with the details, but I get the impression that vaccine procurement is now going perfectly well, and that the EU negotiated lower prices than the UK."
It is worth looking at the details as it really shows a serious proof of leave having good reason. The EU first failed to order enough (the French blocked it), then they didnt sign the orders, refused to approve the vaccines, then blamed the companies for following the contracts (the EU didnt understand their own agreements), tried to steal vaccine and raided manufacturing plants (and found they were wrong), accused AstraZeneca of various things all absurd and then took them to court (and failed), cried like babies that the world was against them and even the EU fanatics turned on it. A lot went on.
As for the situation improving, that is true. Not because the EU fixed its problems but because member countries looked at the UK getting vaccine (ROI was upset and only able to watch) and abandoned the EU procurement ordering vaccine themselves. Things got so bad that some manufacturing companies decided not to deal with the EU but with countries directly. There is even accusations that the French stole shipments from Holland to the UK (the AZ vaccine they railed against).
I have yet to see anything redeeming come from the EU vaccination efforts, it just reads as a 'how not to' manual
"Interesting point: do you rush through approval so you can start vaccinating early, or do you have a more thorough approval because you're going to give a new vaccine to millions of people and want to be confident it's going to do more good than harm? Any medical statisticians out there who could comment on this?"
Fair question, and the EU adoption was seriously behind due to the slow approval even as the rest of the developed world was getting vaccinated. A lot of these problems on approval however was the EU trying not to provide the standard guarantee for vaccinations to shift the responsibility onto the companies. And the companies aint that stupid.
"Incidentally, as far as I'm aware the implementation of the vaccination programmes is a matter for national governments, not the EU"
That of course relied on there being vaccine. The EU (as above) failing spectacularly to order it. After placing an order they were asked if they wanted a lot more (the company offered) only to be turned down because the French insisted their Sanofi vaccine must make up a good portion of all EU ordering. The vaccine was a failure.
It is a fascinating situation to read.
Nice avoidance of the point.
The UK ran its own vaccination program, as it was perfectly entitled to under EU rules. The UK ran this program while still an EU member. What the rest of the European countries did is completely irrelevant. This had zero to do with Brexit.
And yes, trying to conflate this somehow as a benefit of Brexit still is the last grasp of the Brexiters.
@LogicGate
"Oh.. And the point of common purchasing was to avoid a bidding war where the highest bidder would get to hoard all vaccines."
The end result. Since the EU member countries only really got vaccine when they abandoned the EU plan and ordered it themselves. Including Germany!! They were reasonably early at abandoning the joint program.
"imagine what would have happened if Germany had decided to go alone and outbid the UK?"
Also the Germans would probably have signed the contracts which the EU didnt for a long time. If they did that the Germans wouldnt have just been manufacturing vaccine but be receiving it.
But the actual outcome would be the EU trying to steal it from Germany just as they did from everyone else.
@batfink
"Nice avoidance of the point."
You need to reread the post then. You might get the point... maybe.
"The UK ran its own vaccination program, as it was perfectly entitled to under EU rules."
This sounds like the UK supremacist argument again. Every member state under pressure from the EU went with the EU procurement of vaccine. Every single one. And some (including Germany) ditched their already prepared plans to join the EU procurement. So do you believe the UK to be better run than every member country of the EU?
"The UK ran this program while still an EU member"
You will have an argument with remainers saying that. We were in the transition stage which leavers considered being trapped in the EU but remainers insisted we were out.
"What the rest of the European countries did is completely irrelevant"
Stealing and directly threatening the UK supplies of vaccine by the EU isnt irrelevant.
"This had zero to do with Brexit"
Except for being the reason we didnt join the joint procurement with the EU. Hence we got vaccine and watched the cluster fck.
"And yes, trying to conflate this somehow as a benefit of Brexit still is the last grasp of the Brexiters."
I am amused to watch your desperation of somehow trying to claim that and pretend to be credible.
@batfink
"So the only reason we ran our own procurement was because of Brexit? Otherwise we would have done the same as the rest? Really? Based on what evidence?"
That I am not a UK supremacist who believes the UK to have a superior government to all the other members of the EU. That every member of the EU under pressure from the EU went along with the EU procurement even ditching their own plans. That remainers of this country wanted to join the joint procurement and that joining it after brexit would have looked like capitulation to the EU which the government couldnt really do after all their talk of brexit.
The only real way I can see you believing we would be in the EU yet not join the joint procurement for vaccine is if you think the UK is better run than every other member country. Why else would the UK break ranks?
"Keep grasping."
You didnt seem to answer the other problem however that if we were in the EU and did go our own way on vaccine that the EU would have stolen it. You claim I am grasping but you dont seem to be on solid ground at all.
batfink> And yes, trying to conflate this somehow as a benefit of Brexit still is the last grasp of the Brexiters.
That is the total sum of faux benefits from Brexiters.
Things the UK was able to do within the EU but didn't:
Blue passports. Removing EU citizens with no means of support. Vaccine or respirator procurement. Putting a little crown on pint glasses.
6 years down the line and these meagre gestures are all they have to show. Well, that and more tax. More red tape. Higher prices.
But it's everyone else's fault. Never their own.
Youre right - we were PROMISED a recession and the wholesale emptying of the Square Mile the dya after we voted to leave, and then the day after we left...Im on tenterhooks here....
Instead we're having to make do with trade deals, the fisheries starting to sort themselves out, vaccines, inward investment......
Why on earth would anyone believe that anything not subject to WTO rules (services and banking) would stop the day there is no agreement? It will be repatriated back to the Single Market at the EU's leisure.
(I suspect the grace to trade services will stop in a different sector every 6 or 12 months, primarily for the EU's convenience in restructuring, but they won't mind that it gives a repeated reminder that a Hard Brexit means re-instating standard 3rd country trade barriers, ending the UK's free trade in services.)
It is inconceivable that the EU will allow the UK to continue free trade in services indefinitely, without corresponding free movement of labour.
And the recession was wiped out by Covid, Covid gave a massive hit to the economy in a *single* quarter, so it doesn't count as a recession. Those areas immune to Brexit recover, those not will not, meaning the only was is up. Just not as fast or as high.
"Again, the annexing of NI does not improve on that situation, makes it no better."
Ummm...yeah. You might want to read up on your history a bit. It might not be a great situation we find ourselves in today, but your interpretation of the history of the island of Ireland and the British involvement is rather at odds with reality.
@John Brown (no body)
"Ummm...yeah. You might want to read up on your history a bit. It might not be a great situation we find ourselves in today, but your interpretation of the history of the island of Ireland and the British involvement is rather at odds with reality."
So the troubles just happened with no build up? Because there seems to be a building up of tensions including death threats causing customs to back off at one point and so far the UK to delay implementing the more.... disliked... EU demanded checks.
Oh, there was a build up to 'The Troubles' (nice conflation of those with the recent woes over Brexit induced customs tomfoolery).
The build up was, once again, the fault of those Damn Europeans, specifically the Frenchies.
You *were* aware (like any half decent historian) that the Pale was established by the Normans, weren't you?
"death threats"
Don't worry about that. Now we've left and as the xenophobes have frightened off all our EU nursing staff and care workers, we are using the NHS as the backstop for millions of old people: bed blockers. The old bexiters are losing out on life-saving treatments because they hate foreigners.
That should kill them off more quickly; wow there is a brexit benefit.
@Snar
"Going really well, isn't it -"
Yes it really is and thanks for providing a link to support that.
"I'd be interested in seeing how much we paid for the vaccines as compared to other European nations ;)"
Smaller body count probably but it would be interesting since the members had to go order it themselves because the EU kept trying to drive the price down instead of ordering vaccine.
"UK growth post-pandemic is also the lowest of the G7 - so why is that?"
Do you mean by the very measurements where the UK is accounting for a lack of productivity in the public sector where they had been stopped from working. Something other countries wernt doing?
"It was supposed to get rid of red tape."
Only it doesn't. While we were in the UK for Christmas we picked up some bayonet light bulbs as you can't easily get them in NL and we need them for some light fittings. They still have the same indication (coloured bars and letter code) of the energy efficiency printed on the packaging. Only "[EU flag] ENERG" at the top has been covered by a "[Union flag] ENERG" sticker, and there's a sticker with the UK manufacturer's representative. So a fair amount of unnecessary work, making the supply chain more complex and increasing the cost to the UK consumer - while not resulting in any substantive change, let alone benefit of any kind.
And if the UK decided to invent its own energy efficiency classification you would need completely different packaging or even products or the UK = more costs, more hassle.
"Was interested to see a geniune UKCA mark on a Blueair Blue 411 air filter we bought recently. Quite surprised that a company had actually bothered with the duplication."
IIRC, manufactures have until 2023 to change from CE to UKCA marks. In most cases, it's just a case of changing the mark as the standards have not (yet) changed. It remains to be seen if the UK will track EU CE standards as and when they change, or go down a separate track. At that point, it will be up to the manufactures to decide whether to have multiple product versions for home and EU markets or go with whichever standard is higher, thus matching both, possibly at a cost disadvantage in the lower standard market.
While we were in the UK for Christmas we picked up some bayonet light bulbs as you can't easily get them in NL and we need them for some light fittings.
The LED bulbs in our Teasmades hail from a certain large Chinese tat bazaar where you can find them with just about any base in common use.
> In the past there might have been some folk groups whose demonstrations of traditional dancing become rowdy - but certainly no terrorism, otherwise the Irish government and our NATO allies in the USA would have dealt with it.
Surely there was no dancing involved? More like marching. ;-)
@Filippo
"Well, it would solve the customs problem though."
That got a good chuckle.
"(btw, in the previous post, I meant "Ireland, UK and continental Europe"; apologies)"
I meant the same. Sorry I wasnt trying to be awkward just sarcastic. As I assume you guessed the border where it should be is UK / EU
Let's go back to calling this disunited kingdom Great Britain. Since none of the current legislation will refer to that country we can just muddle through as we did before Brussels was built over. In the early 1960's I had a holiday job as an import/ export clerk. One form and two sheets of carbon paper and the goods were in the country.
Sir, you are a fool. An imbecile who understands less than nothing about these countries and institutions.
You prove it further with every comment you make.
Please educate yourself. There are summaries for schoolchildren, start there.
Even Boris Johnson understands this better than you do - although it did take him several months, as he didn't pay attention in school either.
NI is a massive clusterf**k that Brexit makes worse by definition. The only way to avoid that would have been to join the EEA, but the extremists in the ERG refused that.
Every other possible option is going to piss off a majority of NI residents. The only question is who.
There is a reason why NI overwhelmingly voted to Remain. They saw this coming.
The current treaty is probably the best (albeit still pretty rubbish) option for NI residents, because most stuff in shops actually comes from Ireland, not Great Britain.
@Richard 12
"Sir, you are a fool. An imbecile"
Followed by-
"Every other possible option is going to piss off a majority of NI residents. The only question is who."
Damn so we agree. Fools think alike only you pick the annexing of NI over the already existing division of Ireland by the border that already is in Ireland.
"The current treaty is probably the best (albeit still pretty rubbish) option for NI residents, because most stuff in shops actually comes from Ireland, not Great Britain."
Stuff in shops was an issue due to delays getting the stuff moved from GB to NI. And there is no data (as in not collected) for trade between GB and NI which makes such a claim uncertain.
> The only way to avoid that...
I'm no expert so please feel free to shoot me down gently but when I read the GFA it seemed that it was (understandably) written on the assumption that both parties would remain in the EU and therefore some EU rights weren't re-stated in the GFA although it relied on them.
I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to re-write the GFA to provide exactly the same rights as it used to but with additional terms to cover the bits that were previously implicit. That could then either be adopted or used as a straw man starting point for further amendments to allow for Brexit.
