The boat is being floated

Brexit Summary:
UK: We want a Unicorn!
EU: Unicorns do not exist. Instead you can have a pony.
UK: We vote against your pony!
EU: We already discussed this in detail. It's a pony or nothing.
UK: We vote against your pony!
EU: Alright! Then you get nothing.
UK: We vote against your nothing!
EU:......You really don't get it, do you?
UK: We need more time to think about it.
EU: About a pony or about nothing ?
UK: We want a Unicorn!

@Fluffybunny This "nothing" is predicated on the EU actually trying to give them something...
but secession is an inalienable right for every person and, by extension, every group of people, including countries. They can't 'give' the uk its right to leave because it is not theirs to give.

The only way they can give them "nothing" is by forbidding the uk from leaving. That's pretty much a declaration of war.

@Synapse I think it's more a reference to the EU and Britain not being able to agree on what the Irish border should look like. The EU will not accept an open border to a non-EU country - which Britain obviously will become - and Britain doesn't want a hard border because, you know, Ireland. They don't have great history with that.
So the EU has proposed that the 'hard' border could be outside of Ireland - so that it would be between the island of Ireland and the rest of Britain (This would be the 'pony' that they're offering) - but the Brits won't accept this (They want another solution, the 'Unicorn' that the EU will never agree to).
That's the unicorn/pony/nothing-debate. And it will probably end up being 'nothing' that wins, which means there will be a hard border splitting Ireland and North Ireland in two since the EU and Britain couldn't agree on any actual deal. I'm sure there's a ton of other stuff they're not agreeing on, but the Ireland-situation is probably one of the biggest issues at the moment.

@ACVE Politics are always such a lovely mess.

@Synapse Sounds about right xD

@Synapse Yep!

@Fluffybunny

That's the EU blame game stance that their been following for the last 3+ years while making idiotic demands themselves. Like:
a) Insisting on extra-territorial rights for their citizens inside the UK while refusing to give any guarantees for Brits in the EU
b) Insisting on continued subsidies after Britain has left. To use Tusk's notorious drinking club comparison Britain would be excluded from the club but the EU would insist on continuing to put their drinks on Britain's tab. Their recently twisted things again here as the initial excuse for this was to meet the costs of the EU deciding to transfer facilities from the UK, a dubious issue on its own. More recently their now claiming their entitled to that money even if there's no deal despite it being part of the failed deal.
c) Their refusal to accept an open border between Ireland and the UK if Britain leaves, then seeking to blame Britain for their decision.
d) That stupid dummy photo op very early on in the process which they seem to have set up solely to mock Britain despite their stance being a lot more stupid than that of the British.
e) Barnier's repeated lying about there being no cherry picking when that was virtually all he was doing for three years. No wonder he's nicknamed DS [Double standards] Barnier.

@stevep59 In all honesty: Most of the brexit mess is on the Britts.
As for your points:
a) Basically whats being asked is that GB not be allowed to go: "We agreed to this, but we changed our minds and now regular people are gonna pay for it since we're kicking them out". That's hardly "extra-territorial", it's basic decency. It only applies to people who are already there and the ask is basically that GB not be assholes to the little people.
b) Nobody's forcing GB out of the EU. Stuff was placed there based on agreements that GB now want's out of. Not a problem, they're free to leave. Paying for the cost of your own choices however is not really unexpected, or unfair.
c) Ehm... what? Having borders against others is kind of a big part of brexit. But if the same thing goes the other way it's bad? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Demanding that you be left out and closed off, but for that to only apply one-way is kinda hypocritical.
d and e) Not really gonna argue this, because: bad PR and history revision in politics!? Oh noes... ;)

TL;DR: If you don't wanna be in the club that's fine, but you also don't get any special treatment and you're still expected to hold up your end of stuff you've already agreed to. That's a perfectly fair stance in pretty much all circumstances.

@belga

Lets take this one point at a time:

a) Basically whats being asked is that GB not be allowed to go: "We agreed to this, but we changed our minds and now regular people are gonna pay for it since we're kicking them out". That's hardly "extra-territorial", it's basic decency. It only applies to people who are already there and the ask is basically that GB not be assholes to the little people.
Evidence please? I know of no case where Britain has talked about expelling people and they have confirmed that all EU citizens currently in Britain can stay. I was referring to two points quite early in the 'negotiations where there was an exchange something like this - 3 years back so can't remember the exact wording.
EU - "we want security for EU citizens in Britain"
UK - "Of course, but we hope you will do the same for Brits in the EU"
EU - "How dare you hold our people hostage!"
and also the EU's insistence that EU citizens in the UK come under EU rather than British law - that last is definitely seeking extra-territorial privileges.

b) Nobody's forcing GB out of the EU. Stuff was placed there based on agreements that GB now want's out of. Not a problem, they're free to leave. Paying for the cost of your own choices however is not really unexpected, or unfair.

There were agreements on facilities common to EU members which included the UK and which we paid a share in. If the EU insists on moving those after Britain leaves then its their decision and hence they should pay the costs. Britain could even have a case for a rebate for the money it committed to those resources. However to say that Britain should meet EU costs is dishonest and arrogant. Not to mention as their now saying if Britain leaves without a deal - no its nothing to do with that but we still expect money from you anyway.

c) Ehm... what? Having borders against others is kind of a big part of brexit. But if the same thing goes the other way it's bad? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Demanding that you be left out and closed off, but for that to only apply one-way is kinda hypocritical.

I agree but the EU is insisting on it. Britain would be quite happy with a free trade deal with the EU like it has with other nations. Both the people and government of Britain would also like to continue the open border situation with Ireland as it helps prevent terrorism re-emerging. The people of Ireland also want the GFA to stay. The EU says it wants it as well but has continued to raise barriers to prevent it. The reason why the May deal failed Parliament three times was because the EU were demanding control of the UK for as long as the EU wanted with the UK having no say at all on the matter.

It is noted that the repeated threats to the GFA by the EU have seen an upsurge in terrorism with one reporter already murdered and several attempts to kill members of the police. The EU already has blood on its hands over this issue and I fear there's going to be much more.

d and e) Not really gonna argue this, because: bad PR and history revision in politics!? Oh noes... ;)

That's the way the EU operates unfortunately. Because the site doesn't show what message your responding to and I replied to a number of anti-British outbursts I'm not sure what points d and e were but think one was about the mockery over David Davis having minimal paperwork in front of him at a photo shoot. Lets look at the facts here:
i) Its common sense not to have details on display at such cases, since its not a final deal. A few years back a cabinet minister was photoed going into Downing Street with some notes under his arm. Since they weren't in a folder a blow-up of the photo by the paper involved showed what he was going to be discussing and he quite properly got reprimanded for it.
ii) The photo with Davis having basically an empty pad in front of him and the EU having huge heaps of paperwork, albeit probably fake, gives a good insight into the attitudes with Britain having an open mind and the EU having masses of demands and conditions.
iii) Having set up the photo shoot and knowing i) above the fact that the EU representatives choose to deliberately seek to humiliate Davis about it shows at the very least bad faith, which has been repeated throughout the process as they keep changing their arguments and making new demands every time Britain makes concessions.

TL;DR: If you don't wanna be in the club that's fine, but you also don't get any special treatment and you're still expected to hold up your end of stuff you've already agreed to. That's a perfectly fair stance in pretty much all circumstances.

We don't want special treatment. We have held up our end on agreements while a member. Its just that we reject the Tusk view that the EU can continue to charge us for their expensive after we're left. As I say he highlighted this in his drinking club comparison but seems to have totally missed how much he was torpedoing the EU position. If Britain does leave it seems likely, given the EU refusal to negotiate responsibly, it will be without a deal. In which case neither side will own the other anything and that will be largely the EU's responsibility.

@stevep59
a) Well, that's a very old and since then defunct point. It was also clarified that the idea was just as i stated that the "security" demanded was that people who is in GB based on one set of circumstance not be put in difficult situations just because the circumstances now are changing. Also a little part was the rather violent waves of anti-immigrant stuff that happened after the vote, but that seems to have died down a bit. In return, GB citizens in the EU already have the "extra" security the GB was asking for, so there was nothing to give there. And since then a lot of countries have implemented rather generous special rules for GB citizens on their own. It's not really a valid point anymore, if it ever was.

b) Of course the EU insists. Having your governing facilities on your own territory is a very basic thing. There is a reason embassies are on sovereign land. Would the GB accept it if they had to leave their government departements outside of their borders and control? No way. No country or governed area works that way, and asking the EU to do so "just because" is rather silly. And the costs asked are incurred due to the GB leaving. Being asked to cover that is really to be expected.

c) Once again, of course they are insisting on it. Even with a deal in place the border still needs to be there. Not as strictly controlled maybe, bur free movement? No. No other country has this, so why should GB be given special treatment? Your own politicians decided to blow smoke and promise stuff knowing full well it was not going to happen. That does not make the EU accountable for it and they have been very clear from the start about the border issue towards non-members.

None of this can possible come as a surprise, and had GB politians been honest from the start i very much doubt the vote would have gone the way it did. But the consequences is not on the EU. They are like i said, standing by and watchen the wreck happen. The actual drivers are your own politicians and they seem content with not even slowing down.

All in all: The EU don't have to "negotiate responsibly". Leaving was never a negotiation. That whole idea is made up by the GB politicians. You want out? Sure: There's the door, but any member-benefits ends when you step outside and there is no half-in/half-out. This was made extremely clear from the start and GB still voted out. That's on them, not the EU and if any blame should be thrown around it should land squarely at the feet of GB leaders deceiving it's people.

@belga

"a) Well, that's a very old and since then defunct point. It was also clarified that the idea was just as i stated that the "security" demanded was that people who is in GB based on one set of circumstance not be put in difficult situations just because the circumstances now are changing. Also a little part was the rather violent waves of anti-immigrant stuff that happened after the vote, but that seems to have died down a bit. In return, GB citizens in the EU already have the "extra" security the GB was asking for, so there was nothing to give there. And since then a lot of countries have implemented rather generous special rules for GB citizens on their own. It's not really a valid point anymore, if it ever was."

I was referring to what was being said at the time, the bad faith it showed by the EU in seeking to mislead people and demonise Britain and their unwillingness to make even a basic commitment. Yes most countries have made commitments to protect Brits in the EU as Britain has given guarantees about the EU citizens here but the basic dishonesty shown by the EU has caused much confusion and concern by the people affected [on both sides] and poisoned attempts to resolve Brexit

"b) Of course the EU insists. Having your governing facilities on your own territory is a very basic thing. There is a reason embassies are on sovereign land. Would the GB accept it if they had to leave their government departements outside of their borders and control? No way. No country or governed area works that way, and asking the EU to do so "just because" is rather silly. And the costs asked are incurred due to the GB leaving. Being asked to cover that is really to be expected."

