stepdown

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the EU won?t need to impose a border. There already is a border, the nature of the border going forward is a subject of negotiation. We went over this before you misrepresented a Reuters article, selectively quoted to pretend that criticism of your point validated it and then got muddled up about the monetary policy, protectionism and the EU budget and started with the ad-hominems. At least we've moved on from you making up that "EU states have to erect a border against non EU states", but there's no need for the irrelevant insults against our "friends and partners" as Boris Johnson likes to call them, it's pretty transparent trolling.

The status quo does exist, it's simply how things currently are. An uncertain future does not negate the fact that there is a present.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What does 'economically inactive' mean? Surely not > unemployed? I imagine it's worded that way so that it doesn't impact wealthy people who are unemployed and living off income/capital gains from assets.

It's a desperate sort of blend of straw man and ad-hominem, attacking you for a lack of adventure or me for close-mindedness, rather than actually discussing the issues at hand. I wouldn't pay much attention to such "radical" thinking.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Monetarism is about the supply of money. Right, it's about how much money the ECB prints and what interest rates they set. So why do you think that has anything to do with the EU budget?

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Err, hello - ?10 Billion hole in annual > contributions now the U.K. has thrown off the > shakles You've exposed your ignorance of what monetary policy is. keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Translation - to keep prices artificially high > > Why do you think CAP had wine lakes and beef > mountains? Yes, as I explained that is the mechanism by which protectionism works, but you've exposed your ignorance of the difference between subsidies and tariffs as well as the MacSharry reforms that began in 1992: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy#1992

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It?s all about money stepdown, something Remainers > appear to be unable to grasp. You can't even stay on-message between posts, last time round money was only an issue "unless the U.K. accepts its rules". So what is it all about, regulations or revenue? keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There?s a reason ex World Bank and new ECB > President Christine Lagarde is instigating a root > and branch review of the bank?s monetary policy. Yes, the reason is to decide how they calculate their inflation target which was last updated in 2003: https://www.ft.com/content/c3d72f52-1834-11ea-9ee4-11f260415385 keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The reason the EU imposes border checkpoints is to > collect taxes/tariffs because it?s a protectionist > market. No, "protectionist" means tariffs to protect local industry from foreign competition, the clue is in the name. The aim is to reduce domestic consumption of foreign imports, not to generate revenue.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thank you, you?ve proved my point. You haven't made a point, you're just spouting falsehoods and talking points. Your use of "vassal state" makes it painfully transparent that you're just regurgitating the words of others, pitiful really.

I appreciate your efforts to copy and paste, but you've deliberately edited out the relevant information. That would only be the case if there wasn't an agreement, and as I said, what the border looks like depends on the agreement reached. Reuters Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Without an agreement with Britain, it would insist > on checks on the border keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...it would insist on checks on the border... ie > the EU would insist. You're not actually responding to any of the points raised or defending any of your own. You're just spinning one section of an article from August last year explaining the border situation before Boris Johnson dropped the red line of "no border on the island of Ireland".

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the EU spent 3 1/2 years blackmailing the U.K. > in the divorce talks It was not until 29 March 2017 that the UK invoked Article 50. The withdrawal agreement was published on 14 November 2018. The negotiations lasted less than 1 3/4 years. Even if we were to accept your unfair characterisation of the negotiations, more than half that time was the UK's representatives arguing amongst themselves.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Switzerland is not in the EU but is in the > Schengen area - It's in EFTA. True, but their border still looks "harder" to me: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44054594 keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m always happy to be corrected stepdown but your > answer doesn?t quite cut the mustard. So, you stand by your assertions that "EU states have to erect a border against non EU states" and an "independent Scotland within the EU would need to erect such a border that would make Hadrian?s wall look like a flimsy picket fence" despite the example of Norway? That was the point I was responding to. keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There?s a reason the EU spent 3 1/2 years > blackmailing the U.K. in the divorce talks - it > was the UK?s Achilles heel and if the U.K. didn?t > play ball Ireland (NB not the U.K.) would need to > introduce a border to protect the integrity of the > Single Market and all problems that would flow > from it. > > It was well played by the EU, managing to place > the onus onto the U.K. The Good Friday Agreement was not the EU's doing, and is where the border complications arose from. The UK's position was contradictory, there was no "blackmailing" as you so emotionally put it.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It has always been the case that EU states have to > erect a border against non EU states. Don?t ask me > under what EU Law or directive because I?ve never > read them nor never will. > > An independent Scotland within the EU would need > to erect such a border that would make Hadrian?s > wall look like a flimsy picket fence. You're wrong. The reality is that the nature of the border depends on how aligned and cooperative the two sides are willing to be, there is no need to erect walls. As such, even if you were willing to read, there's no law to or directive to point you to as it doesn't exist. However the BBC has a nice little article about how things work between the EU and Norway: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41412561

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > but again the longer term concept is > irreconcilably different amongst many leavers - > never mind Remainers. Therefore it will forever be > a mirage and never a remote possibility. You won't find any disagreement from me on that front.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know many people on the left and on the right > (and in the centre) who voted Leave (neither > side can see the problem with leaving and The > Other Lot getting in) I think it's more that they can put up with the "wrong" party for 5 years if it means they get the Brexit they want, but it's definitely true Leave/Remain isn't drawn along the usual party lines.

Sacking the Secretary of State who got Stormont back up and running does seem unfair. Unsurprisingly suspected to be revenge for not believing in Brexit enough: "I hear Julian Smith sacking is linked to his comments at the height of the Brexit tension last autumn. He told MPs no deal would be ?very, very bad? for NI"