(Of course this plan is likely to fail because it requires that the current set of politicians respect what was agreed by a previous set of politicians.)
Unfortunately, the "implicit" bits were essentially the ability to move goods and services freely across the border which was a consequence of the EU: moving people was covered by the Common Travel Area as a backstop.
You can't really write back in the free movement of goods and services without actually rejoining the Customs Union and Single Market. The NI protocol is an attempt to come up with a compromise and polling suggests it has widespread support, for all its flaws. But EU membership also had majority support in Northern Ireland.
Hint: this isn't about what the people of Northern Ireland want.
@Warm Braw
"You can't really write back in the free movement of goods and services without actually rejoining the Customs Union and Single Market"
Bits that as you already pointed out wernt written in. So the situation has changed and so the agreement must be modified to suit the new circumstances or scrapped. Saying the world cant continue because of an agreement that doesnt say what you want is stupid. The GFA at no point states the UK cannot leave the EU, its a sovereign decision of the UK (and ROI btw).
"But EU membership also had majority support in Northern Ireland."
Which is a part of the UK and the UK had a vote (and many more).
> NI is a massive clusterf**k that Brexit makes worse by definition.
Partly completely right, partly completely wrong.
Actually: that the EU negotiators deliberately chose as a primary tactic to both nobble brexit and to ridicule the UK. They were quite open about it after the event, albeit only in select venues. Eg, a core negotiator documenting this intent and issue-selection process in detail, and crowing about their "success".
"Interestingly", those EU people who tried pointing out that the treaties' specific provisions for easily handling this, the EU Frontier Regions stuff, all suffered serious career impacts since they'd foolishly thought the EU was about its nominal goals.
To be clear: NI is a major clusterfuck, and Brexit did not need to have any significant impact one way or another on that. It was a deliberate EU choice to deliberately and tactically create problems as part of a point-scoring exercise. Which latter has been a feature of the entire process.
> There is a reason why NI overwhelmingly voted to Remain.
52% is "overwhelming", nowadays, apparently?
No.
52:48 is what reasonable, rational people would regard as quite a near-run thing.
Please be aware that desperately slapping labels over things that just ain't so, doesn't magically change a situation. It just makes you look unhinged. It just makes you look like you genuinely believe that creating stories changes facts, that Narrative dominates Reality.
@Stork
"If it was such a bad idea, why did Mr. Frost negotiate it and Mr. Johnson sign it?"
Frost wasnt for budging in the negotiations if I remember right. It was May who pushed into the negotiations because she wanted to remain (bino). Johnson is only interested in getting elected which left him as the best hope for getting out as May and Cameron really didnt want to leave the EU.
No. Boris Johnson ONLY cares about himself and his friends. Blair and Starmer actually care about what's right for the country. You might disagree with what they are doing, but they both (Iraq war notwithstanding) have more integrity in their little fingers than Boris Johnson and his cabinet.
Don't confuse being better at the "tradecraft", with integrity.
Blair's body count exceeds Boris thus far.
Starmer has never met a "pledge" he could keep.
Boris just doesn't care enough to lie, he knows we can't/won't do anything but "tut" and smear the opposition.
Leaving was Lunacy and will remain Lunacy. Starmer lacks the "integrity" to say so, shouting Schrödinger's slogan "Make Brexit work" instead.
Blair's vision of the country was PFI, Our people harmed in Illegal wars, Our funds used to prop up terror around the globe from Yemen to Hebron. Starmer "supports the government" but not the NHS worker buckling under the strain, and in *need* of a 15% pay rise.
These men have no integrity, They are simply better at hiding their contempt for you and me.
Every decent thing 1997-2010 came from Brown's economic policy - who was a decent man at his core, as was Major for that matter - the GFE is Major/Mowlam's Achievement.
https://www.change.org/p/the-prime-minister-tony-blair-to-have-his-knight-companion-of-the-most-noble-order-of-the-garter-rescinded
Starmer, Johnson, and Blair. Three racist, morality vacuums, who should never be/been allowed power.
Boris is the best of the bunch, as the naked contempt is cutting through, people for some reason care that he had a piss up, rather more than he's happy to deprive British Jewish(and other) people of citizenship without notice having explicitly passed legislation to that effect in Nationality and Borders Bill . https://www.bod.org.uk/bod-news/jewish-organisations-release-joint-statement-in-response-to-nationality-and-borders-bill/ And wasn't this the reason we couldn't have a real man of integrity in Magic Grandpa, we've have social care, free broadband and someone who could point to Northern Ireland on a Map.
Boris is "doing his best" to educate the population to not vote for Tories in {Red, Blue, Yellow} ties.
Integrity and Blair, how many more dead brown babies does it take for him to be considered a "bad guy"? How many more of these type articles https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/manchester-bomber-probably-fought-libya-inquiry-hears
Boris is sadly the most honest of the bunch, he just wants the money and to get his end away.
Boris swears on a stack of bibles that he is as honest as the day is long.
Starmer and Blair both portray themselves as upright people, people of seriousness.
Boris portrays himself as pretending to be an essentially petty and greedy, randy, spoilt, boorish racist lazy dishonest arsehole without a comb.
Pretending to lack personal grooming equipment just isn't that big a deal in my book.
There is still a fundamental difference between a PM who is doing what they believe to be best for the country (no matter how much you don't like what they did), and someone who is a PM who is doing the job entirely for his own gratification. Just because you don't like what Blair and Starmer did, doesn't mean they lack integrity. I couldn't stand Margaret Thatcher and her governments, but again, they had integrity - they truly believed that what they did was the best thing for the country.
Blair made some dreadful mistakes - but don't forget, he couldn't go to war by himself. He had to get it through Parliament. Starmer has hardly had a chance - you can't do much except pontificate when you're in opposition. And he's not a fool - he knows that if he says "Labour will reverse Brexit" he has as much chance of winning the next election as I do.
Johnson has not a shred of integrity. He is a dishonest immoral PM, leading the worst government I can remember in all my sixty six years.
There is a difference between getting your flat done up for presumably some sort of corrupt advantage favour and having lots of dead brown brown people killed in an illegal war so that oil was not sold in Euros thereby exposing the us dollar to the cruel winds of currency fluctuation.
It's about the intrinsic value of human life, vs the reality that the tories are as bent as a nine bob note.
It's sort of "their thing" or as they might say "our thing".
There is still a fundamental difference between a PM who is doing what they believe to be best for the country (no matter how much you don't like what they did), and someone who is a PM who is doing the job entirely for his own gratification.
You mistake Boris for a less sincere grifter, he inhabits the part, and is doing what he believe to be best for the country (no matter how much you don't like what he did), for the country, with a heavy heart does saint Boris of the rumpled brow, align the interests of the governed with his own.
I couldn't stand Margaret Thatcher and her governments, but again, they had integrity - they truly believed that what they did was the best thing for the country.
Thatcher was again a racist support of Zionist Terror, an enthusiastic supporter of apartheid south africa, who's contempt for "the inalienable rights of colonised people to seek liberation from foreign domination", i.e. "the rule of law" was legendary.
You seem to misunderstand selling off our assets and being racist as fuck, at the same time as cosplaying in a tank, doesn't make one have integrity.
She was sincere about her hatred of poor people, black people, Palestinian people. Fuck the old dead arsonist. She thought it was going to "swamp" the country if brown people where allowed to immigrate to Britain. She held a genuine belief if would be better if we all went "back" as it would improve the country in her Genuine and Sincere Belief.
Try A definiton of integrity which doesn't paint support for a racist monster as being okay.
Genuine intent is less than worthless. Thatcher a grubbly little racist blew up the anchor stopping house price inflation, forbidding the borrowing to replace the social stock.
Her hair was fixed in place strongly, but the utter contempt for human life, even when that life is brown or black is a red card, soz.
"Just because you don't like what Blair and Starmer did, doesn't mean they lack integrity.
Blair made some dreadful mistakes - but don't forget, he couldn't go to war by himself. He had to get it through"
Im sorry, but that man has no integrity at all. A self-centered megalomaniac. Look at his *pre*-election speech when he referred to sending "*his* armies to war". His? They are The Queen's. He then tried to displace the Royal Family and lead the procession of the Queen Mother's funeral!
He eroded - no, assaulted - civil liberties on a huge scale. He refused to denounce the abhorrent treatment of Walter Wolfgang and then trivialised it with "look, you must remember I wasnt there".
When questioned about the loss of civil liberties from the SOC and Anti-Terrorist Acts in 2002, his deflected the question with a comment "if we suffer a terrorist attack, I think people will ask why we didnt have more laws".
13,000 new laws in the space of 7 years. Numerous laws passed when existing laws already defined the offences.
Refused to censor the slimeball who remarked "today is a good day for bad news" on 9/11.
Blatantly lied about immigration - a lie set right in Peter Mandleson's admission in August 2016 that multiculturalism was nothing more than vote-importation.
Blatantly misled Parliament and the British public over WMD and took us into an illegal regime change.
No. Integrity. At. All.
Blair made some dreadful mistakes - but don't forget, he couldn't go to war by himself. He had to get it through Parliament. So what, he's not a good person - that's basically the point here, and parliament is not germane to that. For example - [1] Tony = Racist, Bad dude with no integrity.
Starmer has hardly had a chance - you can't do much except pontificate when you're in opposition. And he's not a fool - he knows that if he says "Labour will reverse Brexit" he has as much chance of winning the next election as I do. So his integrity prevents him from telling the truth, because he's a genuine belief it would be best for the country if he won.
Starmer is accused of expelling Jewish members of the labour party at a higher rate than any other leader[2]. Again he's a supporter of Zionist Terror, and lacks the integrity to admit the truth on Palestine anymore than on Brexit.
Starmer saying Israel "made the desert bloom" is like saying Columbus "discovered" America. He's doing what philosemites (antisemites who've found a political use for Jews) have always done: conscript Jews into the colonial project.[3]
She's referring to this [4] and his condemning non violent resistance[12] so human rights, but not for all humans.
He is funded by private healthcare lobbyist [5] and even now has Streeting doing the rounds on why we need to let private money in to sort out the waiting lists [6], nothing on the 80 Billion extracted from our NHS by the tories since 2010.[7] Oh and [8] Integrity[9], unfit to be a socialist lawyer. [10]
Starmer has a failure to remove Mandelson pending a full accounting of his historical links to “Questions about Maxwell’s relationship with Epstein" is scandalous and an indictment of his judgement and probity. [11]
His accepting of funding from BICOM and Medical lobbyists [14] accord with his policy positions, which looks like I donate to your campaign and you okay the hiring of a person[15] who served in the recipient intelligence agencies[16]
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/06/how-tony-blair-advised-former-kazakh-ruler-after-2011-uprising
[2] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-labour-antisemitism-accused-purging-jews-over-claims
[3] https://twitter.com/RivkahBrown/status/1461018168999223304
[4] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-labour-starmer-israel-palestine-slammed-colonial-speech-bds
[5] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-hedge-fund-manager-and-ex-lib-dem-peer-among-donors-to-anticorbyn-labour-fund-a7193556.html
[6] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59910107
[7] https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/pcph/seminars/howtodismantlethenhsin10easystepsquickpresentation.pdf
[8] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10248915/Sir-Keir-Starmer-hints-BAN-private-healthcare-PM.html
[9] https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1252807371077726209.html
[10] https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/obiter/legal-comrades-show-starmer-the-red-card/5107377.article
[11] https://dorseteye.com/the-labour-party-must-now-suspend-peter-mandelson/
[12] https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/labour-israel-keir-starmer-palestine-b1960105.html
[13] https://nypost.com/2021/11/22/doc-reveals-ghislaine-maxwells-daddy-issues-with-jeffrey-epstein/
[14] https://www.businessinsider.com/keir-starmer-linked-labour-group-fined-14k-failure-declare-donations-2021-9
[15] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/02/lawyers-complain-to-labour-over-hiring-of-ex-israeli-intelligence-officer
[16] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7761169/Jeffrey-Epstein-book-claims-Ghislaine-Maxwell-Mossad-spies.html
People aren't perfect, Major seems to have some integrity.