Except that in many cases their not "governing facilities" but things like joint research facilities and the like. Which could well continue working perfectly well as they are rather than uprooting them and their workers [both British and non-Brits] Plus if the EU decides arbitrarily to move them that is up to the EU NOT Britain.

If your were divorcing a partner and the two of you had kept your own places but both had paid for things in each house would you be happy if your ex said "what's in my house is mine, anything in your house I've paid anything towards is mine and I'm going to charge you for moving it"?

Plus this ignores the 2nd point that having argued this was the basis for the new subsidy when 1st talking about it their now claiming its something totally different so Britain will have to pay whether or not there is a deal.

"c) Once again, of course they are insisting on it. Even with a deal in place the border still needs to be there. Not as strictly controlled maybe, bur free movement? No. No other country has this, so why should GB be given special treatment? Your own politicians decided to blow smoke and promise stuff knowing full well it was not going to happen. That does not make the EU accountable for it and they have been very clear from the start about the border issue towards non-members.

None of this can possible come as a surprise, and had GB politians been honest from the start i very much doubt the vote would have gone the way it did. But the consequences is not on the EU. They are like i said, standing by and watchen the wreck happen. The actual drivers are your own politicians and they seem content with not even slowing down."

That is factually inaccurate. Its the EU that has offered the chimera of some agreement on the border with Ireland, and even insisted that this MUST happen, then rejecting every offer Britain has put forward. If they had been honest from the start and admitted they would never accept the continuation of the GDA then a lot of time and effort wouldn't have been wasted. But then they would have to admit that it was them throwing Ireland under the bus rather that seeking to blame Britain.

Yes there has been a lot of stupidity from politicians in Britain, both remain and leave and I would have argued for open acceptance that the EU won't allow the GFA to survive so there's no point trying to find an agreement that isn't there quite a while back. However you still have EU politicians and remainers arguing that Britain must find a solution to keep the border open.

As I said before its basically a divorce. Unfortunately the EU has been determined to make it as messy as possible with a lot of lying, insults and threats. Things could have been so much simplier for all involved.


"All in all: The EU don't have to "negotiate responsibly". Leaving was never a negotiation. That whole idea is made up by the GB politicians. You want out? Sure: There's the door, but any member-benefits ends when you step outside and there is no half-in/half-out. This was made extremely clear from the start and GB still voted out. That's on them, not the EU and if any blame should be thrown around it should land squarely at the feet of GB leaders deceiving it's people. "

Its been the EU that insisted there must be negotiations, just as after the vote on leaving it was then pushing the new May government to activate article 50 so they could start negotiating. Yes they could have admitted from the start they were adopting a dog in the manger attitude and that they were going to waste as much time and cause as much confusion as possible but they didn't.

Again it all goes back to the bad faith and dishonesty shown by the EU throughout the entire process.

@stevep59 about that 1st point, there were some (a lot of) concers about the fate of british people living outside the UK and inside the EU, but policies to give them security started to be implemented very early on, before the UK started asking for them; which means that UK claims on that regard either stem from a severe lack of information (which would be very concerning for a country with so much individual power) or is a ruse to claim the EU is doing nothing about their citizens (because you can't do what's done, since it's already done).

I'm not so well informed on the second point, but I dare say that if governmental facilities were built in british territory (with british consent and most likely with british encouragement), suddenly kicking them out and balking out on any responsibilities is, at a minimum, very unsportsmanlike.

The third point mentioned is quite interesting, since the UK seems to be going all "everything or nothing" while the side you blame has been offering the middle ground from the start, and once you put it in these terms and see it from the outside a very clear picture is formed. Please ask someone completely unrelated to tell what picture that is.

And as @belga has stated, politicians doing stupid things, doubling down on moronic idiocy and such, while something to frown upo, it's sadly nothing new.

@belga

To be fair, the Ireland/Northern Ireland border is a pretty big issue. I'm not going to point fingers and say what which side said about it, because frankly I don't know.

I just wanted too point out that the "keeping the border open" option had never been about wanted to be left out and closed off, but for that to only apply one-way. It's about keeping the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, and ONLY that specific border open, (and open both way).
Of course that causes it's own set of problem because then anyone could just enter the UK from Ireland and vice-versa (Europe from Northern Ireland), which is why "just keeping that border open" is impossible and has not ever really been considered - from any side.

And for that, I don't get @stevep59 point in the first place: There IS a real issue about N Ireland (which you don't seem to be aware of? At least in the UK, that's the ONE thing everyone -pro and anti Brexit alike- agree on) but no one can find a workable solution. But I don't think be can blame the UK or Europe for not finding an easy solution for a difficult problem.

So in case you didn't know what is was all about, here's the problem: The Troubles, which was a period of very bloody conflict in N. Ireland and made a lot of victims, only ended in 1998 and a lot of the reasons for it are still there. It only ended thanks to the Good Friday Agreement which, notably created a number of institutions between N. Ireland and Ireland (and thus between Ireland and the UK) and because could people could move freely between the two thanks to both of them being in the EU.
Now, the problem is that with the UK leaving the EU, the border is going to close and these institution probably can't bee maintained, and a lot of people are afraid that this will cause the conflict to re-emerge

And also, a more day-to-day issue: a lot of people live in Ireland but work in N.Ireland and vice-versa, or just have family on both side of the border, etc. and thus placing a new border because of the Brexit annoys them (especially since, right now, I don't think there's even a separate passport between N.Ireland and Ireland)


TL;DR: The issue of the border between Ireland and N. Ireland is a mess, and will definitely cause some kind of problem, and everyone actually agree about that. The only question is how bad it's going to be. Keeping the border open would solve a lot of the problems, but obviously it can't be done because you can't just close every border of a country except one, or what's the point ? And thus nothing gets done and it's still a mess.

@La_Niolue

I know about the troubles as I lived through that period. Albeit the nearest I came to the violence was a terrorist bombing in Manchester a few years after I was at uni there.

The GFA was a step towards ending the violence and its ending will be a problem for both sides. Already the extreme Irish terrorist groups are resuming violence with one death that I know of and attempts to murder other people. Also the economies of both sides will suffer when the EU closes the border.

The problem is that instead of saying from the start that it will close the border the EU has pretended its willing to find a 'solution' but as you say that won't work because it won't fit in with the current doctrine. Britain would be willing to compromise and make considerable concessions but the EU refuses to change at all and the only thing it would consider was that Britain effectively stays inside the EU for as long as the EU wishes. This was rightly considered impractical. Furthermore the EU has continued to hold out the chimera of a solution and also blame Britain for the fact one hasn't emerged. Like on so many other issues on Brexit its sort a blame game rather than be honest and responsible. [I'm not saying Britain has got everything right. Not by a long way with the Tories in charge as I wouldn't trust them to manage anything]. However I'm fed up with the EU lying and seeking to blame Britain, especially when so many people fall for their story.

If they had just admitted from the start that Britain leaving the EU meant that the EU would kill off the GFA and that was that then a lot of time and effort would have been saved. However that would mean them taking responsibility for their actions, which their been unwilling to do.

@stevep59

Thanks for explaining, and sorry I must have misunderstood some of what you wrote.
Also, I must admit that I kinda gave up on following what was going on lately, since I'm away on an Erasmus year so I won't be affected by any change until next year (and also because I'm French so I don't have to actually live through it, although I'm studying in the UK - and I was mostly concerned by what was happening to the university in the first place)

But a bit of context makes it easier to understand ^^

And I definitely agree with you, thinks would be a lot easier if politicians/governments would just take responsibility for their actions and/or if they spent more time and effort fixing problems rather than pretending to be innocent and that eeeeeeverythig is definitely someone else's fault.

Unfortunately, it's not even just a EU problem, they all do that.

@La_Niolue

Agree that elements on both sides have been bloody stupid. My point is that too often in the 'debate' over Brexit people seek to demonise all those who favour leaving as rabid fanatics as an excuse to throw insults and abuse. Which of course generates a lot of heat and blocks people actually learning what's really going on. Personally I'm a liberal so I trust the Tories about as far as I could throw the planet Jupiter and hence really, really resent people assuming I'm some sort of right wing racist simply because that fits their blinked world view.

@stevep59 to add to what the other guy said. Allowing an open border between the UK and Ireland is impossible for the eu. It would break the single market. The Eu will not destroy itself just to accommodate the UK and expecting them to self sacrifice like that is ridiculous.

@Dasneko

Then they should have admitted that at the start and made clear they would kill off the open border then rather than demand endless concessions that they always intended to be pointless. Except that would mean admitting it was them responsible for killing the idea because they rejected it.

@stevep59
The EU's position on the Irish border has always been crystal clear for the simple reason that by the design of the EU they cant accept anything else. Open borders with the EU is a big cooperation that requires the country in question to conform to EU regulations and free movement of people, there is no negotiating this and never has since compromise would actually destroy the EU.

The EU cant allow open borders without all the extra things attached and the UK will not accept all the extra things attached and demands open border. The EU cant possibly compromise on this topic for obvious reasons and the UK is obviously not going to sign a bad deal.

The main problem here is that there never were any other deals available. Anyone who claimed they could convince the EU to destroy themselves to satisfy the UK obviously either did not know what they were talking about or they lied to you. That is what this is all about, a reality check. The EU has always been upfront and honest about their position and the fact that they can not compromise even if they wanted to. The UK has been stubborn and demanded that the EU compromise. The UK can not possibly win this negotiation because their demands were impossible to begin with.

@Dasneko

Unfortunately this is totally inaccurate. The EU has continued to offer an exit treaty with the idea that the GFA can be maintained and has even insisted that they demanded such for any treaty on trade between Britain and the EU. I think it was Tusk that used the term they wouldn't throw Ireland under the bus, i.e. allow the GFA to end. And that was only one of the most recent times they have stated something like this.

Of course as you and others have said the EU were lying here. I've suspected for a year or more this was the case and they never intended to do any deal with Britain but their kept open the lure of some deal that as part of it and that has long been the main sticking point keeping the GFA active. Ireland is simply too small and unimportant to the EU for them to consider changing their rules for Ireland. Probably if it had been France or Germany but not for a small country like Ireland.

The problem as has been pointed out repeatedly is that Tusk, Barnier and co have lied repeatedly on this issue, as with others and too many people in Britain have believed them. I know this is the case as I've heard them several times on the BBC saying such things.

@stevep59 Well of course the EU is very much interested in maintaining the open border between Ireland and Norther Ireland on behalf of Irish interest. They have also put forward all the available options since basically day one of the Brexit negotiations such as the option that Theresa May wanted to implement with the backstop.

However, and this is important. They can not compromise on their foundational trade agreements that every other EU nation signed when they joined and as such if the UK demands things that the EU literally can not give them the only other option is rejection. This is part of why everyone says Brexit promises unicorns, because the EU cant give the UK what it wants under any circumstances, its a diplomatic impossibility.

