Originally Posted by Tumbling_Dice (Post 12720993)

What should, in my humble estimation, have happened (given it was an advisory vote) is that the government should have used the result to start a national conversation on what the hell it meant. I am no longer sure it was as clear cut as it seemed, but there is no doubt that the ensuing madness and bitter exchanges have caused people to dig in. As an aside, this would likely have also started a much needed conversation on how the UK sees itself, what it wants to be, desperately needed political reform etc. All this should have happened, and a fleshed out vision for the future developed, before triggering A50 (if that would have even been needed). I mean, who goes into negotiations without an agreed negotiating position?

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12720978)

Parliament is doing it's best to save ill informed voters from themselves. ​​​

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12721011)

Exactly, right back at you. My heart absolutely sank when that vacuous robot stood on the steps of Number 10 and said "Brexit means Brexit". Her incompetence for the role is now breathtaking. So much could have been achiveved if a national conversation were started. Control freak May did her utmost to force an ill fitting solution on Parliament and the country, and if were not for Gina Miller, the debacle would all have occurred behind closed doors. There has been digging in on both sides. Remainers refusing to compromise an inch on the existing well-crafted position, and Leavers now espousing a No Deal calamity as exactly what they had intended. What I hope for now is an election (prior to the Brexit deadline - which in reality could be postponed further were there will to do so) and a final chance for the country to have the informed debate that is now possible.

Originally Posted by dave_j (Post 12721014)

Simply an example of how arrogant these people are.
As an MP I find that you don't agree with my position, but I'm in charge so I'm right and it's my duty to convince you otherwise and if I can't do that then I'll ignore you completely.
And this from a group of people who've been shown, time and time again, to exploit their status to rip off the UK with their fraud and expense practices and from time to time, when prompted from overseas, to invade the odd middle eastern country.

Originally Posted by dave_j (Post 12721014)

Simply an example of how arrogant these people are.
As an MP I find that you don't agree with my position, but I'm in charge so I'm right and it's my duty to convince you otherwise and if I can't do that then I'll ignore you completely.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12721020)

Are you able to explain what is wrong with the agreement negotiated by May (from your perspective alone accepting that Brexit has to happen)?

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 12721024)

Or put another way with a simple reversal of the letters M and P

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12721025)

For the prize of a weaker economy and reduced global influence, no freedom of movement. It's a well meaning compromise to satisfy the ill-informed and the anti-Europeans. Nevertheless, if the country were asked again, and despite the three years of shambles wanted such a future, I would reluctantly accept it as a democratic choice.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12720873)

Maybe, but England isn't making noises about breaking up the union and I stand by my position that most in England really won't care.

Having patrolled NI prior to the Good Friday Agreement I know that, in those times, virtually everyone felt one way or the other, as result of events that related to events that occurred prior to Brexit. I have no idea if that has changed, but I doubt it.

The recent independence referendum in Scotland showed what the position was then and, while that may have changed since, polls suggest otherwise. My experience of having to deal with lots of Scots resulted from my time in the Army and, when I first met them, I was taken aback by how their views of the English had been affected by what they had learned in school. My recollection of school history was that there was no mention of anything related to the battles between the two countries. I have never experienced any animosity towards Scots from the English, but I have experienced lots that went the other way. So I accept that Scots may feel very differently towards the English than the English about the Scots.

I would argue that most in Wales really don't care but I accept that residents of rural north Wales hate the English with a passion. Whether that is because of events from centuries ago, or more recent events, is debatable but, again, politicians aside, I have no experience of the Welsh wanting to break away from the UK and go it alone.

One never hears of the Scots having an issue with the Welsh, or those in NI, or the Welsh having an issue with those in NI or Scotland. I accept that those in NI that wish to have a united Ireland always refer to "Brits" rather than the "English." As a result of this, I believe that Scotland has an issue with "England" rather than with NI or Wales, but I accept that I may be wrong.

I believe that most English identify as being "British", most Scots identify as being "Scottish", most in Wales are somewhat ambivalent between being "Welsh" and being "British" and those in NI will identify as either "Irish" or "British" along sectarian grounds.

Originally Posted by Jingsamichty (Post 12721059)

AC, you're a good man, but I'm I afraid that goes down as an astonishingly patronising post. I honestly expected much better of you. I'm virtually speechless,

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12721034)

So you wish to remain in the EU, that is obvious but, above, amongst the name calling, you implied that May's deal was not good at all. What you appear to have wanted her to do was to ignore the result of the referendum.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12721065)

I sincerely apologise for any offence caused and that certainly wasn't my intention. I can only speak to my experience.

I shall stop digging now.

Originally Posted by macadian (Post 12722090)

I have been following this thread with interest. I don't pretend to understand the full implications of leaving the EU however, given the diverse opinions featured here I think I can be excused on that lack of understanding. One question I do have is in relation the apparent stumbling block, the 'backstop' and the Irish border. Boris seems to think it's simply a means of keeping the UK stuck in the EU by hook or by crook. It was pointed out to me the other day that Switzerland is bordered by five EU countries.....and no hard border with any of them. Why the apparent intransigence from the EU wanting to maintain the backstop? On the face of it, does this lend credence to the opinion held by Boris and many others that it's simply a ploy to shackle the UK to the EU after the UK leaves?