He served with Thatcher and was on the other side of many issues to me.
He seems to be doing his best but essentially based on reason not prejudice.
All people have 'inalienable right to freedom from oppression'. Only someone lacking integrity would deny another that right.
Brown likewise, seemed an essentially principled person with a moral code.
Corbyn has integrity and has been elected by the public since the 1980s every time he's put himself up for election. Unelectable is a strange phrase.
i don't recall him making this claim can you cite it please.
I do remember him saying he rated EU membership 7/10 and voted to remain[1]
I also remember him saying we wouldn't be able to remain in the single market after brexit [2]
[1] https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/745886722987294720?lang=en
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/08/jeremy-corbyn-eu-single-market-after-brexit
"I also remember him saying we wouldn't be able to remain in the single market after brexit"
There are two ways to be part of the Single Market outside the EU.
1. Retain the Four Freedoms; Goods, Service, People and Capital. As the EFTA countries do, and what any reasonable non racist/xenophobe would have expected leaving the EU to mean.
(Make our own trade deals with other countries, while retaining free movement of goods for anything with the correct origin.)
2. Remain in the Customs Union, only retain Free movement of goods. Sacrifice free movement of services to get rid of free movement of people. It does not give much ability to make independent trade deals.
This is what Corbyn wanted, and also what May negotiated. And what Northern Ireland now has,
When brexiteers use the term vassal nation, if they use the the term for being part of a customs union but outside the decision making, I think they are correct.
if you are leaving the EU, you need to leave the Customs Union, not the Single Market. (If you are an island)
1 is not leaving -
2 is accepting that 1 is not possible so try to limit the damage by replicating it, he said
“As he said in his letter back to Ian Blackford, the summit rests on the falsehood that the single market is a membership organisation which you can join, which it is not. Our approach for a jobs-first Brexit, which involves retaining the benefits of the single market, is through negotiation with the EU.”https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/08/jeremy-corbyn-eu-single-market-after-brexit
That seems like make the best of the lunacy of leaving to me.
Total garbage.
1. So you are saying Norway is in the EU?
2. That is totally disingenuous. The EEA is an organisation outside the EU that gives you membership of the single market. And the only job first was his. (And that didn't work out too well either).
Norway made it clear that while it would not support the UK joining EFTA to join the EEA, it would support a stand alone arrangement.
And that sort of crap he wrote made it clear he was just as unfit to lead the UK as Boris Johnson, (and less so in some ways, since at least Johnson's motivation makes sense. Though in retrospect, I doubt he would have let so many people die from Covid)
1. From A position of being a full member, to Norway is not in truth, leaving feasibility aside, in not removing "freedom of movement of people" it's not Brexit which was about using removal of FoM (e.g. Turkey) to get through the real prize of screwing our country over to buy up the ruins on the cheap.
2
We can't join EFTA over the heads of the members, and the "Jobs First Brexit" you rightly sneer at, is essentially what "support a standalone arrangement" means. Only the EU agreed with Corbyn who bothered to speak to them rather than the UK press. [1]
[1] https://euobserver.com/brexit/144119
The sort of crap can you site something - for example do you oppose social care, nhs pay rise?
Can you specific about why you think a principled anti-racist with a plan to fix housing, social care, nhs, should be slurred by mentioned in the same breath as Johnson, who is bad enough that even the tories voters are *starting* to notice.
#SaveBigDog
#JeSuisBigDog
1. utter gibberish. It was made quite clear by the EU that their preference was a Single Market based exit. Being like Norway was what was sold to people. And other than the racist promises, was the only model where the promises made were not the opposite of reality.
2. I'm not sure where you got joining EFTA over the heads of members from.
And leaving the Single market is a jobs last brexit.
Yes I can.
His version of Brexit is the closest relationship possible whilst pandering to the racists.
You don't get freedom to make independent trade deals, you sacrifice jobs due to loss of free movement of services (and people). And hobbling the UK in this way prevents all those promises.
At least Johnson's Hard Brexit didn't draw the line exactly where you stop freedom of movement.
It drew it at GB trading independently.
Remaining in the single market means keeping FoM, May's red lines precluded FoM. So we left Single Market. and ? Corbyn is not May so he's not on the hook for her Red Lines of removing FoM.
Also "please evidence your claims" with links that support your argument.
The people who said you could "brexit" and stay in the single market lied to you. Corbyn didn't.
EFTA is the Norway model, and all other EFTA members have said they don't want us.
So show me some evidence because you're just way off into the long grass.
We have been fleeced by people too lazy to concoct credible claims.
Post some links, do some research.
"Remaining in the single market means keeping FoM, May's red lines precluded FoM. So we left Single Market. and ? Corbyn is not May so he's not on the hook for her Red Lines of removing FoM."
Corbyn wanted the same model, so he is on the hook for offering something everyone else rejected as the other choice in a referendum.
"The people who said you could "brexit" and stay in the single market lied to you. Corbyn didn't."
They did, but not in the way you imply. They said we could, which was true, They implied we would, which wasn't. I didn't believe the latter, which was why I was so heavily remain.
"EFTA is the Norway model, and all other EFTA members have said they don't want us."
No, it isn't EEA is the Norway model. Switzerland is in EFTA, but does not have the same model as Norway.
As far as I'm concerned you are the one making lazy incredible claims with no research, so no, you can use google.
You are not making any sense.
Firstly, May's speech at Lancaster house laid out the "Red Lines" [1] where "No Deal is better".
Corbyn was always explicitly anti "No-Deal". These are different. You have provided no evidence to support your attempt to blame Corbyn for the behaviour of May/Johnson/Frost. It's unclear how you've arrived at such a conclusion from advocating a vote on "the agreement made by HMG" or remain.
"EFTA is the Norway model, and all other EFTA members have said they don't want us."Look you think Brexit with Single Market was possible, in EEA not EFTA. (I'll not quibble about the terms) It was never going to happen as they wanted to leave the single market.No, it isn't EEA is the Norway model. Switzerland is in EFTA, but does not have the same model as Norway.
You dont seem willing to take from that expressed opinion, and that it's what happened that Corbyn was right.
If we brexit, we'll be out of single market. We did and we are. He's not wrong.
[1] https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-facts/what-is-the-lancaster-house-speech/
You are the one making no sense.
Corbyn's policy was to leave the Single Market, and remain in the Customs Union (leaving an effective single market for goods only)
May's backstop was the same model.
You equate EFTA with the EEA then say you won't quibble about terms? You really are writing from a position of ignorance aren't you?
But when you said they want to leave the Single market, you are correct. However "they" includes Corbyn, which is why I see him as no different from any far right or far left brexiteer.
Leaving the Single market was a choice, and he supported it.
Remaining in the Single market was quite possible. And leaving the Single Market with a deal still does the majority of the damage that leaving with no deal would do.
EFTA/EEA - the point being you think Brexit while being in Single Market possible, because of us remaining in EFTA, or EEA - I bow to which ever one is correct as being Single Market but without the say. I don't quibble about it being EEA or EFTA as I don't much care, happy to accept some mechanism exists.
My view and my reading of Corbyn's view is that the people behind Brexit didn't want to be in the Single Market, so the theoretical existence of an EEA or EFTA route to remaining in the Single Market, or more precisely retaining the Four Freedoms, was never going to happen, given it contradicts the purpose of the Brexit people. That view accords with the facts, and look we are not in Single Market, and still it wasn't Corbyn negotiating.
My view is Corbyn didn't care overly much about the EU since our problems are here.
The Backstop - relates to Northern Ireland and really should be divorced from discussion.
We have a border, GFA dictated the fudge or reunification
Remaining in the Single Market was not the point of Brexit, it was a coup, by the people who are making protest illegal. I concede the point of that the existence of a route to remain in Single Market, but firmly rebut any suggestion that it was on offer.
I don't disagree that those behind brexit wanted out of the single market as well as the Eu.
It is you asserting that Corbyn was correct to get behind that rather than opposed it that I take issue with.
It is clear from your first paragraph you have no idea of what the situation is, and you are simply a fanboy flapping around from a position of ignorance.
My ignorance of EU details, which I readily admit, <dummy>"Brexit bad"</dummy> as it was obviously bad for my business, my rights, and my country. It was transparently a coup, fronted by dishonest racist grifters, if you happened to possess an above room temperature IQ. these are reliable indicators that something is a little off, perhaps, these known racist grifters, are maybe, maybe, engaged in a dishonest grift. The great thing about the EU, is I never had to give a F, about the EU.
It just went on stopping bigger companies shitting on my tiny company, I was fine with that.
It meant when my kid got ill, I could get on the first flight to see her, instead of some visa nonsense. It's the longest flight of my life.
As for Corbyn
The plain fact is, the man was not in office, and said "if you want this damn fool thing, at least vote on it intentionally. I don't really care", that's a reasonable position to hold, and frankly one that got him much flack. He wasn't in office.
The EU is not the be all and end all, and as he happened to be a local MP in my part of London, I happen to know who he is, which informs my support for him, where as you seem to be annoyed but unable to quite articulate why you find the man objectionable. Frankly given the choice on offer, you should have voted for a carrot rather than Johnson. You are free to prefer a carrot over Corbyn, but again, why?
What's your beef with Magic Grandpa ? He focus grouped some compromise position to keep as many of the gammon on side as possible, trusting quite rightly, if ever the public got a second vote on this, this rubbish would be killed stone dead, so didn't matter what the puff was.
People largely wanted "Brexit"[1] or Remain. For you. you've got fantasy, with well fleshed out details about the route you've outlined. I accepted you have a detailed understanding of the situation. I'll go further, as say that conceptually your fantasy was/is possible. But didn't work.
[1] TBD.
I suggest the ignorant one is the person gulled into voting to enable racist grifters.
I and others blessed by our ignorance of the EU, spotted the problem. Why couldn't you?
But when you said they want to leave the Single market, you are correct. However "they" includes Corbyn, which is why I see him as no different from any far right or far left brexiteer.
This is daft, he was perceptive enough to understand a fact you refuse to accept.
The people behind Brexit wanted out of the Single Market, and got their aim.
Remaining in the Single market was quite possible. And leaving the Single Market with a deal still does the majority of the damage that leaving with no deal would do
I agree, but we were never offered that chance, and were never going to be offered that chance, and the only person who offered the public a say on the final deal was Corbyn.
Quite aside from everything else, that is a commitment to democracy - do you still want this hand now the cards are face up?
How you can be critical of that is beyond me.
"This is daft, he was perceptive enough to understand a fact you refuse to accept."
Interesting, Corbyn was never one to submit to a position he disagreed with, that is where his former integrity came from.
"I agree, but we were never offered that chance, and were never going to be offered that chance, and the only person who offered the public a say on the final deal was Corbyn."
Wrong. The EU made it totally clear that a SM based solution was possible.
And as I pointed out, HIS preferred deal that was already rejected when May offered the same thing.
it wasn't democracy, it was the choice between what he wanted and the former status quo.
You are so blinded by being a fanboy, you are oblivious to this.
You are obtuse sir.
The EU is not the obstacle, the issue is HMG didn't want to remain in the Single Market.
That is why HMG didn't offer the public the choice of remaining in the Single Market.
Corbyn was not in HMG, hence had zero accountablity or influence for HMG, not allowing the public to remain in the Single Market.
May's Lancaster House speech makes this quite clear.
It's backed up by the choice of negotiators.
The ERG and the backers, didn't want the UK to be in the Single Market.