There are plenty of options that the UK could have gone with such as the Norway model or indeed the Theresa May deal with the backstop if you think you could actually magic up a solution (that you had not presented yet) but as it stands it is the UK that has not accepted the options that exists in reality as well as have failed to make real the solutions it promises it has.

Also ignoring the fact that you are asking 27 countries to change their laws just to appease the UK its just a fact that it would be suicidal. The changes that the UK demands would ruin the EU by allowing the UK to function as a smuggler and undermine the EU markets. Who would agree to such a nonsensical suggestion?

@Dasneko

The problem is this is not what Barnier, Tusk etc have said. They have claimed they want to maintain the GFA but they refuse any proposal that would resolve the problem. If they had said from the start that if Britain left they would kill the GFA then a lot of time and effort wouldn't have been wasted. Instead there are vague references that they are open to a deal but no details have ever been given in public as to what they would accept. They keep encouraging Britain to make efforts but other than saying "well if you stay under EU control" which even this Parliament has made clear is unacceptable they have given no details. They might have done in private to British representatives but no one has said this in public. That's why so many of the British people are fed up with their foot-dragging, along of course with their assorted lies about numerous offers.

I also wish people would stop claiming that a change in the rules would be for Britain's benefit. The big loser when the EU ends the GFA will be the Irish republic. However as the EU have made clear they don't care about its people. Unfortunately the Irish politicians have slavishly followed the EU line so I suspect that not only will the Irish people have a nasty shock but also because of the EU misinformation they will blame Britain rather than Brussels for the problem and you will see another upsurge in terrorism.

As others have said the EU can refuse to do a deal with Britain. Its stupid and short sighted but technically they can do so. If so I wish they would be honest about it rather than all the propaganda their putting out. However such a stance would be very costly for them as well as Britain.

@stevep59 I am not sure what news sources you have read but that is not at all what is going on. To start with the EU is very upfront with what it wants and has provided several solutions to the UK all of which has been rejected such as the "May's deal". Of course these are not particularly good options, there never were any and the Brexiteers who claimed it would be easy and that they had a plan have all come up with nothing but empty air.

Every Brexit plan that has been publicly presented has been rightfully ripped apart because this is the classic case of wanting your cake and eating it at the same time. For a deal to be accepted by the EU it needs to clear a few points.
1: Pay the EU what the UK owes. We dont know the amount but it will probably be negotiated between 25 to 200 billion Euro. This is money that the UK has already promised to pay for various projects and such.
2: It must protect EU citizens already living and working inside the UK.
3: It must honor the GFA.
4: If there is an open border between the EU and the UK then the UK must accept free movement of people and follow EU regulations.

Under no circumstances will the EU budge on these things and there is obviously allot of other stuff but these are the main things. The UK has not proposed a single solution that fulfills these criteria so they are automatically rejected by the EU. It is also worth noting that the EU has also been very passive and not influenced or pressured the UK into anything because it would make people blame the EU for the UK's failure in negotiations. So far the EU has simply sat there and rejected one proposal after the other because they cant fulfill the basic requirements.

@Dasneko
What your saying is that while formally outside the EU Britain must stay under EU control. That's already been rejected three times, even by the current parliament.

1) Is simply wrong. Britain will be leaving the EU [hopefully] so it will no longer have either the privileged or the responsibilities of membership. To say otherwise is the EU trying to have its cake and eat it or to use one of Barnier's favour phases cherry picking.

2) That's already been agreed a long while ago.

3) Britain is willing to honour the GFA agreement. Its the EU that's the problem here.

4) Again wrong. That is totally incompatible with the UK leaving the EU.

The EU leaders may have made such clear statements in private but they haven't said this in public. I'm referring to the BBC, which is my main source of news and they have NEVER said that to the British people. If they have we would have realised that the GFA is dead a long while back and Britain can't rescue it.

@stevep59 I do not think you understand what open borders means. Open borders is a very close partnership that in an equal standing always includes holding to the same standards. If the UK wants open borders they will have to adopt EU standards and regulations, no ifs or buts about it. Of course this goes both ways and the UK can attempt to demand things on their side that the EU has to follow but considering the EU is so powerful and have the best negotiation team in the world its not much the UK can do on their side.

Strictly speaking the EU regulations and control is not really the EU's but something that both sides has to agree to. Its mutual and not as one-sided as you make it sound. The EU is held to the same standards as it forces on the UK.

As you say this has been rejected multiple times by the UK, not by the EU. It is the UK who is being problematic and is unable to provide a solution, not the EU. This is the UK's fault through and through.

1: Your opinion is irrelevant. If you want to cooperate with the EU they have the right to demand this, if you have a no-deal then they will not force the UK to pay but will probably bring it up anytime the UK wants to negotiate a new trade deal.

2: True this has been agreed to but if the UK were to deny this then there would be no possibility of a deal so it qualifies on the list.

3: The EU will never accept a deal that conflicts with the GFA, how are they a problem? In fact the current proposal from Boris is a modified proposal that the EU themselves put forward. One that the UK slammed (and rightly so because it divides the country).

4: If you cant agree to this then an open border is impossible. This is not the EU being obstinate but a fact that open borders cant really exist without this at a bare minimum.

The EU leaders have made these statements publicly and if BBC has not covered it then that is more to do with the BBC than the EU leaders since they cant control what the BBC puts out, especially since they do not want to interfere in the brexit procedure at all because people would just attack and blame them for it.

@Dasneko

I do understand what is being talked about. Unlike you from what you say. As you point out the EU won't allow the GFA to continue unless the UK stays within the EU system and controlled by their laws. That means its THEIR decision. It also highlights the inaccuracy of you saying EU regulations aren't controlled by them! The issue has been that they have said throughout the process that they won't consider any changes in their rules to allow the Irish republic an exception for the GFA to survive.

On your points
1) So the EU has a right to demand subsidies from a non member state just because it feels it has the power to do so? When you say cooperate you mean submit unconditionally. The EU can refuse to negotiate at all unless such unrealistic demands are met but then Britain can play hard ball as well and both sides lose before of the greedy idiots in Brussels. Not to mention of course this argument from Brussels is different from what they were saying a couple of years back.

2) Yes Britain agreed to this a long time ago and the EU more recently I belief. The big problem here was when the EU was demanding extra-territorial status with their citizens in Britain being processed through EU laws rather then UK law.

3) The argument until their concession yesterday was they would never accept the GFA unless Britain agreed to be under EU control for as long as the EU wished. Quite rightly this was rejected by Parliament.

I'm unhappy with the current compromise as well because it restricts the rights of the people of N Ireland. However the big concession from Brussels is that the people of the province have a say on the matter which they were refusing before.

4) Fine by me as I want Britain to leave the EU and govern itself. I would disagree with your 2nd sentence as the problem is that the EU has refused to consider any compromise which might protect the Republic form the EU's threats to the GFA. Britain has made a lot of concessions here but hopefully the EU will keep their word for one.

The EU leaders have never that I've been aware of made such statements that I have seen on British TV. They have made a statement that they would defend the GFA which is fundamentally false as their argument for the last couple of year has been "we will kill the GFA unless you agree to the EU continuing to control your laws for as long it wishes." That has been the big barrier to an agreement before now.

@stevep59 Its a shame you are so poorly informed but I do not blame you for it but instead the British media. You said it yourself, you have not seen the counterpoints on British TV when I who live in Sweden has when I am not even slightly involved. It is not the EU which has failed to vocalize their position but the British Media that has failed to communicate it to you.

The EU which has the gathering of the brightest diplomats in the world has already outlined basically every possible agreement on Brexit and when I say "possible" i do mean it instead of your demands that the EU should destroy itself to bend to the UK's will.

As proof of this the very proposal that the UK is now pushing is actually a previous proposal that the EU presented years ago combined with May's deal. To point out, May's deal was basically the best option presented and the new deal that Boris came up with by Frankenstein combining the two is objectively worse in that it prevents free travel and trade within the UK itself.

Something I might add is illegal according to UK law and Boris Johnson has probably broken the law by even presented it. A law I might add which was proposed and passed by one of Boris staff and fellow Brexiteer no less.

Anyways the UK has never once proposed a credible solution to the EU and has ended up resorting to working with what the EU gave them years ago but they rejected at the time. This is important because it shows how fundamentally unprepared the UK was for this and their lacking ability to make it a reality. All they have done is made impossible demands of the EU that they know the EU cant possibly accept and then blamed the EU for not accepting said impossible demands.

A good example is the financial question of the billions of euros. The EU could easily take this to international court and get the money that way which not only means they will get it regardless but also that if they did then they could make more demands during the Brexit negotiation since the heavy demand of repaying is not on the table. They have not done so however and instead simply expects the UK to honor their obligations or respect that they have cut all contact with the EU.

The UK arguing over this is them trying to escape their own debt and its quite frankly disgraceful behavior. Before you say it this was also made perfectly clear even before the Brexit vote but apparently a red buss with some text on it was more important.

Let me also make another thing perfectly clear. You do not have to have open borders and fall under the EU regulations to maintain the GFA, there are other options. Its just that those are even worse such as giving back northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland.

This is the mess the UK started and it would never have gone differently. The fact that the UK cant present a solution or settle on a solution provide by the EU is not the EU's fault.

@Dasneko

As I say I can only go by what Tusk and Barnier have said themselves. I know their been dishonest a number of times as well as frequently abusive so wouldn't be surprised if they have left details out.

There are other options that could be done but the EU was insistent that its dogma was more important than the Irish economy. Frankly I would have given up on the GFA a year or so back and let the EU kill it off. Could probably have made less concessions elsewhere and as you say it leaves N Ireland in a difficult position, especially if the EU refuses a free trade agreement. Which they have agreed with other nations but may well refuse with Britain.

As you say it leaves a potential legal problem as if no free trade deal is agreed then customs posts will have to be set up on the Irish border, so the EU would get their way anyway. Otherwise I could see the province being very angry, as well as the rest of the UK.

On money it would help if the EU had been consistent but they have changed their story at least once. Also there was the famous drinking club example Tusk used a couple of years back which actually argued that Britain should pay nothing but I don't think he realised that.

There are some legal commitments, for pensions on time prior to 2016 but the other excuses I have heard from the EU are dubious. Yes while we're in we will pay our way - which is probably another reason why their dragged things out so much but once we're out that should be it.

Of course as I said before I'm no fan of the Tories. Their every bit as corrupt and incompetent as their counterparts in Brussels so I wouldn't be surprised as to them having f**ked a fair number of things up. And continuing to do so. Hopefully if we can get rid of Brussels we can then concentrate on getting them out as well. [Although unfortunately there isn't much in the way of decent alternatives. Labour being in a total mess and the Illegal Undemocrats and the Brexit Party being one issue parties that will have to either give up or find new purposes if/when we actually leave.

Of course that assumes that the remainers in Parliament don't block this agreement today in which case the EU have been shot in the foot by their own 'allies'. If that happens everything is up in the air again.