Originally Posted by macadian (Post 12722096)

If that's the case, I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by spouse of scouse (Post 12722100)

If you're going to be corrected you may as well sit, much more comfortable :p

:getcoat:

Originally Posted by macadian (Post 12722104)

Well, I'm a stand up kind of guy...😝

Originally Posted by macadian (Post 12722090)

I have been following this thread with interest. I don't pretend to understand the full implications of leaving the EU however, given the diverse opinions featured here I think I can be excused on that lack of understanding. One question I do have is in relation the apparent stumbling block, the 'backstop' and the Irish border. Boris seems to think it's simply a means of keeping the UK stuck in the EU by hook or by crook. It was pointed out to me the other day that Switzerland is bordered by five EU countries.....and no hard border with any of them. Why the apparent intransigence from the EU wanting to maintain the backstop? On the face of it, does this lend credence to the opinion held by Boris and many others that it's simply a ploy to shackle the UK to the EU after the UK leaves?

Originally Posted by dave_j (Post 12719701)

the bull's cajones

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12722114)

accept that in all likelihood reunification in Ireland.

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12722114)

The border issue with Ireland is far more contentious because of the Troubles. The sticking point is that under the backstop, if UK and EU cannot resolve the border issue, then NI is locked in to the Single Market, and the UK is locked in to the Customs Union indefinitely. Boris claims there are myriad technical solutions to preclude any need for a border in which case you would think he would be perfectly ready to accept the backstop. Unless of course he is bluffing. In my view, if Britain insists on Brexit it should agreed to a border in the Irish Sea (as the EU) proposes, and accept that in all likelihood reunification in Ireland.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12722153)

What do you believe the outcome will be if, by October 31, the UK and the EU have not been able to reach an agreement that requires them to reach a different agreement at a later date, if, as the EU suggests, a hard border has to be imposed between NI and Ireland?

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 12722134)

The Conservatives cannot do that as the depend on the Unionists for their majority.

Originally Posted by Jingsamichty (Post 12722094)

There certainly is a hard border with Switzerland.

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12722192)

Hard to say. The issue definitely gives the EU significant leverage in a trade negotiations, particularly as the US seems to be sticking its nose into the issue. My guess is that Irish reunification would precede any attempt at a physical border (apparently NI public mood is shifting away from Britain and towards the EU given the risk of a divided island again). However, both the UK and EU may trial a (tech supported) trade border and assess how that goes.

Originally Posted by macadian (Post 12722090)

I have been following this thread with interest. I don't pretend to understand the full implications of leaving the EU however, given the diverse opinions featured here I think I can be excused on that lack of understanding. One question I do have is in relation the apparent stumbling block, the 'backstop' and the Irish border. Boris seems to think it's simply a means of keeping the UK stuck in the EU by hook or by crook. It was pointed out to me the other day that Switzerland is bordered by five EU countries.....and no hard border with any of them. Why the apparent intransigence from the EU wanting to maintain the backstop? On the face of it, does this lend credence to the opinion held by Boris and many others that it's simply a ploy to shackle the UK to the EU after the UK leaves?

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12722214)

Is anyone in NI seriously proposing cutting ties with Westminster and uniting Ireland and, if so, is anyone taking them seriously?

Does anyone know what process would be required?

I take a very different view to you regarding the border issue giving the EU significant leverage. I believe it will have the exact opposite effect the closer the parties get to October 31, as I don't believe that the likes of Germany will allow their trade with the UK to be tanked by an issue at the Irish border that could be easily overcome. Full marks to the EU for remaining "together" at this time (at least in public) but I would expect that to change the nearer we get to October 31, particularly if the only real issue between the parties is the backstop.

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12722235)

Quite a lot of talk about a post-Brexit border poll in NI. Look into it.

I've been hearing how Germany and/or Merckel would pressurise the EU to accommodate Britain for three years now. It's not happening. So much of this current cabinet (and Eurosceptic) view/strategy has been about calling the EU's bluff. Sadly, for the UK, their calling ours and we're about to get roasted.

Originally Posted by bc2015 (Post 12722217)

The backstop only exists because the UK government requested a transition period (which the withdrawal agreement is part of). The backstop is there to ensure that the provisions of the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement are upheld. The EU are a co-guarantor for that agreement so they are only doing due diligence. I get the impression that the EU don't actually like the idea of a backstop but it's the best solution to a hard problem - I think the EU would have preferred to skip the transition period and started negotiating on a free trade agreement instead.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12722246)

I would bet that, post October 31 and no deal, life in the UK will be affected far less than you believe.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12722249)

How do you explain the fact that they have done the exact opposite then, insisting that things can only move forward in a sequence of their making?

Originally Posted by bc2015 (Post 12722254)

Because the UK has yet to offer any feasible alternative. This is the biggest issue right now - all Boris can say is "no backstop!" but doesn't actually have any alternative beyond some handwaving about technological solutions that don't yet exist.

Originally Posted by bc2015 (Post 12722251)

Curious to know why you bet that.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12722261)

Well, to be fair, Boris inherited the current position.

I wasn't referring to the current position but to the fact that the EU was the party that determined that, "...this cannot happen, until this happens..." none of which was based in law at all. From what I have seen, they have refused to discuss a trade agreement until the items they wanted to get resolved, were resolved, which, to me, appears to contradict the statement you made that I highlighted above.

Originally Posted by bc2015 (Post 12722265)

The UK wanted a transition period, it could have negotiated a FTA before now but it didn't. If the FTA was completed there would be no need for the backstop. The EU is only holding the UK to account for what it already agreed upon.