It's a sickness to hate some old geezer so much that you can't comprehend the plain truth, the man was not in office, and not to blame for the actions of HMG.
"1) We were members, changing that was because of a vote. You've decided that, you get to recast that vote as EEA. Which wasn't on the paper - leave was."
Leaving the EU was, leaving the EEA wasn't.
Leaving the EEA (and its consequences) was dismissed as project fear.
So you basically say that Corbyn was right to do what the ERG wanted? So what was the point of a leader of the opposition?
"This is weak mate, come on, try harder. I don't have to vote to understand that losing the right to vote involves a diminution of rights."
Not as weak as your understanding. You are utterly clueless. You actually think that Norway has no representation, and no way to represent its interests?
That's why I asked if you had conversed with anyone who actually attends these meetings, and you haven't.
So stop spouting nonsense.
You persist in trying to make this about fine detail, when it's really broad brush.
1) should people get to vote on the terms agreed when leaving the EU?
I, and Corbyn, amongst others thought they should. HMG and the ERG thought not, so we didn't.
2) Should we change our relationship with the EU on the say so of a bunch of Grifters?
No, clearly not.
3) You are unable to articulate why someone should desire to leave the EU, but remain in the EEA, when the motivation was about leaving the Single Market. Nor are you addressing that you seem to have voted for the Yellow Tories, who promised to split the pro-EU vote to head off the threat to neoliberalism. They rightly got spanked, as it's undemocratic to cancel it, regardless of the sodding manifesto.
Your insults aside, you don't meet the burden of proof.
Being in EEA is worse than being in the EU. You can't even explain why you want it, or should be taken remotely seriously. "You spoke to someone who attended a meeting, grow up"
What is covered by the EEA Agreement?All relevant Internal Market legislation is integrated into the EEA Agreement so that it applies throughout the whole of the EEA. The core of these rules relates to the free movement of goods, capital, services and persons throughout the 30* EEA States. In addition, the EEA Agreement covers horizontal areas such as social policy, consumer protection, environment, company law, statistics, tourism and culture. In order to ensure equal conditions of competition throughout the EEA, the EEA Agreement mirrors the competition and state aid rules of the EU treaties. It also provides for participation in EU programmes such as those for research and education.
What is not covered by the EEA Agreement?
The EEA Agreement does not cover EU common agriculture and fisheries policies, although it contains provisions on trade in agricultural and fish products. It does not entail a customs union, nor does it include a common trade policy, common foreign and security policy, justice and home affairs, harmonised taxation or the economic and monetary union.
Schengen is not a part of the EEA Agreement. However, all of the four EFTA States participate in Schengen and Dublin through bilateral agreements. They all apply the provisions of the relevant Acquis.
https://www.efta.int/About-EFTA/Frequently-asked-questions-EFTA-EEA-EFTA-membership-and-Brexit-328676
So coming out of EU, yet remaining in EEA is worse than Remaining in the EU. QED.
"This is bizarre: your position if I understand is that, because a referendum was held in 2016, no other public consultation may be sought, our general election vote will be held as the only engagement with the issue allowed."
The only bizarre thing is your lack of understanding. How hard is it to understand that a choice between remain and the leave model that had been so badly rejected that it caused a PM to fall isn't really going to satisfy anybody?
The choice needed to be between remain the realistic models of brexit.
Both get back the ability to do independent trade deals and reduce the number of common laws and regulations required.
The other choices would be remain in the Single Market, not have project fear come true but disappoint the xenophobes and what we got - a 3rd country arrangement. Happy xenophobes and project fear come true.
For completeness Grandpa's Turkey model could have been included too.
"I, and Corbyn, amongst others thought they should. HMG and the ERG thought not, so we didn't."
No you didn't you thought they should have a vote on a new relationship that had already been rejected.
Which meant those who wanted out of the EU would not vote Labour. Even if they supported a second referendum on the grounds of fairness.
And thank you for saving me the trouble of explaining why the EEA is of benefit.
It would probably worth you taking the effort to understand what you wrote and how it makes my point for being exactly what the non racist brexiteers wanted. Or perhaps the non racist part of what they wanted.
"So coming out of EU, yet remaining in EEA is worse than Remaining in the EU."
Yes, of course. But staying in the customs union only is far, far worse.
"They rightly got spanked, as it's undemocratic to cancel it, regardless of the sodding manifesto"
You really have a flexible version of democracy don't you?
You do know a government is not bound by the promises of a previous government?
And if they won, why would a referendum be needed?
The ERG and the Backers of the Tory party are to blame for Brexit.
EEA is worse than remain, why should he advocate for it?
I don't want EEA, I want remain. I also don't see why he should support the Tories when the issue is result of May's flagrant contempt for the country, and the lack of backbone to make use of the manifest contempt for democracy expressed on every other occasion by herself and her party, and just not brexit, given she campaigned against it.
I support him in *not supporting* anything other than expressed price for that support.
The public gets to vote on the deal, with remain option, or Labour won't support you. She refused as again, nobody thinks the public will go for this given a second change to avert the mess, so Labour carried on making the case for 2nd ref.
I would agree ultimately Labour's attempt to balance democracy and sanity failed, and they were unable to retain ultra-remainers - or hard core gammon.
As a committed champion of the oppressed, Corbyn is well respected by people, and demonized by others. Again and again, I've heard Thatcher held up as a person of integrity, Blair held up as a person of integrity. In other words, "public & media opinion" matters less than objective truth. Getting as far as he did in the face of overwhelming attack, is an outstanding achievement. Starmer by contrast will do much worse, as the Tories will change the face de jure and the grift will continue.
But 2nd ref was the only democratic way to stop Brexit, and supporting anything less than a chance to remain is an utter betrayal of the voters, including the likes of me.
EEA seems like we become subject to rules we can't set. Decided at meetings we don't attend.
Why would a democrat like Corbyn think that was a good idea?
You are obtuse and incoherent. You cling to the manifesto, pretending that most people make decisions on the manifesto - a flagrant lie if ever on was typed.
1) We were members, changing that was because of a vote. You've decided that, you get to recast that vote as EEA. Which wasn't on the paper - leave was.
And what you state is now the situation if we want to export to our biggest market, or have you missed the news over the last 12 months or so?Yes, Brexit is a bad idea. Even your EEA fantasy which not even you pretend to have voted for. ERG wanted out of Single Market. Face facts. this is a Tory shitshow - if you want to blame someone, blame the selfish idiots voting Tory.
That it finally bit you in the Arse because you are too dense but to advocate EEA as being better than remain. EEA is good, according to you, as we retain Single Market membership. Remaining allows us to retain SM membership and possess a Veto, which we've employed vary sparingly.
As to what happens in the meetings, it's a meeting, with an agenda, which is livestreamed on the EU website. If you want to "attend" its easy - https://webcast.ec.europa.eu/ Your attitude is unsupportable, you don't seen willing to get it. EEA is fantasy - no form of FoM was acceptable to ERG, who ran HMG.
I'm well aware of the current situation, which is why I support Remain.
In point of fact, I didn't vote, as I had a bet that "The country at large would vote Remain, as we were far too smart to fall for the grift", I lost that bet.
2) HMG never once offered the public a vote on any deal, the ERG and HMG, figures absent from your utterly evidence free insults and anti-corbyn drivel.
You obviously have never spoken to anyone who attends such meets and have no clue of the actual relationshipThis is weak mate, come on, try harder. I don't have to vote to understand that losing the right to vote involves a diminution of rights.
That is a gross misrepresentation of the situation, and you know it.
There was a minority government so split it couldn't even get brexit over the line with Labour nto opposing it.
Had Labour supported the remaining in the Single Market, it would have happened.
Corbyn whipped against supporting remaining in the EEA. (Look up around 13 June 2018)
It didn't so we left.
So of course Labour shares the blame.
"EEA is worse than remain, why should he advocate for it?"
Only for racists/xenophobes and those benefiting from a Singapore on thames arrangement (not many)
So for you to say that either your evident ignorance of what the relationships in Europe are is in play or you have a vested interest.
Ending free movement of people (which is a requirement of the four freedoms) is pandering to racists.
Anyone who supports pandering to racists does not have integrity.
"The public gets to vote on the deal, with remain option, or Labour won't support you. She refused as again, nobody thinks the public will go for this given a second change to avert the mess, so Labour carried on making the case for 2nd ref."
Not until very late in the game and Corbyn virtually had to be dragged screaming.
But you still don't address how Labours manifesto commitment to give a choice between a version of Brexit that no-one else actually wants and remain is actually democracy. It appears more like a deliberate ploy to lose the election, and let the Tories do their version of a hard brexit and then take
the blame.
"EEA seems like we become subject to rules we can't set. Decided at meetings we don't attend."
You obviously have never spoken to anyone who attends such meets and have no clue of the actual relationship.
And what you state is now the situation if we want to export to our biggest market, or have you missed the news over the last 12 months or so?
"I, and Corbyn, amongst others thought they should. HMG and the ERG thought not, so we didn't."
No you didn't you thought they should have a vote on a new relationship that had already been rejected. .
This is bizarre: your position if I understand is that, because a referendum was held in 2016, no other public consultation may be sought, our general election vote will be held as the only engagement with the issue allowed.
You really have a flexible version of democracy don't you?
In a world where FPTP is our electoral system, and a minority percentage was sufficient to win a general election, where people voted in the majority for pro second ref parties[1], yet got Johnson - and Brexit.
And if they won, why would a referendum be needed? FPTP is undemocratic, and not useful for single issue votes, people's voting in referendum are a blunt instrument but the correct tool in this case.
You do know a government is not bound by the promises of a previous government?
I know that heads they win, and tails we lose.
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-result-boris-johnson-pro-brexit-referendum-voters-conservatives-a9245866.html
"His preferred deal" a phrase I imagine as typed with much venom. What plan do you refer, "Jobs First Brexit" or what ever rubbish was used to paper over the fact, half the voters seems to have joined the ranks of the foolish.
The is no good way to tell people they are idiots, hence the fudge until you get a second ref, or hopefully the entire stupid idea would disappear somehow.
I personally favour saying "No, it's a stupid idea, we're not doing it" but I'm not a democrat in the extreme.
You seem to be outraged that a politician tried to get a bunch of conflicting positions to coexist when the only sensible thing to do is flagrantly undemocratic.
You can't just ignore people's votes because they are idiots. Or ignore that it's plainly stupid to hand control to HMG and remove all access to supranational courts and the ability to leave.
I don't support racists. You voted for them mate not me.
I do think they are small enough percentage of the population in a fair democratic vote, they are more noise than signal.
I don't agree with the division people into "human" and "non-human" or "worthy of rights" and "unworth of rights", you know, like racists do.
As a Tory voter, you have been voting for racists for a long time, it didn't seem to be an issue before.
I suspect that the motivations of the gammon, are not really your issue.
You don't like their choice, and have decided this will make it okay to ignore these "non-humans".
You cannot brand every Brexit voter as racist, not can you divorce the fact that Racism is distasteful, disgusting, and dishonorable, from the fact it is not illegal.
It doesn't matter what you are, it matters about right and wrong. I can see why you dislike Corbyn now, the idea of morals or principles, even for those you despise is lost on you.
Shallow advantage - EEA doesn't damage you, but sod everyone who loses out in the delta between EU membership. Damage the concept that change comes through the ballot box, so you can correct the votes of the subclass.
Tory, defining selfish contempt for reason or their fellows.
TL;DR. You don't care for the principle, you just want to carry on ignoring the plebs.
Racist people are racist mostly because it makes it easier to control them.
It's not an accident and often is accompanied by state funded propoganda - Orban and Soros comes to mind. Regev and Palestinians. Idi Amin and the Ugandan Asians etc.