@stevep59 Lets not beat around the bush here. Having an open border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland where both sides do not have the same regulations and standards would be just as catastrophic for the Republic of Ireland as it would the EU which is why the Republic of Ireland is 100% backing the EU and its demands on Brexit. Having an open border without regulation is not and never has been an option and the Republic of Ireland is willing to burn the GFA if it has to choose because one is social unrest and the other is the certain downfall of the country and the union.

It is also worth noting that free trade and open borders means different things. The EU has signed many free trade agreements but that does not mean there is an open border. As for their rare open border agreements such as Norway and Switzerland the same restrictions applies as for those expected of the UK if not worse. Norway for example is paying allot of money for its special status which it has chosen instead of directly joining.

As for the money no one actually really knows how much money its about. Its a complicated mess that needs to be worked out on the negotiation table over a long period of time. All we know is that the UK owes the EU money and that its allot of money.

As for the money the UK owes allot of it could be acquired by suing them in international court however the EU is unlikely to do this. That does not mean that the EU does not consider the UK to owe it money and is the foundation for why it has to be included in any potential deal. Basically the EU considers the need for all previous debts and responsibilities to be conclude before they start a new relationship with the UK as a fresh slate.

As for the current agreements on Brexit in Parliament there is no serious hope for them. Boris Johnson is putting up deals and legislation to try force a no-deal brexit and the remainers in Parliament is trying to stop him. Its all a petty power struggle with no actual productive momentum. There are only two real conclusions to this, either Boris wins and through some legal loophole triggers a no-deal Brexit or the remainers secures an extension where they can trigger a new public vote and an election.

@Dasneko

Lets be honest. The EU doesn't want an open border with an independent UK. The idea it would kill the entire EU is farcical however. It would cause problems unless properly managed but its just that the EU won't consider it. Possibly because they want another tool to pressurise the UK into more concessions, possibly because their starting to believe their own dogmatic stance.

As for the money the EU is demanding a lot of money from the UK, which is pretty much business as usual for them. It changed its argument about what the UK should give it a lot of money so its unclear what basis there is for the ~30billion that has been agreed on.

Your utterly wrong in the last paragraph. Johnson put forward the deal that has been agreed with the EU and Parliament rejected it. One factor was the DUP because its rightly upset about how the deal seeks to isolate N Ireland. However by far the main one was the remainers who don't want a deal as they wish to block Brexit totally, regardless of the circumstances. Along with a fair measure of party politics as some groups, most noticeably Labour and the SNP look to make the government look weak by keeping the country in turmoil. Their priority is to get a further extension so as to delay Brexit and use the time to further undermine the process.

For your information there was a chance of a quick election that would put a new government in before the end of this month but the remainers blocked it. They wanted another delay ahead of an election because their fearful that for all their propaganda they might lose it.

It should be noticed that the most fanatical of the remainers, the LibDems as their still inaccurately called, have clearly stated that if they can block Brexit without giving a choice on the matter they will do. The chance of them winning a majority in parliament is about the same as me winning gold in the Olympic marathon next year but there is the danger in an hung parliament they might get some sort of deal that prevents any say by the British people, which of course won't resolve any problems but their too bigoted to consider points like that.

@stevep59 I am actually quite serious in how it will kill the entire EU. Lets just imagine this was actually the scenario where the EU and England has open borders without further agreements. What exactly could the potential consequences be of this? Well first of all goods can travel between them effortlessly which sounds fine.. before you realize that you cant trust the other country.

This is going to become a disaster for the EU in particular who has done a good job to protect themselves from bad influences outside through strict trade deals and border checks. All this goes out the window in this case though since they cant do that on the border to the UK.

Sure that means the UK will have allot of new trade partners since everyone and their mother wants an unprotected back door into the EU markets and the UK will be flooded by trade goods like China that they then transport into the EU to sell.

This will majorly fuck up the EU markets. Not only cant they control what comes in but they also cant control its quality. A factory might buy steel which they expect to follow EU regulations but instead get impure heap of crap that they cant use or food with no quality control that spreads disease or goes rotten on transit.

The whole point of the EU single market goes down the toilet and that is not even talking about malicious market actions and all because the UK decides to function as a black market port for the worlds sleezy businessmen and probably gets very rich in the process.

There would be no end to the damage that the UK could wrought upon the EU with the only insurance against it would be to "Trust me" that they will not do anything bad, and this is just the bare surface level of the literal shitstorm that would ensue. Suffice to say that no country would want to be part of the EU under these conditions and as such this is a fatal decision for the EU.

As for the money that the UK owes the EU the details are far too complicated for me to understand and would take months to read into if I even wanted a surface level understanding. All I can do is trust the expert civil servants, lawyers and diplomats on this subject just like the very politicians themselves because neither have any fucking idea whats going on by themselves. This is probably one of the most complex parts of the entire agreement in fact.

As for the internal politics of Brexit you got it all wrong. To start with Boris Johnson has and still is pushing for a no-deal brexit and everything he has done and is doing (including this newest deal) has been in effort to ultimately get a no-deal brexit.

To just recap the most recent turns of events (I might forget some but you will get the general idea). First Boris planned to suspend Parliament until they did not have enough time to get an extension, this was ruled invalid by a court and Parliament went back. After that Boris tries to push for a General election, this is because that would also suspend parliament and Boris has the power to set but also change the date of the election to be after the brexit deadline. This means a vote for an election even if Boris says it would be before the deadline means he can later change the election to be after the deadline and parliament cant do anything about it and as such its a surefire way for no-deal.

After this Parliament made a ruling that Boris has to sign a letter asking for extension if he cant vote through a deal before the deadline. This has been the center of the most recent fighting where Boris tries to avoid giving the EU this letter. Skipping a bunch of stuff he now proposes this new deal with the EU but his actual intentions is trick Parliament to vote for the deal, use that as an excuse to retract the extension letter and delay the deal getting into effect long enough for the brexit deadline to trigger a no-deal brexit instead.

As I said before there is no serious intentions of actually getting this deal, its just the most recent strategy in the struggle between no-deal and the extension of the Brexit deadline.

@Dasneko

The problem of trust is an important one for both sides and between the attitude of the Tories and the behaviour of the EU I doubt either side could be trusted. However the key wording is "has open borders without further agreements". Nothing to stop the two sides looking at possible approaches to control such access except that the EU won't look at it. It might end up being impractical but without trying we will never know.

Yes if it is the GFA is dead but as I have said before the EU should have made that clear to the British people. Barnier and Tusk have repeated commented to the news media here, talking primarily about the BBC as that's been my primarily source of info. They have often made abusive remarks, insults and threats, along with a lot of lying but they have never actual said that if Britain leaves the EU they would certainly kill the GFA. If they had done that a lot of confusion would have been cleared up.

On the money given its record of deceit and continually changing its argument I don't trust the EU at all. However the Donald himself, [Tusk not Trump but they are similar in their behaviour] when he compared the EU to a drinking club said that Britain can't expect any benefits after they leave the club. Shock, horror, we're not. However the same applies in reverse. The EU can't expect to keep putting their drinks on our tab after we're left. There will be some exceptions for things such as pension responsibilities but in terms of general payment to the EU budget or things they want to do forget it!

Both sides have played fast and loose with the rules in Parliament. The suspension of Parliament was longer than before by a good measure although reasons were given. I.e. that Parliament had already sat for a very long time and that with the party conference season to come it would be closed for most of that time anyway. It did sound dubious and the courts argued against that. Since then what has happened?

a) By the time the suspension was ended the main opposition parties [Labour and Lib Dems] had had their conferences but the Tory one was coming up. The Tory party asked for the usual three day recess for their own conference and the opposition refused.

b) As you say the opposition was offered a general election after they passed rules to impede British negotiation and they refused. They could have voted down the government on a matter of confidence which would have forced a general election after a fortnight, which would already have occurred some weeks back but they refused. Simply because their aim is to stop Brexit by any means, not just a no deal Brexit and they were afraid they might lose the election. [Especially after Swinson made clear the Lib Dems if they got the chance would deny the people any say on the matter.] Their aim is to get the extension by any means to delay Brexit. The fact a deal has now been agreed between the EU and the government is a problem for them because they don't want any deal.

c) We now have a deal, albeit one that no one is that happy with. However the opposition are again, as you say, blocking that deal because they want the extension. As simple as that. Johnson was arguing for a no deal rather than the old May concessions as the opposition and the EU continued to consider those the only alternatives. In that case, with the UK trapped in the EU for as long as the EU wished no deal would have been the better option. However now we have a deal and the opposition refuse to allow it to be voted on.

d) The opposition deliberately delayed any vote until the letter sent to the EU had to go. Unfortunately when they insisted on that ruling they didn't exclude the PM sending a 2nd message that argued his actual case and pointing out an extension would make matters worse. ;) ] So he was also able to give his actual view. Even so the EU now has the power to delay matters further if they so choose and the UK can do nothing to prevent that. So the oppositions response to Johnson managing to state his case is to again block discussion of the new deal. Not to vote it down, as that could well fail, but to prevent it being voted on. Very democratic and responsible not!

Your assuming he's not genuine about the deal but do you have any evidence of that? True as a Tory I don't trust him but its the opposition that have been indulging in dirty tricks to prevent the bill being considered and voted on. Its clear that the opposition is bitterly opposed to any deal.

@stevep59 The EU is by far the foremost expert on open borders in the world. To say that they have not given it a thought is actually quite insulting in a way considering all the work that has gone into building the EU single market. As such the EU has already presented a wide variety of options that the UK could choose from but if none of those options are satisfactory do you really expect the UK to figure out a better solution if a few scant years that the entire EU has failed to come up with during all these decades?

This is especially true when the Brexiteers who pushed for this whole nonsense has not contributed with a single proposal in the first place. It has all been empty words and no progress. Another important thing to note is that trade deals like these takes a long time. A very basic trade deal takes no less than 2 years of negotiation and normally longer. A trade deal on the scale of an open border with 27 other countries takes closer to 10 years if not more.

If the UK wanted to negotiate a custom deal then its not an exaggeration that they should have been at the negotiation table with a final proposal before triggering article 50. Doing otherwise is basically saying that you either dont know what you are doing or you want to leave with no-deal. The EU has provided options to choose from that they could accept in much shorter time but that is simply because they are already proven packages and because the EU is being nice.

Both the remainers and the EU also did tell you about how hard it would be to come up with an arrangement on the Irish border however they were being called Project fear and the Brexiteers said it would be the easiest deal in history and that the EU would give the UK everything it asked for because the UK was so invaluable. As for the EU sending representatives to the UK media to educate the people? That would have been seen as the EU tyrannically getting involved in British politics and vindicated the call to leave not to mention the EU is willing to let member states leave in the first place.

The drinking club analogy is actually pretty good, although more towards how the EU will handle the situation than in reality since the EU does have the legal option to force the UK to pay if they wanted to. But yes the EU will not ask the UK to pay if they leave. If they come back and want a trade deal or something however then the EU will demand that UK pays its previous tab first before getting anything new.

As for the whole suspension of Parliament. Just because it has gone on for a long time does not mean it has to have a longer break and leaving for party conference is something that the Parliament itself got to decide on, and both the Labour and the conservative conference was indeed impacted but again, that was Parliaments own choice.

As for the opposition not triggering a vote of no confidence? They simply do not have the votes, or rather they have enough votes to pull down Boris but they also need to replace him with someone else. Jeremy Corbyn is the obvious first candidate but there is enough opposition to him specifically that it would not go through and Jeremy Corbyn who is in charge of the largest opposition party do not want to support another candidate.

In other words if they triggered a vote of no confidence they would fail to form a new government and instead trigger a general election which by itself might not sound bad.. until you realize that it would suspend Parliament and Boris Johnson gets to pick the time and would simply put it after the Brexit deadline.

In other words a vote of no confidence without enough votes to replace Boris is a guaranteed no-deal brexit.

Same with the deal that Boris is proposing. The deal itself is actually pretty horrible, for as May's deal "trapped" the UK into the EU until they could come up with a sensible solution to the Irish border Boris deal just makes that permanent instead. But that is digressing. A vote for Boris deal would directly lead to a no-deal brexit.

If Boris can pass the deal through Parliament that means he can legally retract the request for extension and with so little time left over there is no way to implement the deal before the Brexit timeline runs out and the UK gets kicked out without a deal. This is why everyone who does not want a no-deal brexit demands the extension first before anything else. If the UK passes a deal later it does not matter how long the extension is, the UK leaves the moment it passes the deal rather than having to wait for the full duration.

Actually they did account for Boris to both not signing the letter which he was forced to by law and also sending other letters which is also against UK law because it goes against the will of Parliament. The EU also knows that the Parliament is sovereign in the UK and not the PM so they will ignore the PM if he goes against the will of Parliament.

The best evidence for him not being genuine about the deal is that the deal cant be passed without an extension. It is literally impossible to avoid a no-deal in the time that is left no matter how quickly you try to push that deal and it has been too late for like a month already.

Boris also hid the text of the deal and did not provide any review or impact assessments. Partially because that would allow Parliament to get their hands on them but also because it would slow down passing the deal as well.

@Dasneko
"The drinking club analogy is actually pretty good, although more towards how the EU will handle the situation than in reality since the EU does have the legal option to force the UK to pay if they wanted to. But yes the EU will not ask the UK to pay if they leave. If they come back and want a trade deal or something however then the EU will demand that UK pays its previous tab first before getting anything new."

Funny as just about everybody including yourself is saying that the EU will force the UK to meet all its fiscal demands, no matter how realistic or not.

We could have had an election by now if the opposition had been willing and the situation might have been a lot clearer, one way or another. Its possible that Johnson, a former remainer let us not forget, could have been the twisted fanatical manipulator your suggesting but its extremely unlikely as I don't think he's either smart enough or that committed to a no deal exit, as opposed to using that as an argument for political reasons, both internally and with regards to the EU.

It would be very tight to get the legislation passed now, even if the remainers were willing to allow it. A month would definitely have been plenty of time without blocking motions by them.

I fail to see how this current deal ties the UK into the EU for ever as you seem to suggest? The May deal would have given the EU the untrammeled power to do that but this does not as provided the remainer opposition is overcome Britain has it in its own power to leave, which wasn't the case under May.

Just hearing again that Johnson has offered yet more time to get Parliament to accept a deal provided they agree to an election afterwards but their still refusing. Their also talking about modifying the deal, which they know means rejecting it. Its all a method to prevent any Brexit.

@stevep59 Its just a simple fact that the EU has the best diplomatic team in the history of mankind and also all the leverage in this negotiation. They will leave with whatever they want, its just a question of what the UK can get in return.

As for a general election it takes about 7 weeks to properly organize one but it all comes down to the fact that Boris can choose as well as later move the time for the election at will. This gives him allot of power to force a no-deal if proper coutermeasures are not taken beforehand which they are trying to set up at the moment.

As for the character of Boris I agree, he is not a fanatical supporter of Brexit but he is fanatical in another way. If you look back on his career he has done everything he can to gain political advantage including switching from Remain to Brexit. It is no secret that he wants to be PM and is willing to do anything as well as forgo any shame and decency to achieve this. He is neither competent enough or driven enough to achieve what he has already since before him running for PM recently he was just a no-body in politics that everyone rejected.

He saw an opportunity to become a tool for Brexiteers and he took it. Its not Boris himself that is doing all these political maneuverings but the people in his staff which he filled with exactly the diehard and fanatical brexiteers that are willing to do ANYTHING to have a no-deal brexit.

At this point Boris is too deeply invested to turn back and he will as such be pushed towards doing anything for a no-deal brexit because that is why he is supported by his political allies in the first place.

As for how the current deal ties the UK to the EU its pretty simple. Where Theresa May's deal tied the UK to the EU for as long as it took for the UK to come up with a solution for the Irish border and implement it, Boris plan instead draws the border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK and makes the same concessions that May did for Norther Ireland but permanently. You will forever have to have border checks going between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK if this bill passes and Northern Ireland is forever under EU regulations.

At this point Boris and the Brexiteers have basically given up on the current deadline and is looking forward to the future to try again. This is primarily why they want a general election to regain a majority at which point they believe they can overpower the opposition and get a no-deal brexit again. The opposition at the same time is not actually against the idea of a general election but they are not in any rush at this point so they can take their time setting it up to be beneficial for them as well as to cripple Boris further. Its basically just back to normal politics now and does not have much to do with Brexit.

@Dasneko

I agree there will be problems over the relationship of N Ireland if/when we actually get out of the EU but the big difference is that the province actually has a say on the matter. With the earlier version it was not just the entire UK trapped but we had no say in terminating the situationship at all.

Given what your said, as I think I've said before, I would have accepted a year back that the GFA can't be saved and moved onto other things. As you say its incompatible with the current way the EU sees itself as a monolithic and unchanging whole.

I agree that I don't trust Johnson at all but none of the other politicians, either in Britain or the EU have come out of its with clean hands as all. Been far too much lying by all involved.

As you say the current blockade is partly party politics as normal and partly as well the fanatical EU at any cost stance of too many of the MPs who will do anything to stop any exit. Which if they were to succeed is likely to really tear the country apart but then like too many people nowadays they don't consider the consequences of their actions.

@stevep59 Actually the EU dont really mind if the UK leaves. Sure its harmful but they have made their preparations long ago and staying in this Brexit limbo is just as bad for them.

@Dasneko

Except they keep insisting on extending it. Also if they were really happy with the proposed temporary deal their made with Johnson they would be pushing it in Parliament. They have had no problems speaking up in the past to complain when they haven't got all the concessions they wanted. Basically they still want the milch cow under their control. Plus as they have repeatedly said if Britain escapes and doesn't crash and burn it sets an example for others unhappy with the current regime.

@stevep59 That is not actually true at all. The Brexit deadline was extended because the UK demanded it and the EU has not complained about any demands simply because they are powerful enough to get whatever they want in the first place. The UK can not possibly get a deal with the EU where the EU does not get exactly what it wants. At most they have called the UK childish for demanding things that cant be done or rejecting demands that cant be avoided. This is not to stop a deal but to define what a deal actually is.

As for Brexit, the only reason the EU has not already thrown the UK out is that first of all they cant due to EU rules and secondly they are giving the UK some amount of respect to choose their own future.

The continual Brexit process will do nothing but cost the EU and drag its name through the mud. As for their supposed fear that the UK will thrive outside the EU that is not only a childish assumption of their motives but also against everything we know of the current predictions and history.

Just a simple question. Considering how badly the UK has handled Brexit, what makes you think they will not also completely fail at saving the country after they actually leave? Say whatever you want but I dont have much hope for the current government in the UK to do anything with any degree of competency.

@Dasneko

a) Elements in Parliament demanded it but that was more to block Brexit at all. Unfortunately because of their blind faith in the EU as a matter of dogma and because the Tories as usual have made an almighty mess of things the blockers have been able to prevent any progress.

You do notice that your definition of a deal is a dictation of demands? Yes the EU is in a powerful position, in part because of its greater size but also because the UK is currently so deeply divided with none of the groups showing either competence or any particular morality.

There has been a lot of accusations of lying among other things which is a definite case of pot and kettle given the behaviour of a lot of the EU officials.

b) Funny, it has been presented here that the EU could decide not to give Britain a further extension, as many in Britain want. That would have brought an end to the process but the EU has decided not to do so.

c) I'm not sure its a childish fear but its definitely something the EU have often said about the damage a successful Britain would do to the EU in increasing the probability that others might seek to jump ship. It does also fit in with their past behaviour in terms of the phobia about decentralisation of power and decision making.

d) I agree that Britain has had a serious problem with appalling miss-leadership especially the last 40-50 years or so. Being in the EU hasn't prevented it and has actually made it easier for the EU to take more from the UK. Being outside we might continue to fail but also we might start getting our act together. I reject the view presented by many fanatical remainers that the British people are somehow totally unable to govern themselves and must be ruled from Brussels.

@stevep59 I dont really understand your pro brexit points here. If the Parliament, who is the elected representatives and thus the voice of the people, dont want brexit then of course they are going to extend the deadline. In fact why would anyone want to exit through the deadline in the first place? If you simply want to have a no-deal brexit just leave with a no-deal brexit at any time you want. Leaving through the deadline is literally going against the will of the UK Parliament and the will of the people, which is ironic when you think about it since a core aspect of Brexit was to "take back control".

As for the EU's part in all of this extension nonsense their position is actually very uncomfortable. They cant really deny the extension since its the UK who is asking for it and denying it would go against the current good relationship. This is not to mention that Anti-EU groups would use this as an excuse to attack the EU saying things like "The EU threw the UK out without its consent to harm it" or whatever. As such its up to the UK to sort this mess out by itself.

Also yes, a deal like this is mostly a series of demands that needs to be agreed on both sides. There literally cant be a deal unless the UK agrees to the EU demands just as there cant be a deal unless the EU agrees to the UK demands. Of the two the EU can not and will not change its demands, this is not about the UK being divided or even good/bad at negotiation but a simple fact that only certain agreements are possible with the EU.

The EU or any EU country could have refused an extension but again this threatens the relationship with the UK, empowers anti-EU groups and goes against the will of the UK and its people. The deadline does not give the UK anything it cant already choose for itself so the fact that it has not already chosen it means it goes against the will of the UK.

Allot of people in the EU indeed wants to make an example out of the UK and use the EU to punish them however the EU itself has made it very clear that they are not going to and there is no evidence that there are any intentions of doing so. You may say whatever you want but EU officials are not known for acting on emotion and instead focuses on what is most beneficial for the EU or their host countries depending on their position. They are in a sense, professional bureaucrats.