It's often something that can be addressed with education, few people are truly beyond redemption, of which tiny few. I expect not many vote.
"You offer no answer to the substantive points:"
Always accuse others of what you yourself are guilty of eh?
But actually I did, but you ignored them.
And you even answered them yourself, failing to understand what you posted wasn't a rebuttal.
1) Yet you still fail to address that the question asked was undefined as to which of the 3 distinct logical destination relationships, and claim imposing the choice of the least popular and remain is democracy.
2) It was certainly a protest vote that went drastically wrong.
"I'll leave you to your foaming." from the supposed fellow remainer who preferred a hard brexit to a soft brexit. Well you got you wish.
(And no claiming Corbyn's plan was a soft brexit, It would still have taken us out of the single market.)
"You are trying to make it democratic to not let people vote on issues with long term consequences, except in a way where a yes/no answer is impossible - yeah, seems fair."
That is what proper democracies do. Supermajorities are required, not a 2% win. A majority of the actual electorate, not just those who voted.
"You've decided "Racists" quite without even making a case, and you wish to impose a diminution to peoples rights(EEA), as you think the plebs too foolish to reject any diminution of their rights(Full Membership)."
You quite obviously are clueless about what the EEA is. Remaining in the EEA retains people's rights.
Specifically those denied a vote, who massively outnumber the number the referendum was won by.
It's like arguing with someone who thinks Bill Gates puts 5G chips in Covid vaccine.
"You want to ditch the CU, you haven't articulated a reason, other than EEA is better than leaving SM, by why one should want EEA rather than EU is still a mystery - also unacknowledged or engaged with is the ERG's desired to avoid SM, or why supporting people's right to choose is undemocratic."
Not ditching the CU but leaving the EU means the EU (without us being part of it) decides our trade with the rest of the world, (as is the situation in NI anyway, but at least those born there can get a vote if they want)
Those people who simply wanted less common rules with the EU and independent 3rd country trade deals wanted to remain in the EEA. Those who didn't want project fear coming true would want it too. Those who want to remain European citizens wanted it too.
Yet you demand their choice isn't allowed. The bait and switch was done and they are forced to chose between the switch and what they voted against.
In the choice of four very distinct relationships, YOU decide that the the two more popular non EU relationships are to be denied to voters.
I cannot believe anyone arguing from such a point of ignorance about what the CU and SM are.
So you prefer the huge delta between EU and CU to the tiny delta between EU and EEA? I'd prefer EU, not EEA. I don't see why you'd pick EEA when you can keep EU.
I'm tired of this conversation and the lack of humanity on display, when LibDem's support for Apartheid[2] is what makes them Racist, not their view on the EU.
And I only brand those that wanted to take away rights as racists.(You know, the ones whom you support getting their way.) Racist has a meaning, wanting to take rights away from all UK people is not Racist, it's just fucking stupid. The travel provisions are less applicable to UK/EU duel nationals, but otherwise it affects all people in the country, without the variation according to group membership that is the hallmark of racist policy. Interesting that supporting the violent dispossession of people like the LibDems, the Tories, and Starmer's Labour do, doesn't count as racist in your book, noted.
[2] https://www.btselem.org/topic/apartheid
I suspect the Lib Dems would sue you for that.
And your support for taking away their rights undermines you claims.
And I only brand those that wanted to take away rights as racists.(You know, the ones whom you support getting their way.)
So you prefer the huge delta between EU and CU to the tiny delta between EU and EEA?
The one that takes away rights. of people. Hmmm. Curious. Either you totally fail to understand the nature of the way the UK worked, or there's some other reason.
A Jobs first brexit would have kept us in the single market. Corbyn was committed to leaving that, so any claims of that, lack any integrity whatsoever.So your basis to suggest Corbyn lacks integrity, is his principled refusal to support a flagrant stitch up of the public.
Why did May needed Labour votes to pass her deal, when as you will of course recall, the Confidence and Supply arrangement gave her a working majority? She couldn't pass the deal because her party didn't want us in the Single Market.
And for those who actually believed in and wanted the let's be like Norway option, it would be like throwing out the Baby and keeping the bathwater.The same people in Tory party that Major had labeled "The Bastards" and their protegees in the ERG finally deposed May, Installed Johnson, and got out of the Single Market, as planned. That was the plan all along, Hard Brexit, to hand over to the backers in the US, Biden threw a spanner into the works, as he won't let HMG fuck the Irish, hence the cobbled together deal which keeps Biden happy and fucks the rest of the UK, but not NI.
This shit show is not on Corbyn, he tried to do the decent thing, and support a democratic vote, which would have left the baby and bathwater in situ. Today if you had a vote to unwind the vote to leave, you'd win in a landslide. Corbyn understood that, and honestly while he's a flawed politician, the man has a moral compass, and integrity.
The only sensible position outside the EU is remaining in the EEA. Anything else causes massive damage.
I agree, so the voters should have the chance to avert this coup, manifestly against our interests, allowed to express explicit acceptance of negotiated terms.
No he didn't. He chose an option that was thoroughly rejected and caused the downfall of one PMHe said, "the public get a vote on the deal", we'll try to get the best deal possible and give you a say, along with an option to remain.
That outraged everybody from ultra-remain who thought the "Illiberal and Undemocratic" policy of my own devising of "Bog off, we're cancelling it" was fine despite the utter contempt for the electorate on display. Gammon, who'd refused anything less than eating gruel in an Anderson shelter on WTO terms as craven capitulation, and you who want to make the best of bad situation.
His Brexit was ridiculous. Give up the prosperity of the Single Market for services. Do not get the ability to make free trade deals independently. The only winners would be the racists
So you like me would have voted to remain rather than that deal. The gammon would find themselves the 5-15% crucially been offered end to FoM, we'd have called the whole mess off, as most people would have vote Remain. The Gammon would cry foul, which is why I'd put Hard Brexit as an option as I think that would be much less popular than vocally supported.
I think we should have had "Deal, No Deal, Remain" personally but Corbyn was I think unwilling to risk that amount of damage to the country and so never supported it.
It was the right thing, try to fix the problem honest, transparently and democratically, so he was doomed. But still it's the only democratic method on offer. The LibDems got rightly monstered for "lets call it off without a vote" explaining "Brexit is stupid" got "Project Fear" repeated unto the point of tedium.
The man tried and failed, but he tried to do it the right way, and that's important even if you lose.
"So your basis to suggest Corbyn lacks integrity, is his principled refusal to support a flagrant stitch up of the public."
No, refusing to confirm the desired arrangements with the public regardless of the arrangements, is a "stitch up". That's prefectly clear from what I wrote, including the clearly expressed position that democracy required a vote to bless/avert Brexit in it's final legal form.So rejecting the part of brexit that delivers xenophobia and at least 60% of the long term damage a no deal brexit would is a stitch up?
Well that puts your position in perspective.Why, yes it does. Brexit bad, must resolved democratically not by fiat, even if the fiat agrees with my personal preference. It's supporting the principle of democracy and the rule of law, I understand as a Tory voter, it's hard to recognize principles.
For example, "Pandering to Racists", they vote, they are subjects and deserve democratic representation. Because I utterly condemn someone's motivation and my reading of their rationale, doesn't mean I can ignore their vote without doing some grievous harm to democracy.
Why do you get to ignore their vote because they hold views you presumably hold contemptible.
Somebody said it far better than I could, so allow me to share
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons
"Why did May needed Labour votes to pass her deal, when as you will of course recall, the Confidence and Supply arrangement gave her a working majority? She couldn't pass the deal because her party didn't want us in the Single Market."You avoided the question, her negotiation was not with the EU but with the ERG, something which is fundamental to this debate. May couldn't offer SM to the ERG, who wanted an end to FoM. They eventually got their aim, and utterly the correct thing for Corbyn to not support a deal to worsen our situation without explicit public consent, the democratic instinct being strong in the man, even when inconvenient, because the man has integrity unlike, racist hypocrite May.May's deal did not keep us in The Single Market. (Only for goods via a customs union,and the UK is a services economy. It was the precise opposite of what the UK needed for a "successful" Brexit, )
So you admit, Corbyn was the only person who proposed to give you a vote, where remaining in the EU as full member was offered. Leavers voted for a bundle of different fantasy, The only concrete thing that seems to be agreed was ending of FoM, based on the flagrant anti-immigrant, anti-people of colour, anti-european rhetoric employed during the Leave campaign."So you like me would have voted to remain rather than that deal." Of course, but I voted for the party that gave remain as its manifesto rather than offer that choice. But leavers would be voting for the party that offered the deal they wanted (or thought they did, because few of them actually bother to check what being like Canada actually meant).
The manifesto is all well and good, but honestly it's the people. Either you can trust them to be competent and honourable or you can't. Large numbers vote tribally, myself included, but I won't vote for Starmer (Voted only once for Blair. did vote Brown/Red Ed). Don't Trust Reeves, Lammy, and host of others, so I won't vote for them, as I don't trust them to tell the truth.
Manifestos are not binding as has been established, so it's mainly about spending priorities.
So other than the expert view, https://ifs.org.uk/publications/9218 I think it's fairly well held view that without the OBR costing them all, they are not worth the paper they are written on and certainly of more interest to the media than the electorate.
"which is why I'd put Hard Brexit as an option" Corbyn's target was a hard brexit. Ending free movement is a hard brexit. You speak like one of those gaslighted into thinking any deal is a soft brexit. It isn't.Hard Brexit is a spectrum from leaving SM to WTO. It starts with ending FoM. In my view this is a "Hard Brexit" but you are moving goal posts, the context was in a putative second ref. A choice to end FoM should be offered, alongside a choice to accept the proffered deal, or a choice to remain in the EU with current terms/opt-outs.
You can't have it both ways, either do the undemocratic sensible thing, and just remain.There should have been a preferential referendum between Remain in the EU, Remain in the Single Market and become a 3rd country. A deal that does 2/3 the damage of no deal is no choice.
Or do the democratic stupid thing, and offer a real choice to properly fuck the country over.
"The man tried and failed"
Bollocks, he did the only decent thing and campaigned to offer people a democratic climbdown. He wasn't in office, and had no Say. He's not in the ERG - who you don't blame once, or the literal Government either Cameron/May/Johnson - no it's all magic grandpa's fault.It is quite clear he tried and succeed. He got the hard brexit he desired, and left the blame with the Tories. But he didn't do it with integrity, he used the same lies all the other brexiteers did.
You are deluded - the people who fucked us are the Tories, they are still in power.
Your hatred for Corbyn - still unexplained, is making you irrational.
You demand he ignore lots of people votes ,support May without lettings people vote, and excluded any choice you personally don't want. Your problem is with democracy not Corbyn.
Yes, idiots get to vote. You don't get to disenfranchise people just because we disagree, I disagree with you, but I would defend your right to vote against my interests. See the quote above for rationale.
"So your basis to suggest Corbyn lacks integrity, is his principled refusal to support a flagrant stitch up of the public."
So rejecting the part of brexit that delivers xenophobia and at least 60% of the long term damage a no deal brexit would is a stitch up?
Well that puts your position in perspective.
"Why did May needed Labour votes to pass her deal, when as you will of course recall, the Confidence and Supply arrangement gave her a working majority? She couldn't pass the deal because her party didn't want us in the Single Market."
May's deal did not keep us in The Single Market. (Only for goods via a customs union,and the UK is a services economy. It was the precise opposite of what the UK needed for a "successful" Brexit, )
"So you like me would have voted to remain rather than that deal." Of course, but I voted for the party that gave remain as its manifesto rather than offer that choice. But leavers would be voting for the party that offered the deal they wanted (or thought they did, because few of them actually bother to check what being like Canada actually meant).
"which is why I'd put Hard Brexit as an option" Corbyn's target was a hard brexit. Ending free movement is a hard brexit. You speak like one of those gaslighted into thinking any deal is a soft brexit. It isn't.
I think we should have had "Deal, No Deal, Remain" personally but Corbyn was I think unwilling to risk that amount of damage to the country and so never supported it.
There should have been a preferential referendum between Remain in the EU, Remain in the Single Market and become a 3rd country. A deal that does 2/3 the damage of no deal is no choice.
"The man tried and failed"
It is quite clear he tried and succeed. He got the hard brexit he desired, and left the blame with the Tories. But he didn't do it with integrity, he used the same lies all the other brexiteers did.
> "His preferred deal" a phrase I imagine as typed with much venom. What plan do you refer, "Jobs First Brexit"
You, sir have been taking lessons from Boris Johnson in making replies.
A Jobs first brexit would have kept us in the single market. Corbyn was committed to leaving that, so any claims of that, lack any integrity whatsoever.
> You seem to be outraged that a politician tried to get a bunch of conflicting positions to coexist when the only sensible thing to do is flagrantly undemocratic.
No he didn't. He chose an option that was thoroughly rejected and caused the downfall of one PM.
The only sensible position outside the EU is remaining in the EEA. Anything else causes massive damage.
His Brexit was ridiculous. Give up the prosperity of the Single Market for services. Do not get the ability to make free trade deals independently. The only winners would be the racists.
If the UK was going to have a hard brexit, at least get one where you control your own international trading arrangements. (Even if initially, the damage is slightly worse)
And for those who actually believed in and wanted the let's be like Norway option, it would be like throwing out the Baby and keeping the bathwater.
Frankly, this has revealed you as deluded as to the meaning of the word racist.
Unable to engage on a single issue of substance, and reduced rather pitifully to insults, and whole cloth false flag race paranoia. It really casts you in a poor light, and frankly let's you down rather.
You offer no answer to the substantive points:
1) Fairness - it is manifestly undemocratic to impose by fiat major changes.
2) A vote to Leave, was as much a vote against Cameron as it was for any concrete expressed goal.
I'll leave you to your foaming.
And your support for taking away their rights undermines you claims.
I support *asking people in a ref with remain/rejoin*, and *would vote for remain/rejoin*. You want to preclude an outcome you see as being damaging, I agree it's damaging, so is Tory rule, yet I wouldn't support banning tories standing for election.
You are trying to make it democratic to not let people vote on issues with long term consequences, except in a way where a yes/no answer is impossible - yeah, seems fair.
Lots of pronouncements and stating of unproven assertions as settled conclusions, but little of substance, and no engagement with any questions posed.
You've decided "Racists" quite without even making a case, and you wish to impose a diminution to peoples rights(EEA), as you think the plebs too foolish to reject any diminution of their rights(Full Membership).
The one that takes away rights. of people. Hmmm. Curious. Either you totally fail to understand the nature of the way the UK worked, or there's some other reason.
Your position is incoherent, "they are racist, so ignore their votes, but they voted so we have to brexit, but their votes become non-racist in a General Election". Either people should vote on issues that affect them, or not.
You want to ditch the CU, you haven't articulated a reason, other than EEA is better than leaving SM, by why one should want EEA rather than EU is still a mystery - also unacknowledged or engaged with is the ERG's desired to avoid SM, or why supporting people's right to choose is undemocratic.
"I don't see why you'd pick EEA when you can keep EU."
I wouldn't. Which is why I voted for the party with remain in its manifesto.
But I wouldn't call using a 52% vote on a question to leave the EU, to do so but not leave the EEA either undemocratic or racist. (Or totally stupid).
No, the racist desire was to to take away the rights of Europeans to live in the UK as equals.
(And no, I don't want to hear typical Cobynista claims that it isn't racist because they are white.)
So are you pretending to be a fuckwit because you have realised you are starting from a point of total ignorance of the actual situation and have no arguments of actual substance?
I suspect the Lib Dems would sue you for that.
LibDem 2019 vote was a vote for a racist party, led by a racist leader, who "wholeheartedly agrees" with the current situation in Israel, i.e. apartheid as defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, HRW has a detailed report [11]
LD ran anti-BDS ticket[1], pro apartheid[2], racist[3] state built[5] on the massacre[6] and ongoing violent dispossession[7] of indigenous people[8] by deranged settlers.[9] See it for yourself, it's frankly shocking, an interview with the perpertators, who are utterly proud of their depravity [8]
It's an utterly racist proposition to not support equal rights for all people between the river and the sea, to demand an end to the brutalization and racist treatment of colonized, occupied subjugated people. To vote for a party supporting that is contemptible., to cast it as anti-racist stance, demeaning to the very word.
As a statement by more than forty progressive Jewish organisations says, ‘dangerously [conflating] anti-Jewish racism with opposition to Israel’s policies and system of occupation and apartheid ... undermines both the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality and the global struggle against antisemitism. It also serves to shield Israel from being held accountable to universal standards of human rights and international law.’[10]
President Cyril Ramaphosa, a trade union leader who led the ANC’s negotiations with the white regime, said the forced removal of Palestinians to make way for Israeli settlers and the destruction of homes in Gaza “brings back very terrible memories of our own history and apartheid”. “This, for us, is very close to our own suffering under apartheid. When we see those images, we can’t but help to side with the Palestinians,” he said.[4]
I understand that it is not the top line issue for you, but support for violent racist ethnostates is itself racist.
BDS the minium non-racist people should do in solidarity with the oppressed occupied people of Palestine. Anti-BDS is a racist position.
QED.
[1] https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/lib-dem-leader-jo-swinson-attacks-bds-and-reaffirms-support-for-two-state-solution-1.488866
[2] https://www.btselem.org/topic/apartheid
[3] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/3/11/benjamin-netanyahu-israel-is-a-state-only-of-the-jewish-
people
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/23/israel-apartheid-boycotts-sanctions-south-africa
[5] https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/41048
[6] https://english.alaraby.co.uk/news/israeli-commander-deir-yassin-massacre-dies-age-94
[7] https://imemc.org/article/palestinian-american-death-underscores-rampant-israeli-violence/
[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiLt5awzmyIe
[9] https://www.yesh-din.org/en/a-life-exposed-military-invasions-of-palestinian-homes-in-the-west-bank/
[10] https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2019/september/the-right-to-boycott
[11] https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution
Actually re-reading your comment, you suggest he is dishonestly suggesting it's impossible.
Using the link that I found to say, he says "we'll end up outside".
I don't see that saying "we can't do it" as the same as "it's not possible for anyone else to do it".
I accept you might see that as being a weaselly politician difference, but I don't think that calls integrity into question.
It's not the same as support for apartheid {Johnson,Blair, Thatcher, Starmer} or utter contempt for human life, epic scale dishonesty, or conspiring with a foreign government to damage your countries interests.
Now we actually have taken out of the single market, so his opinion has been vindicated by the facts.
So you suggest that means he lacks integrity.
I don't think that is correct, nor do I think he was incorrect, perhaps you could expand on your point.
He certainly made incorrect statements about the Single Market (or weasel words to mislead).
When people talk about the Single Market, they are generally referring to the joint common internal market of the EU and EFTA (which for goods alone, also includes Turkey and now Northern Ireland). Basically the EEA plus partial participation for other areas.
There is a specific term "the EU Single market", which refers to only the internal market of the members. This is why I say he could have been using weasel words. He could have been using this term to mislead. because obviously you can't stay in that outside the EU.
That does not show integrity, that shows manipulation.
He whipped against remaining in the EEA, which would tend to imply he knew what it was.
He is no different to any other Brexiteer, (Other than motivation, perhaps. But the end result is the same)
The single market refers to the four freedoms enjoyed by members of the EU.
Corbyn is correct, you can't play on the green without being in the club.
"When people" *who are incorrect about the usage of the term single market* talk about the single market, and ignore that Turkey is not in the "single market" which is why Turkey's potential *joining* of the single market was used to such great effect in the 2016 Brexit Vote.
Wrong.
The Single Market in general discussion refers the the four freedoms enjoyed by the members of the EU and EFTA. (and if you limit yourself to goods, Turkey and Northern Ireland)
Funny that Norway, Iceland ans Switzerland manage too, then.
Turkey *is* effectively in the Single Market for goods, due to its membership of the customs union. And Turkey couldn't have joined the EU with the UK objecting.
The Single Market is a Market for Services and People, Capital and Goods.
There are specific treaty obligations which define what members of the single market agree are standard terms for services, goods, capital, and people (qualifications and licensing is most obvious example).
Turkey use EU standards to sell into the "Turkey/EU Customs Union"[1] it's not a member of the "Single Market for Goods" (SMfG) as that doesn't exist.
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/turkey/index_en.htm
I stand corrected it does exist [1], thank you very much for drawing it to my attention.
Looks like I owe Mr Anon an apology, I thought he was the Capital of Venezuela[2]
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/goods_en
[2] https://lmgtfy.app/?qtype=search&q=Capital%20of%20Venezuela
"Now we actually have taken out of the single market, so his opinion has been vindicated by the facts."
That was Tory policy, (and Labour policy) not some vindictive spite by the EU.
There was no reason whatsoever other than to pander to the racists and xenophobes.
We sacrifice our economy (no Free Movement of Services) and put ourselves in a position of weakness for trade deals (where we have to accept what the other side demands) just to chuck out the Europeans.
It seems the horse shoe theory of politics is correct.
Brexit was a coup by people looking to smash the state[1], it was always going to be a shitshow, and that has nothing to do with Corbyn, who voted remain[5], campaigned for remain[4], and predicted we'd be taken out of the Single Market due to May, a weak, racist [2] appeaser, with "Red Lines" [3]
Corbyn is consistent - "no deal is shit. The public should get a vote on the reality of an agreement, but shouldn't be offered the chance to vote for no-deal, and the EU is rubbish but we're better off in"
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/aug/22/britannia-unchained-rise-of-new-tory-right
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/07/17/trumps-racist-tweets-remind-brits-when-go-home-vans-drove-through-london/
[3] https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-theresa-may-s-red-lines-risk-ripping-britain-apart-1.3761971
[4] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36430606
[5] https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyns-changing-brexit-stance
He consistently supported the same model as May negotiated as a backstop, which was rejected by everyone else.
If he had wanted to give a choice, he should have given people a 3 way preferential choice between becoming a 3rd country, an EEA member or remaining, rather than pretending option 2 was impossible and supporting the 4th option that was thoroughly rejected by everyone.
He was as responsible for Brexit as Johnson by denying a proper choice.
If you have a legit argument, post proof, as I don't think you are making sense, or I don't understand your point. Lets assume it's me, please evidence your claims.
The options for second ref as advanced by corbyn and linked up thread (from channel 4) were:
With Deal being what was actually negotiated between UK and EU.
"Vote Remain for no Brexit"
"Vote on Deal for Brexit"
You can argue, he should have offered "No Deal Brexit" as third choice, but otherwise that's what was possible and what he advocated.
The GFA is subject to separate agreements, but without Irish Reunification makes Brexit difficult.
You really don't have a clue, do you?
You fail to understand the massive difference between leaving the EU and leaving the EEA.
His deal was one rejected by everyone else.
So why would anyone vote for him for a fair referendum?
As a remainer, I prefer no deal or Johnson's deal to Corbyn's stated plans.
Almost no leavers supported his model either, so how would they be getting a fair choice?
A deal they rejected vs remain?
It's almost as if he wanted to lose, so Johnson got forced into his hard Brexit, then he could build his socialist utopia on the ashes of the UK.
You really don't have a clue, do you? given it's your opening statement, seems unreasonable
You fail to understand the massive difference between leaving the EU and leaving the EEA.
Is it that we were taken out by crooks who wanted the hardest possible severing to facilate the disaster capitalism described in the book authored by one of the protagonists fathers - Or you think that leaving is possible with the correct knowledge of minutia to be rendered not foolish.