What is worth mentioning however is that even if the EU wanted to punish the UK there is no indication that they even need to bother. There have been countless predictions made on the effects of brexit and each is worse than the next and the current series of events are even worse than the worst case predictions in said reports. Everything points to the UK being fundamentally crippled after any form of Brexit at this point so why should the EU bother setting fire when there is already an inferno? There is no evidence that the EU could do anything worse than the UK has already done to itself.

Its also worth noting that the only reason the UK even reluctantly joined the EU is precisely because they were failing so badly by themselves and the world today is even more harsh than it was back then not to mention the UK is far weaker than it used to be, partially because of bad leadership.

@Dasneko

If we had a good electoral system then I would agree with you but the FPTP one tends to distort and limit public opinion. That's why we ended up with Thatcher for 11 years despite her never getting a majority of the vote. For a lot of people their votes are pretty much wasted as they will effectively be ignored because the candidate who gets the most votes, even if its only somewhere in the low 30% gets elected and the rest have no impact. Also at the last election it was still expected that Brexit would occur and a lot of other issues were important.

I suspect that this time around it will be virtually all about Brexit which will give a lot more clarity. Britain needs to leave as its the only way to prevent further deep division and then hopefully we will be able to concentrate more on our internal problems.

Yes a deal should be a balance of the desires of the two sides. However it tends to be affected by the determination of the two and their relative power. With a substantial minority of hard line remainers refusing to accept any agreement and a weak government which for the 1st few years were also unwilling to fully support leaving we have got a poor deal, which has only been improved somewhat in the last couple of months. Frankly it was a mistake allowing the EU to insist that everything had to be done in two stages instead of one, right from the start. If it had been done responsibly then things might be a lot closer to being resolved by now. Also we wouldn't have the problem of having given the EU just about everything they want, no matter how extreme, when we enter the 2nd stage of the leaving negotiations I fully expect them to seek to put as many restrictions on Britain as they can get away with. Suspect that the Tories who are thinking that the obvious free trade deal will be accepted will find themselves very disappointed and there will be continued attempt to limit Britain's external trade and control its economy.

They may not have tried to punish Britain but they have talked about the need for it so frequently and they have imposed severe terms that will damage both sides but Britain more.

Yes there was a failure to resolve Britain's own problems in the 60's and 70's and two mistakes in the latter decade, joining the EEC and allowing Thatcherism to take root have greatly weakened Britain. A nation that used to look outwards has become too introvert and too many in this country rejects the idea of Britain actually being capable of governing ourselves.

I'm not sure the world is harsher now, although the rise of autocratic blocs and powers is making it harder. There is however I think plenty of scope for well organised medium side powers to move nimbly between the titans who often stagger under their own weight. The EU is distracted by Brexit at the moment but when this is hopefully successfully resolved it will still have to go back to its other problems of growing central control and imbalance of internal power. Have to see how it fares then.

@stevep59 By your same argument about the elections would the Brexit referendum not be an equally flawed vote, especially considering all the Brexit proponents at the time supported a deal similar to Norway or Switzerland and even rejected the idea of a "no-deal" as impossible and suicidal? This is not to mention that every single promise they made has turned out to be false and all the plans for it has failed.

Whatever the voters were voting for has failed to be achieved and now they use the peoples vote to push for something completely different. Sure you can try blame this on the remainers or the impotent government but in reality there was never any substance behind the Brexit movement. They had no plan for how it was supposed to be carried out or any idea of the consequences and when it came time to shit or get off the pot they were so unprepared that they could not even do either of those things.

This is a systematic failure of everyone involved but the costs are real. The UK has bleed from day one as businesses and people lose trust in the UK's future. No real preparations has been made and even the basic access to food and medicine is uncertain a week after Brexit. Again things could have been done to at least alleviate these problems but neither the government nor the Brexit supporters have lifted a finger, either through not caring or not understanding what needs to be done both equally bad.

Every day that passes worsens the future predictions of the UK in the case of Brexit. Saying they are "getting better" is simply lying to yourself. Sure the government has spent allot of money on doing preparations but.. as I said, they are incapable of doing what needs to be done. Whatever preparations they have done is either laughably inadequate or sometimes even counter productive.

This is the current situation of the UK and the best they have been able to manage since 2016. Proper preparations for Brexit would have taken years if not decades and as things looks the UK will only even begin to tackle them AFTER they leave when these things becomes actual problems. There is no bright future ahead of the UK after a no-deal Brexit, only a long and deadly struggle to not regress into a 3rd world country.

You seam to think there is room for a smaller power to exploit the inflexibility of the bigger powers around it but that is naive at best, partially because the room that does exist is smaller than the UK is currently and cant support it in its current form and also because the only real way that would work is if the UK debases itself for the benefit of these larger powers.

The USA as an example has already said they want to privatize the NHS for their private investors and only offered a trade deal where the US can unload its low quality products onto the UK but the UK is limited in its own trade with the USA. All the other countries that the UK has talked to says they will not negotiate a trade deal before Brexit is over and the UK has a deal with the EU.

There is no help to be found. Everyone will be out to screw over the UK if they leave because that is literally their job. The leaders, diplomats and negotiations that makes these deals only have one objective, the largest possible benefits for their own country at the expense of EVERYTHING else which in this case includes the UK.

The UK does not have anything special to offer that they could use in negotiation, the only thing it has is juicy fat that other powers can greedily carve out for themselves. On the other hand the UK is not self sustaining enough to even be able to say "No".

I leave you with a single question. Why would any other country be fair to the UK?

@Dasneko

Long term interest in that it can get better access to the UK market and a market that can grow,

As you say the problem is that very little has been done to prepare properly for any Brexit. Partly the generic incompetence of the Tory Party, partly that May never really seemed interested in actually leaving and the remainers blocked as much as they could. Also Johnson has, from what I've read, fouled up a trade deal or two by offering free access as a default and hence meaning that Britain has little to offer in a deal. A mistake no responsible politician would make.

So you are now admitting that the EU should be treated as a hostile power, as it has acted as your suggesting all others will?

Your falling into the old binary trap in beliving that there are only two extremes. Leaving the EU doesn't mean blindly accepting control by another large economic bloc. I think even Johnson isn't stupid enough to think he could sacrifice the NHS to US insurance interests. There are a fair number of medium and small powers that do quite well without being under the thumb of a large centralised bloc/power.

True we shot ourselves in the head by joining the EEC as it ended many of our traditional trade links because of its protectionist policies. Also it killed off the EFTA as a practical alternative, which would have been better for Britain and probably also for a fair number of the states that escaped the old eastern bloc when the Soviet empire fell if it was still about.

@stevep59 The UK already has access to most markets in the world with some of the best trade agreements in history through the EU, where do you expect this growth to come from? You are not going to get any better trade deals than you already have currently. Remember these are deals that the EU negotiated. The EU has well over 100 trade deals currently negotiated on the same basis as the one it has offered the UK but right now the UK is on the EU side and benefits from it.

Also I dont think you quite understand this either. Free trade is not necessarily a tempting negotiation token for many countries, its not certain they want it. Saying that the UK should offer it in a deal will probably not be terribly effective. It works with the EU since they take Ireland into consideration but otherwise the EU dont really want that at all and the UK would have to offer allot in compensation for even giving away free trade.

As for the EU being a "hostile power" that is incorrect, if the UK leaves its a foreign power and foreign powers always aims to exploit the other. This is the default and something the UK should expect even from its allies such as USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. This is the basis of diplomacy not to mention whatever bullshit Russia and China would try to pull since they are very much a hostile power.

Also even the Medium and small trade powers WILL be out to screw the UK over. This is not even a question, its a promise. What are you even hoping to gain from this?

@Dasneko

You yourself declared the EU by definition an hostile power and it has shown that by its behaviour.

At the moment the EU has a lock on much of British trade and resources because we're a member of the bloc. Its going to lose at least some of that unless its willing to deal responsibly with Britain as we will have options to look elsewhere.

I would argue that powers, at least intelligently led ones, which I admit many are frequently not, look to benefit their interests. That's a different thing from seeking to screw everybody else over because that tends to leave you isolated and mistrusted. Large powers such as China, the US and the EU can think playing the thug has no costs for them but in the longer term even for them its a losing process.

In terms of what I want. Can't talk for everybody else in the leave camp. I want a more responsive government that the people can have some actual control over. This means getting out of the EU and reforming British politics. We have the chance of doing the 1st because Cameron and the EU fouled up in the former agreeing to a referendum and the EU being so confident that remain would win that they weren't willing to consider British problems. That led to a situation where every vote did count and I think that was a factor in the resulting leave victory.

Reforming the situation in Britain will be more difficult as it will mean getting the influence to at the least change the voting system but given the turmoil in the current parties its not impossible.

I think part of the problem is that you seem to consider change impossible. It can be difficult but its definitely not impossible. An independent UK that properly reforms itself may be economically weaker in the shorter run but can change and make itself stronger. Getting rid of the Thatcherite parasites would be a good start as it would enable serious consideration of reform and reconstruction.

@stevep59 The people who drives trade negotiations are far more like a lawyer than what you seam to think. Their job is to get the best deal for their country which is almost always at the expense of the other partner. A good trade deal relies on both sides pressuring eachother to a good compromise, not by being considerate of the other and offering a good deal. The UK cant really do this and that is not debatable.

Its also important to realize that just because you do not have restrictions does not mean you are more free. The UK is currently under EU regulations but it also secures allot of freedoms in trade. Freedoms that the UK cant match by itself. Unless the UK pulls something groundbreaking out of its ass such as the industrial revolution it will never reach the same economic access it has today.

@Dasneko

On both those points, the myopia of all nations in terms of economic interaction and the lack of capacity for any increases in social, economic or technological efficiency we will have to disagree.

@stevep59 If you say so but dont be confused when the rest of the world makes fun of Brexit and Brexiteers.