[1] His deal was one rejected by everyone else.
[2] So why would anyone vote for him for a fair referendum?
[3] As a remainer, I prefer no deal or Johnson's deal to Corbyn's stated plans.
[4] Almost no leavers supported his model either, so how would they be getting a fair choice?
[5] A deal they rejected vs remain?
[6] It's almost as if he wanted to lose, so Johnson got forced into his hard Brexit, then he could build his socialist utopia on the ashes of the UK.
So amongst the many lies, and outright lies they are.
[1] when did people get to vote on Corbyn's deal - link or retract your lie.
[2] A vote on leaving on the terms struck and not leaving is a choice between two truths, which you describe as "unfair", just retract- that's an embarrassment.
[3] As a remainer - sure mate, no deal is better than "retaining as much of single market as was possible to protect jobs"
[4] Again - recap of [2] Truth is fair, but evidence that "leavers" opposed the idea.
[5] Do you want this, which you are getting or the old deal you had - seems fair.
[6] Johnson and BlueKip wanted brexit so thy could dump shit in the sea, sell off the NHS, and outlaw protest.
It's a fascist coup enabled by idiots and racists, and racist idiots to enrich people who wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
If you voted for it, you are an idiot, if you still support it you are a fool.
It would have worked if X is self-deluding - X is reality and it's not even started to bite, yet!
"[1] when did people get to vote on Corbyn's deal - link or retract your lie."
2017 and 2019 (And you can google the labour manifesto yourself).
2. You obviously allowed your Corbyn fanboyism to completely miss the point I made. Please try again.
3. I was talking about a customs union, not a single market. Corbyn wanted to leave the Single market and remain in the CU. Try to keep up.
4. Did you have your head in the sand that year?
5. The point was what leavers wanted, too. They would not vote to be given a choice of a deal they rejected or remain.
6. Yes, So why did Corbyn set himself up to lose?
"If you voted for it, you are an idiot, if you still support it you are a fool."
Why on earth would you think I voted for it or support it?
I voted remain (and had leave meant the promised Norway model, would like most remainers have shut up then and there) and tactically for the party that said they would scrap the whole stupid idea.
You really are delusional.
You seem to confuse the deal negotiated and revealed to the British public after the elections of 2017/19.
That date for the hard of thinking you are channeling is the first time "The Deal" was available to be voted on. [1] Corbyn said you should have a vote on if you wanted to accept it.
Given you've failed to meet that, I'll accept your capitulation, and ignore your increasingly foamy responses.
Corbyn didn't want to leave, pointed out *impossible to remain in single market, and was proved right", which clearly offends you as a foamer.
The rest of your foaming is tedious, and I wish you well, but you are mistaken and rude.
[1] https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-boris-johnson-says-trade-deal-is-his-christmas-present-for-the-country-12172450
No, I simply read the manifestos which laid out their commitment to lave the Single Market and remain in the Customs Union.
So you think that was a lie and they would have negotiated something else?
You appear to be a typical Corbyn apologist prepared to twist any logic to defend your hero.
"Corbyn didn't want to leave, pointed out *impossible to remain in single market, and was proved right", which clearly offends you as a foamer."
Of course it was impossible if the leader of both the government and the opposition were committed to leaving it.
Corbyn whipped his MPs against a vote to remain in it. (Around Jun 13, 2018)
And the only foam is that coming out of your mouth while you defend the indefensible.
And Johnson's deal was a simple 3rd country arrangement, as he promised in the election that he won.
So why would I believe that when a notorious liar delivered the type of Brexit he promised, the "man of integrity" would promise one type of brexit and deliver a vote on a different type?
Corbyn wasn't in government.
Corbyn campaigned on giving people a vote on any eventual deal, and said he voted for remain.
As a "fanboy", I think it's a mature decent, and fucking stupid position to back neutrality in second ref[1]
Jeremy Corbyn has defended his pledge to stay “neutral” in the event of a second Brexit referendum after his position was criticised as indecisive.The Labour leader revealed during a Question Time leaders’ special on Friday that he would not back either side, putting him at odds with senior party figures including John McDonnell, Keir Starmer and Emily Thornberry, who have all said they would back remain.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/23/jeremy-corbyn-defends-his-pledge-to-stay-neutral-in-second-referendum
"Corbyn campaigned on giving people a vote on any eventual deal, and said he voted for remain."
The point you miss is the deal he committed to negotiate was the same model that May negotiated as a backstop, and was the reason for her downfall.
So why would leavers vote for him, if they have a choice between that and remain?
Answer, they didn't.
I think Corbyn a decent chap. A better bet than Johnson, if that makes me a fanboy so be it.
I think there is fundamentally a refusal to accept "Brexit is a coup", which is the frame needed to understand our difference of opinion.
If you accept that, than the concept that we were never going to get to stay in the single market is easier to agree.
I also personally think that our Electoral System is more a problem than our EU membership.
I think that Corbyn understands this, hence viewed Brexit as a distraction.
The vote on whatever deal was negotiated is in line with Corbyn democratic instinct, and the only honorable way of stopping Brexit.
Personally, I'd have gone sod off, we're not doing it, it's a stupid idea.
" if I remember right. It was May who pushed into the negotiations because she wanted to remain (bino)."
What a load of garbage.
BINO? May was trying to turn us into Turkey. Out of the Single Market (other than for goods, due to the customs union). The very thing that our economy spent decades exploiting and is going to suffer massively once the consequences are applied (Since WTO doesn't control services, the trade barriers will; be reinstated at the EU's pace, and it seems likely that they will ration them out so there is a new barrier every year for the next decade)
@Charlie Clark
"The NI protocol was the UK's idea, proposed by Johnson and negotiated by Lord Frost"
Theresa May proposed the Irish backstop didnt she? Johnson inherited the proposal and Frost had been bypassed by May because he wasnt making progress (aka the EU refused to negotiate in good faith and he didnt just cave to them).
"aka the EU refused to negotiate in good faith"
... aka the EU acted in self-interest after our - our - decision to leave. Who could possibly have predicted that?
In fact it's worked out so well for us that we're now seeing a raft of other EU states clamouring to leave... oh, wait...
@LionelB
"... aka the EU acted in self-interest after our - our - decision to leave. Who could possibly have predicted that?"
Yes of course they did. And brexiters predicted it and expected it and that is why brexit was better negotiated by the brexit part of government instead of those desperate to remain. However the situation wasnt helped by sore losers doing everything in their power to force remain and cry like babies when the UK acted in the UK's interests. Amusingly remainers have cried so hard when the UK did something in the same vein which brought me much amusement on these forums.
"In fact it's worked out so well for us that we're now seeing a raft of other EU states clamouring to leave... oh, wait..."
Go on finish that thought. Please make me laugh some more. Describe how the all for one approach fell apart quickly over vaccines and the borderless travel between states saw such a quick change. While Poland and Hungary slap the EU for fun leading to talk of them leaving (as of last September anyway). The friction as members pull their own way and even French politicians running on getting back sovereignty from the EU. Go on make me laugh some more.
Ho hum, still in denial - the usual barrel-scraping trying to pin the Brexit fiasco on remain supporters (do you seriously believe anyone buys that wibble?) Brexiters predicted it? Well, they certainly kept quiet about that! Sheesh - who's "crying" now, I wonder?
Meanwhile, Hungary and Poland's racist, antisemitic, xenophobic and homophobic tinpots whine and stamp their little feet in full knowledge that they are royally shafted if they leave (but not too much, in case the EU actually gets narked enough to boot them out).
Sounds like you are sore about what you won.
You conveniently forget that the arrangement the UK has was delivered by as promised by the government in their manifesto.
No point you whining about it, just because what you wanted wasn't what the people voted for.
How long are you going to be crying that the UK voluntarily gave away its sovereignty?
It was the will of the people.
(And we have already established that a stupid will of the people still counts)
What is your point? That Northern Ireland would make negotiations difficult was clear from the start. That negotiations require the agreement of all parties is also clear. It was also clear that both the UK and the EU wished to keep the Good Friday Agreement, which directly affects the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Personally, having seen some of the consequences of the troubles, I'm pleased that both parties decided peace was so important.
It's not bad faith to point this out. The backstop was one UK proposal, which the EU was happy to go along with, the NI protocol another.
It is sympomatic of the naivety of many brexiteers that the inability to resolve a dilemma, which consists of contradictory issues, is somebody else's fault rather than an unreasonable expectation. While this might make for great electioneering, it has proved to be a terrible negotiation strategy. Though, rather than admit this, Lord Frost decided that it was the equally predictable lack of focus in government that led him to resign. Who could have thought that such an overtly political opportunist like Johnson would drop the issue as soon as possible?
But some people never learn, which is why so much faith is being placed in the next potential leader of the Conservative Party…
@Charlie Clark
"What is your point?"
A direct reply to 'The NI protocol was the UK's idea, proposed by Johnson and negotiated by Lord Frost'. The point being it was May. Your entire post doesnt seem to have any issue with it so not sure why you have an issue with that.
"Who could have thought that such an overtly political opportunist like Johnson would drop the issue as soon as possible?"
So far me and Dr Syntax seem able to agree on Johnsons lack of reliability. The rest of your post has been burned to bits so many times I think you can look at my other replies to answer it.
@Doctor Syntax
"This difficulty is the inevitable predictable and predicted consequence of the combination of Brexit and the Good Friday agreement. Which do you think should be scrapped?"
Brexit is a UK decision we have the right to do regardless of traitors trying to sell off the country and as far as I have heard the border isnt particularly mentioned nor states the border or its form. However assuming it did the GFA is between 2 parties which means the UK can brexit and still abide the GFA and that would require the other half to abide by it. Aka if the EU broke it (Ireland broke it because of the EU) thats their choice not ours.
The Good Friday agreement was predicated on NI and the EU being in the single market, hence removing the need for a hard border. That's why NI has to remain in the single market for it to function. If NI is in the single market and the UK isn't then there has to be some form of customs border in the Irish Sea. No amount of flannelling can dispose of that set of consequences.
@Doctor Syntax
"The Good Friday agreement was predicated on NI and the EU being in the single market, hence removing the need for a hard border"
So you agree its not in the good Friday agreement? So not in the GFA hence not breaking the GFA?
"That's why NI has to remain in the single market for it to function"
Actually thats complete tosh. Its an agreement which needs to evolve with the changing circumstances. not a document dictating the UK has been conquered and has no right to self determination.
"If NI is in the single market and the UK isn't then there has to be some form of customs border in the Irish Sea"
If you feel there must be a border there between Ireland and the EU thats up to you and I would accept that solution too. Or didnt you mean that?
"Its an agreement which needs to evolve with the changing circumstances."
Empty words, given that, post-Brexit, no-one has a clue how to actually make that happen in such a way as to maintain any semblance of peace in NI - the entire point of the GFA. (And please don't insult our intelligence by pretending that you know how to achieve that - your historically-blind earlier comments make it abundantly clear that you don't.)
@LionelB
"Empty words, given that, post-Brexit, no-one has a clue how to actually make that happen in such a way as to maintain any semblance of peace in NI"
Right so I guess we are moving on from the claim that brexit breaks the GFA which seems to be incorrect to moving the goal posts to a hypothetical peace which we dont have with the current arrangement and hypothetical disruption of the peace if the EU dictates a border. Which brings us to, how is that the UK's problem?
"Right so I guess we are moving on from the claim that brexit breaks the GFA..."
My original statement was that Brexit is incompatible with the GFA; either Brexit breaks the GFA or the GFA breaks Brexit, if you like. The current situation, with a "border" between NI and mainland UK is closer to the latter.
"a hypothetical peace which we dont have"
The pre-Brexit (and, precariously, the post-compromised-Brexit) peace is by no means hypothetical, certainly as compared to the pre-GFA mayhem.
"hypothetical disruption of the peace if the EU dictates a border"
Correction: if the EU implements the protocols negotiated by, and agreed to by the UK.
"Which brings us to, how is that the UK's problem?"
Errm, because NI is part of the UK?
"So you agree its not in the good Friday agreement? So not in the GFA hence not breaking the GFA?"
No it would just undermine the peace.
We could have left with a no deal brexit, or the UK could have remained in the Single Market, but I don't believe 14 million people voted for either of those.
It is done. The Johnson NI protocol is here to stay, so just accept it. You lost.
"Brexit is a UK decision we have the right to do regardless of traitors trying to sell off the country ..."
Call me old fashioned, but I thought in British political discourse we don't usually refer to those we disagree with as traitors.
Incidentally, what is the correct term for those who sided with foreign politicians such as Trump, Putin and Le Pen whose reasons for supporting Brexit probably had more to do with their own national interests than those of the United (for now) Kingdom?
@H in The Hague
"Call me old fashioned, but I thought in British political discourse we don't usually refer to those we disagree with as traitors."
Agreed. But what do we call political people who give away part of the UK territory without agreement of the very people in that territory? Or even political parties not in power trying to negotiate behind the governments back (publicly too) to undermine the critical negotiations (Corbyn)? Thats not about political opinion but direct actions against the people and country.
"Incidentally, what is the correct term for those who sided with foreign politicians such as Trump, Putin and Le Pen whose reasons for supporting Brexit probably had more to do with their own national interests than those of the United (for now) Kingdom?"
No idea to be honest. Depending on their involvement it could be foreign actors I guess (such as Obama too reading Camerons speech) but that does happen anyway. Farage even campaigning for Trump. But as its not our own acting directly against us with explicit intention of undermining and damaging the country it isnt traitor.
The NI protocol is not the problem. Northern Ireland has *no* problems getting EU goods. AT ALL. Everything flows to the country via the Republic like it always has.
It is when BRITISH goods get involved, that problems arise. Marks & Spencer imports things like their Peppa Pig sweets from... The EU. But, the 'oven-ready' deal from the Bungler-In-Chief precluded reimport of EU goods into the single market (which Norn Iron is part of) without requiring declaration, tariffs and the like. And thus, M&S now has the problem that they cannot supply their shops in Norn Iron with many goods without paying... well... taxes and tariffs and also the hassle of ExIm declarations. They *could* make their life easier by having a warehouse either in the Netherlands (like some other UK manufacturers have had to) or Ireland or France (Calais is a good option) that redistributes things in the sense that stuff from the continent ultimately destined to Norn Iron or the Republic would go directly there, whereas things to go to the UK only end up going to the UK only.
Bungler-In-Chief also messed up with the 'there won't be a border in the Irish sea' palaver, hoping to force the Republic out of the EU single market and back into the UK orbit. Yet, that's not happened. Why? Because the Republic, knowing full well where this was heading, made deals with various ferry companies in Europe to run ferries from every single port in the vicinity (at least 4 French ports, two Belgian, a Dutch and a Spanish port) to build their sea bridge. It was operational by the end of the transition, and it has been a roaring success.
If anything, hauliers have found that it's *way* more lucrative to drive the extra 4-5 hours beyond Calais to one of the other French ports to catch an overnight ferry, with a full load, and return with a full load from the Republic than it is to do piecemeal trans-shipment via 'the faster route' (i.e. the UK), dropping stuff off, picking stuff up for Norn Iron or the Republic and then heading on over, or do the reverse. There are *so many* HGVs returning to the continent empty or partly empty because the hassle of dealing with HMRC is just... not worth it.
And from what even UK HGV drivers have said in various forums, they all sigh a sigh of relief when they are on the continent because they have stricter rules that makes sure they are better taken care of, and dread having to come back to the UK because of the hassle, the traffic and particular the lack of good facilities for drivers. A company building a massive HGV 'port' in Ashford extensively consulted with HGV drivers to make sure they had all the facilities they would like to have there, in order to make their stay more pleasant. Does the government site near the old airport in Kent have that? Are you joking?
"Bungler-In-Chief also messed up with the 'there won't be a border in the Irish sea' palaver, hoping to force the Republic out of the EU single market and back into the UK orbit. Yet, that's not happened."
I doubt such long term "planning" was involved. It was just a thing he needed to say at the time to those he was addressing. All his utterances are the same.
@anothercynic
M&S already solved their Brexit-induced food logistics problems in France:
The British retailer Marks & Spencer blames Brexit as it closes French stores - NYT
(Another Commentard will be along shortly to gaslight this as a win.)
That's why London should have its own protocol and be allowed to stay in the Eu.
It voted remain, the city wants to remain in Europe and it would be quite happy to have a hard border down the middle of the M25
Presumably all it has to do is launch a series of bomb attacks on Westminster and then choose a suitable religious holiday to sign an agreement
then it can have all the special treatment it likes
There's an interesting article on the benefits, or otherwise, of Brexit in today's FT. Their paywall is easily circumvented by searching for "site:ft.com Tories are wondering what happened to the Brexit they promised"
The comments underneath the article are also interesting, though some Brexiteers would claim that FT readers are anti-business and left wing.
Personal note: We just returned to NL from Christmas in the UK - not v happy that we now have to join the "Non-EU/EEA/CH" queue. And to avoid having to take the red lane at customs and pay VAT on imports we no longer spend significantly on art, sound equipment and tools in the UK (when taking stuff out of the UK you can no longer reclaim UK VAT so we would end up paying both UK and NL VAT - no thanks). Such a great way to support British businesses and the creative industry (which successive governments claim to champion), not.
That is the usual response from the Brextremists (especially the D Express comments section). You either make Brexit work, else you are a traitor.
You either hate the EU, and every national from the EU, else you are a lefty or 5th columnist.
You must not purchase EU goods else you are supporting the corrupt EU dictatorship.
The brexit people come across as football hooligans or thugs as per the 1970's and 1980's.
Our current government are failing in all areas. They claim they are focussing of covid, and yet f*ck that up spectacularly.
Sadly, the masses are unaware of the constant cock ups, except where their lives are immediately impacted. Brexit is a slow death.
You're reading the google-cached version.
Shortcut:
(Very useful for general paywall stuff)
Eg, https://12ft.io/www.ft.com/content/a2c83867-6f30-49c8-ba27-3eea5e1271f6
tldr: creating the Opportunity to Do Something, is not the same as then availing yourself of that opportunity. Execution is key. And the right tool for _this_ job, is not necessarily the right tool for this _new_ job.Or to put it another way: I might need/use a hammer to break a lock, but I'd probably need to drop it in order to properly use what's now available to me.
To be fair, the 1973 Common Market was a great idea which worked well. Ditto Schengen.
But the ~mid-90s changes (EU vs ECM) introduced a whole different ballpark of crap, qualitatively different.
As an indication of the impact of the EU vs the ECM: UK %exports to EU-member countries grew in the ECM, and shrank in the EU.
> ......and the £350 million a week
Just on that:
That's actually a real number.
Now, the "for the NHS" was just a flail by the Brexiteers at hooking an emotional nexus for Britons, in a transparent, albeit honest, bid for votes.
And as to what was/is being done with that post-brexit, well that's an Execution issue. And by $DEITY haven't we all seen every large organisation, let alone super-large like the public "service" mandarins, fumble every Execution-of-Strategy catastrophically. Plus Boris's collapse into incoherence post single-issue Crusade.But "clusterfuck" springs to mind.
But the direct EU impact on the UK in £/week terms was quite real.
It's made up of £8.5bn/yr of post-rebate (nett) Donation to the EU no longer paid, plus £9.~3 (sorry, been too long since I drilled into this. Over a quarter, under a half.) bn/yr of the UK budget no longer taken over by the EU and directed to where _it_ thought best. (Which latter were predominantly vanity projects or virtue-display or thrill-of-MakingAChange.)
(In defence of the Remainers, this second number and system were very thoroughly elided from their awareness by their usual channels of information. It's come as an astonishment to the handful I've pointed it out to in person, for example. (My favourite: ~20yrs ago, Glasgow, a chap sputtering, and me gesturing to the half-bridge in front of us from nowhere to nowhere, covered in cobwebs and dust now the budgetpot's run out, with the proud plaque proclaiming "Built by the EU", and me showing him the document that it was on the UK's budget line.)(Google maps currently shows me that that half-bridge has either fallen down or been torn down in a fit of embarrassment.) In likewise defence of the Brexiteers whilst animadverting to a precisely likewise information problem, _their_ usual channels of information gave them very little awareness of the whole-economy benefits of (financial markets) passporting. Which is wildly different from passports, to be clear. And huge.In essence, both sides are right, based on what they've been told. What gives me the screaming shits re the arguing is how both are seeing only a (selected...) subset of the picture.)
Add it up, divide by 52, and there's your ~350m/wk.
"The Brexit transition, which saw the UK leave the world's largest economic trading bloc and free movement arrangements with its largest trading partner."
And in other news, my local co-op sells meat again 3 months after shortages started.
Regarding EU magic-mummy-will-make-it-all-better, consider that the same is happening all across Europe (to varying local visibilities depending on degree of JIT). Including the EU. And the USA. And Australia.
Despite whatever you've been reading, Brexit really hasn't been an issue for Australia. Or America.
And yet we all have the same lockdown+largersocial-driven problems re Truckers. SuddenlyDramatically from Covid responses in terms of sudden spike, but ongoing and more serious in terms of social processes.
So where will YOUR new truckers come from?
Per trucker sites here: at a lowlevel the EU flipped its truckers' Fatigue Management rules for UK to worst-case-external meaning it's equivalent for a Polish trucker to drive to China as it is to Britain. ("THESE ARE JUST DETAILS FOR PLEBS!!" scream much of the neo-privileged classes. Which now include much of the UK. If you have the remaining mental energy at the end of the day to coherently post on specialist web forums, consider where you might lie on the spectrum. Most truckers collapse into a bunk or if they're lucky their own bed.) Nightmare, in other words, for the individual truckers (who already disliked the UK's strict application of EU rules which most of the EU effectively waived or actively quietly underthehood rewrote), with consequential massive logistical problems in large in terms of managing a fleet.
Which... is what logistics IS. In the real world.
A classic meme is that the UK drove EU workers out of the country via Brexit.
Here's some real-world numbers for you.
The EU refused its side of the Brexit agreement re equivalence (for workers & residency rights); the UK upheld its side plus did its usual goldplating. (A known and much hand-wrung issue for global industry observers globally for globally decades globally, as a serious problem. Globally and uniformly and in direct contradiction of what is normally presented domestically as "fact". Globally attributed to your public service's virtue-display needs. Domestically attributed to not a problem what are you talking about all the EU does this it's all about uniformity what are you talking about.)
3.7m EU people lived & worked in the UK pre Brexit.
5.6m EU people took up the UK's offer of full work + residency rights.
Whatever is happening, you "might" need to look a little larger than your simplistic knee-jerk.A lot's going on. Only a small part of it is Brexit.
"5.6m EU people took up the UK's offer of full work + residency rights."
Applications. Number of applications not number of people.
Firstly the UK has no idea how many citizens or non-citizens are in-country. They are incapable of tracking this. So the pre-Brexit number is an (under)estimation.
Secondly this was a UK ****-up and many people ended up having to apply twice. Because they were only given pre-settled status and then told they must apply for settled status if they didn't want to get Windrushed.
Driver issue has been "resolved" short term by uk.gov giving cabotage right to EU trucks. Now allowing them to do more cabotage than they were before Brexit. UK hauliers are furious, But Brexit Means Brexit! (Chuckle.)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