@Dasneko

There are always people who follow the herd when instructed to. ;)

@stevep59 You really don't get it, do you? Been listening to Gollums Ugly Cousin and the rest of his UKIP gang too much?

a) They're negotiating the status of each others citizens after Brexit, which is just a decent thing to do. Wouldn't you want to know what your rights and duties are in case of a major change like this? Whether you're a Brit in the EU or a European in Britain? If you think this is extra-territorial rights then you basically say that the UK is claiming the whole EU as theirs. Talk about territorial claims...

b) Britain has engaged in a number of programs to be paid in the course of the next years. A lot of these programs also take place in Britain, so there they basically get money back. You can't sign a contract to do stuff over the next 10 years with some business partners and then after 2 years be like: "nah, whatever, I don't care anymore! And stop your attempts in forcing me to pay anyway! Bullies!" That's not how it works.

c) No, that's not what's happening. An open border also means being part of the internal market of the EU and that's what Britain is opposed to. For the EU it would just be very convenient to keep Britain in the market, they don't complain. But Britain hasn't come up with a single workable alternative to both leave the internal EU market AND leave the EU in a way to have independent trade agreements with exciting commonwealth destinations like Kiribati, Antigua and Barbuda and Nauru. I'm sure that you're better off with deals with them than with access to the open market in the EU and I wish you all the best with it in the future, but you can't blame that EU market for also being willing to having a say in any agreement that affects it. As there was (and still is, sadly) no viable plan, the backstop was proposed to just have a temporary solution for a very complicated problem. To me, the backstop just shows how badly informed politicians on both sides are. May's proposal to 'just solve it with technology or so' and the EU's proposal to just put a backstop on it as they see no possibilities makes me sad. It lacks vision, creativity and the will to make tough decisions.

d) I have no idea what dummy photo op you're talking about. Or why anyone would mock Britain. As said, it's YOUR decision to hang yourself up in a non-binding public referendum, it's YOUR decision to issue article 50, and it's YOUR decision to vote 'no' against any of the given alternatives so far, even in your own Houses. As for the EU, every single leader has expressed their hope that you wouldn't leave. None said that you should fuck off. But still you go and blame EU for it. On false grounds, no less.

e) Teresa May expected the EU to just bow and tremble with fear for the Mighty British Empire when negotiations started. Which Empire? The one that existed a long time ago? What she wanted was impossible, a utopia from day one. It's very common when both parties negotiate, that you give some, lose some or even find alternative solutions in which no one really wins or loses, or where both parties lose or benefit. That's how negotiations work. Nothing new there.

I nevertheless hope that you feel better now that you emptied your underbelly. Or almost emptied it: I just lack blaming the EU for having red passports, despite there not being a single EU rule that describes the colour of passports. You could have had blue ones all the time. Or green ones. Black ones if you want. Fluffy pink ones that glow in the dark, even. Or the £350 million pound per week that you're not paying to the EU and put in the NHS instead. Except that you also got buttloads of money from the EU back for many projects, institutions and well-being and that the EU doesn't cost you £350 million a week to start with. Not by a mile. Or blame the EU for the UK having so many foreigners. Please remember that Britain once was an empire and as such already had loads op people with different colours and beliefs on board before the 1970s. Also remember that Britain is no part of Schengen and as such, already largely has its own border control and rules in place.

Britain already had a special treatment and most advantages of all EU members. If you still insist on getting a unicorn, well, then go ahead and find one. But don't blame the EU if you can't find any.

@ImportViking

Well a load of inaccurate hate rants and bigotry but a distinct lack of facts. Along with the old myth that its some sort of imperialist plot for Britain to want to govern itself.

By Gollums Ugly Cousin's do you refer to Tusk or Barnier as those are the people I have been quoting. ;) Why is it so hard for people to consider their not gods and they could be wrong on issues rather than descending to idiotic abuse.

@stevep59 Apparently language isn't your strongest point. They're, their and there. Learn the difference.

Who was involved with UKIP? Tusk or Barnier? I don't think so. Again, understanding what you read would help you very much, perhaps also in getting a better impression of what's going on right now.
Are Tusk or Barnier gods? I don't think so. I didn't describe them as such either. I merely stated that every leader in the EU, and whether that's Juncker, Tusk, Merkel or the prime minister of Luxembourg, has stated that they hoped that the UK would change their minds and remain in the EU.

A lot of inaccurate hate rants and bigotry but a distinct lack of facts? Yes, you surely delivered that! As such I tried to give you some feedback. But facts and truth haven't been involved in the Leave campaign, neither do they play a role in how parts of the British society think. So I merely tried to help a bit.

ps. As I live outside the EU, I couldn't care less about what's happening there or with the UK. What I do care about is correct information and facts.

@ImportViking

So I made a slip up in syntax. Accidents happen.

I was joking about your blaming Farage, who I can't stand either, for the actions and statements of Tusk and Barnier. Also their assumption that they can dictate to anyone and their always right, even when they change their arguments.

Your entitled to your opinion but your not a god either so that doesn't make it fact no matter how much you wish it to be. I know how much hatred and bigotry has been displayed by the extremists on the remain side because I've quite often been the victim of it myself. Also how often the EU side has sought to bend [or ignore] the facts to get what they desire.

The difference between me and you is that I willing to criticise all sides when I believe their in the wrong. Too many bigots and extremists only go for their opponents.

@Fluffybunny
PM: I won a Unicorn! It's small, but it's the best Unicorn we can get!
Papers: Vote for the Unicorn. Vote for the Unicorn!
Parliament: That's not a Unicorn - it's a scrofulous donkey with a cardboard cone tied on its head with string.
Papers: Traitors!

@Fluffybunny I fear Brexit has got far too big to handle anymore. There are positives to both sides of the argument, but Cameron's still an idiot for bending over to Farage on a referendum. Parliament cant exist with referendums, they break the system.

@Henlaar tbh not many regular people outside the UK cares about brexit

German spelling Nazi: Borders, not boarders

@untot Scot here - thank you for saying this. the misspelling really annoys me, but it's becoming VERY common

I am always EXTREMELY reluctant to correct the English of someone whose second language it is, but it’s “borders” not “boarders.” Boarders are guests staying in a house. =)

Oh, and England? They make nice little privacy curtains for estates and SUV’s, so no need to get your knickers in a twist. ;)

@TuxedoCartman
"Boarders" can also being pirates climbing up the side of the ship you're on. :P

(Actually, anyone getting onto a vehicle larger than a car or truck; so mainly planes and ships. "Passengers board the plane" for example. )

Here's some extra trivia: "Boarders" as in people staying overnight in some place (usually not for free) comes from the expression "room and board", which was how a monastery or cheap inn described what they offered to travelers in the middle ages;
"Room" is self-evident; a small room to sleep in for the night. "Board" refers to a small meal (bread and cheese, for example) which was served upon a literal wooden board platter, since only rich people had plates in that era.

There's also "boarding school", which describes a school where students live there at the school for all the months classes run, as opposed to living at home. They have been quite common in England, though in the USA at least, being sent to boarding school is more a punishment for children extremely poor discipline. Boarding schools there are often operated more like a military boot camp for children than a typical public school, the idea being to force more disciplined behavior onto an unruly child.

@Hinoron You are correct on the pirate issue, though I’d say if England anticipates boarders (per your usage) having sex in cars while waiting in traffic... I do believe I’ll be bringing me blunderbuss and cutlass with me on my next trip across the pond, to hell with what the customs man says! (Unless the pirates are sexy. Are the pirates sexy? How much scurvy are we talking?).

@TuxedoCartman England absolutely denies wearing knickers. He may be protesting too much.

As sick as i am of Brexit, it's still more entertaining to us Americans then the Impeachment.....

How is it that nobody has shared this yet?

Fascinating Aida on the subject of dogging:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXzaVOk_Ydk

@Dorsai New to me. Thanks, I enjoyed that.

So, the Brits are planning to look on the bright side of life.

@RossM Of course, they always look on the bright side of life *whistling*

Can I just point out how we're all fine with England rubbing his nipples? Honestly, ANYTHING to get our minds off of Brexit.

I feel like the fact that this is England and not Northern Ireland complaining about the Irish border means he's going to head over there and watch...

@Tamirkaden

Isn't it weird that obsession the English have with drawing borders where there shouldn't be any ?
In 1839, yep ! 1839... they (i.e. the English) put a border between the not yet Grand, Duchy of Luxembourg and the soon to be Belgian province of Luxembourg. Do you think they would have asked the people who lived there what they wanted ? No, the English checked... more or less... who spoke what, and drew the border.
My great-grannies came from both sides of that stupid line. And a hundred and eighty years later, I'm finally both nationalities again.

If you want to have an idea of the border, have a look at the picture with the boundary marker here...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Borne_fronti%C3%A8re_Luxembourg-Belgique.JPG

@Daru

It's not England, or more accurately Britain who's insisting on drawing borders, assuming your talking about Ireland. Its the southern Irish - or a very militant portion of them who decided on independence, at the cost of dividing the island. The GFA eased a lot of tensions but the EU is insistent that the border must be withdrawn, albeit they would like to draw it in the Irish Sea, regardless of the feelings of the people in the north.

If you mean leaving the EU yes the people of Britain supported such a decision over three years ago. A lot of people have done everything they can to block that decision being implemented and it looks like they will delay it again. However hopefully eventually it will happen and we can start picking up the pieces that the politicians have made of this.

In terms if 1839 Britain was a very important power at the time and had a say in what happened but I very much doubt it was them dictating to all the powers. Don't know the details but at the time people on the ground rarely had a say on the matter anyway. Possibly the German speaking population of what became the Grand Duchy wanted to associate more with the German confederation than the people across the new border. Quite possibly the Germans, especially the Prussians and Austrians had a lot of say in the matter as well. About the only people who didn't have much say were the Dutch, who had ruled the region but lost out to popular opposition in what became Belgium which gained international support. Oh and the French who had wanted to annex Belgium themselves.

@stevep59

Read me again, Steve, I've clearly stated it was another English blunder to draw a border through the Duchy of Luxembourg, and hence creating the independent Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg, and the Belgian province of Luxembourg, separating families for several decades. It wasn't a lethal border unlike some of today's borders around the world. It was however a stupid pain each time we wanted to cross the border. You can't imagine how glad I am those systematic and archdumb border controls have come to an end. What about smuggling ? If I wanted to smuggle anything, there's enough paths in the forests or in the fields to keep an army of smugglers busy for decades, if it was any use...

You wrote :
"In terms if 1839 Britain was a very important power at the time and had a say in what happened but I very much doubt it was them dictating to all the powers. Don't know the details but at the time people on the ground rarely had a say on the matter anyway. Possibly the German speaking population of what became the Grand Duchy wanted to associate more with the German confederation than the people across the new border."

Then you should inform yourself more before writing. The English (and I insist on stating that it were the English, not the Welsh, not the Scots) who drew the border. And no the people had no say, and that's no reason for their descendents not to be happy.
No, your argument about "German speking population" is worthless. The people in Luxembourg would strongly ressent being put in the same group as the Germans. They were not, they never were and when the Gauleiter in Luxembourg wanted to force the young Luxembourgers to fight with the nazi, there was a national strike, blast furnaces were stopped, causing major harm, and drafting was cancelled.

No, never claim again the Luxembourgers are German.

@Daru

Daru you have made a statement without supporting evidence. At least unless yous saying your about 200 years old and speaking from personal experience. ;) Please provide some that there was a strong desire by the people of the current Grand Duchy to join the new state of Belgium rather than stay with the Netherlands. [Don't have time to check now but didn't they stay with the Dutch king as the head of state?]

You misread what I said. I said "Possibly the German speaking population". I never called them Germans I asked a question about why they stayed separate. I very much doubt it was a decision by Britain forcing the rest of Europe to accept their demands on an area that was of minimal importance to them as that makes no sense at all.

@stevep59
As an inabitant of the area, and one who has studied its history, I know that the "ancestors" of the people of today fought in the Belgian revolution against the Dutch king William 1st of Oranje-Nassau. Even in the WW 1, when Luxembourg was officially neutral, Luxembourgers managed to cross borders to join the Allies, there's a monoment in Ettelbruck mentioning the brave Luxembourgers who fought in WW I with the Allies. So, yes, they were pro-Belgium in 1830.
It was only the "great powers" of that time that decided to please both William the 1st and the Prussians who occupied Luxembourg city just to make sure that Belgium wouldn't finally decide to rejoin France. Remember, the first candidate who was asked to become king of Belgium was a French prince, of course rejected by Prussia and England. The second one Leopold, who finally became king was Victoria's uncle...

The European powers granted William the title of grand-duke of Luxembourg. In other words, the new Grand-Duchy had the same monarch as the Netherlands, but the Grand-Duchy was NOT part of the Netherlands, it was just a "personal union". So your statement, probably grabbed from Wikipedia, is not really correct, the Dutch king wasn't the grand-duke BUT William was king of the Netherlands and grand-duke of Luxembourg, it's a detail but the difference is essential. This became even clearer some years later when his successor William III died witout a male heir. His daughter could become queen of the Netherlands, but she couldn't become the grand-duchess of Luxembourg, at that time only a male monarch was allowed. It put an end to the "personal union".

After WW 1, when the Grand Duchy was a neutral state, there was a dynastic turmoil in Luxembourg, and the grand-duchess Marie-Adélaïde who had been a bit too favourable to Prussia, had to abdicate in favour of her sister Charlotte (whom the Luxembourgers adored). At that time there was also question of referendum questioning the Luxembourgers on the future status of the Grand-Duchy, some wanted to join Belgium, more wanted to join France, the majority decided for independence.

As for your "Possibly the German speaking population", you must know that the Luxembourgers are proud to speak Luxembourgish, while official documents and laws are in German and French (unless this has changed recently). The population of the 19th century, apart from people who had had the chance to go to secondary school, spoke Luxembourgish. Unlike Belgium with its 3 linguisitic communities, there are no linguistic "areas" in Luxembourg.
The English of 1839 meddled in stuff that didn't concern them, drawing borders elsewhere when they should have minded their own business.

@Daru

To clarify I was working from memory this morning shortly before having to dash off to work so that's why I was being rather speculative. As such I thought I remembered your country shared a monarch with the Dutch, but not the exact details. I know of course that their been separate for quite a while but didn't have time to check up on the details.

I've always heard that the bulk of the population was German speaking so if wrong on that I apologise. Checking on Wiki, as a quick 1st check point I notice that it says that the language is a western German language spoken mainly in Luxembourg and spoken by some 390,000 people worldwide. Reading elsewhere since about 60% of the population are expats workers it is fairly clear that it is therefore the primary language of the bulk of the 'home' population. As such I had misunderstood the exact relationship linguistically.

It also says on the history "In 1839, following the turmoil of the Belgian Revolution, the purely French-speaking part of Luxembourg was ceded to Belgium and the Luxembourgish-speaking part (except the Arelerland, the area around Arlon) became what is the present state of Luxembourg.[19]"

In terms of 1839 the British did meddle in something that concerned them very much, i.e. who controlled what is now Belgium and especially its ports. Mainly to ensure that it didn't come under French control. [Which is exactly the reason why the neutrality of Belgium was so important and Britain declared war on Germany in 1914!] I don't know who decided that the Luxembourgish population would be split off from the French speaking proportion that went to Belgium but it wouldn't have been a primarily concern of Britain. Suspect there was some trading off between the major powers with probably neither France or Germany wanting it going to an independent Belgium but if you can provide an actual source for your suggestion that it was solely a British decision I would be very interested. I notice that you yourself says that at the end of WWI there was a referendum on the issue and union with Belgium was the 3rd choice and continued independence the view of the majority. Which does suggest that union with Belgium then wasn't a particularly popular choice.

@stevep59
The problem in 1919, was that some Belgians wanted a "Great Belgium", and that didn't agree with the people of Luxembourg. As you can see drawing a dumb border for some not really well understood reasons can have "unexpected" results.

That's why I'm glad the EU is slowly disbanding borders and, in my case, that I had the chance to recover my Luxembourgeois nationality and become a bi-national. If some day Belgium was to split, I'd be as glad to demand both my nationalities. Stupid nationalist politicians may have dumb ideas, but if they want to play that game... there will always be people to put a spanner in their works.

@Daru

Ah right. I was thinking you were arguing that all Luxembourg should have gone to Belgium [in 1839]. If I understand rightly what your saying is that none of it should have?

My nationality is open, i.e. inclusive. I have no problem being both English and British. The reason I can't be EU [I would use European as the term is inaccurate] is because the examples I see are tightly exclusive. You can only have the single nationality/identity in that mindset and any alternative loyalty must be condemned and wherever possible degraded.

This could be simply because EU supporters in Britain are very hard line - or at least they shout much louder. However its this intolerance that has increasingly alienated me and I suspect many others from the EEC/EC/EU over the past few decades. There has been a lot of lies and hostility from both extremes in Britain but too many people in the EU camp take the binary view - that there is a perfect angelic correct viewpoint, which of course is their one and that any alternative view is wrong if not evil. I've seen this in a few cases on this site with a few trolls who consider that debate consists of throwing insults and abuse and refusing to accept that their viewpoint is anything but prefect. That's why I'm dubious about the future of the EU and given the abuse I've faced over the past few years especially will be glad if Britain leaves.

@stevep59
Wrong. The division in Ireland is a product of Britain fostering political enmity between the Catholic and Protestant populations.

@TheChief

To use a technical term BS. The division of Ireland was because those with military power in the south choose to divide the island rather than stay as part of the UK, in which they were full and equal members. It was only with the GFA that the south finally changed its constitution to drop its imperial claim that the north was its property regardless of what the people there wanted. You need to learn some history.

@stevep59 We were not "full and equal members" and the assertion that the British have ever been the victims of military aggression or imperial plans from the Irish people is patently ridiculous.

@stevep59

Errr no? The division of Ireland was because the Catholic population (that is to say the majority of the irish population) was treated as second class citizens by the rulings Protestants (manly -at that point descendent of- English and Scots who immigrated to Ireland -- and by the way Ireland was considered as a british colony not a full and equal member of the UK).
Anyway sorry for the long parenthesis but my point is that you can't say there wasn't a good reason why they wanted independence.

And the division was also because the protestant did not want to become the minority after everything they and mostly their ancestors did (since Ireland was nominally part of the UK, the protestants were the majority despite being a minority on the island itself) and since a lot of them lived in the north-east part of the island, these managed to get their way and these county stayed in the UK. Of course the local Catholic were not asked their opinion and continued to be treated as second class citizens for a while.

So yeah, it was less about the south's imperial claim that the north was its property and more about the whole island wanting independence and the protestant wanting to stay in the UK, ending up in a compromise in which most of the island got its independence and a few county stayed in the UK, except that only a bit more that half of the population of these counties was happy about it (but the rest wasn't asked their opinion, so everything's fine, right?)

Now I don't actually live there, and I to young to have been alive at that time, and I know that I'm simplifying the issue despite the very long thing I just wrote but

TL;DR: Yes there are criticism to make, and on both sides, and yes Irish terrorism was definitely a thing, but claiming that the British were British were poor innocent victims of the imperialist Irish is just so blatantly false. If you don't believe me, just look up Cromwell.

Ps: Also (and really no offence meant, I'm just curious) but why "imperial claim" ? Ireland has never had anything resembling an empire, as far as I know, so, why imperial? That really sound like a random criticism to me?

@La_Niolue

Factually inaccurate. Ireland was a full and equal member of the union. That's why most of the MPs elected for Ireland were Catholics of one group or another. The Protestants were only in the majority in the north. It had been an effective colony and a lot of the time ruled with much discrimination in previous centuries - which unfortunately was all to common in many areas, but that had largely gone after the Catholic emancipation act of 1829.

At the time of partition the 6 counties of the north were split about 2/3 1/3 between Protestants and Catholics.

I say imperial claim because the Irish constitution, from ~1930 to 1996 claimed to rule by right the norther counties will no regard at all for will of the people of those counties. As such it was deeply undemocratic and imperialistic is probably an accurate description of the claim of the Irish republic at that time.

@stevep59

Ah ok thanks for clearing that up ^^
But I still don't think we can really speak about an imperialistic republic if they just claimed something to support their stance but didn't actually do anything.

I mean what would have been deeply undemocratic would have been to try to take control of N. Ireland not just say they should control it - politicians say a lot of different things all the time, and often follow with the exact contrary of what they just say, so as far as I'm concern, their actions matter way more than their words.

But anyway, that's mostly a question of semantics, so it doesn't really matter

@La_Niolue

True its a case of their language rather than actions but it was definitely a sore point, both with the majority unionist population in the north and Britain as a whole. While there was bigotry on the British side over the question of self-rule by Dublin the biggest obstacle to why it didn't happen was that the bulk of the Catholic 'Nationalists' were being hypocritical in that they were refusing the unionists of the north the same right of self-government that they themselves insisted on.

One possible solution to the issue of the border would be if there was a referendum and the north decided to join the south. However if such a referendum occurred I don't know what way it would go. The majority of the north is still Protestant, albeit the margins are closing. Also the troubles have made the social culture in the north a lot more conservative. The south has changed drastically in recent years, especially in terms of the power and influence of the church and issues of personal freedom. In the north both communities, probably the Protestants more than the Catholics are frozen in older social attitudes. That's why its the one part of the UK that still doesn't accepted same sex marriages and has restrictions on abortion for instance. As such north and south, religion aside could be too far apart socially for some people.

@stevep59

Hum well, I get most of my informations from a friend who is studying history, and Ireland's in particular, so I will agree with whatever she tells me because that's what I always do regarding history. I know she knows more that me on the subject.

However, it's been a while since we spoke about that, so it's entirely possible that I simply don't remember correctly. So I'll ask her again next time I see her and until then, I'm just not gonna say anything else about the subject, you're getting waaaay to detailed for my limited knowledge and I just don't know enough to answer one way or another x)

@La_Niolue

No problem. Relations between England/Britain and Ireland have been a mess since the Normans dragged us into it. I often say that Hastings was possibly the biggest disaster for the British Is not simply because of the slaughter and suffering in caused in England but also because of the effects they had in terms of relations with Ireland especially but also Scotland and Wales.

@La_Niolue

Thinking about it in one important respect your right and I'm wrong. Don't know the details because I was a child when the 'troubles' started in the late 60's but as well as being in a majority, which makes a big difference in the FPTP voting system anyway they had found ways of at least partially disenfranchising a good proportion of the Catholic minority. That was how things started with civil rights marches that were attacked by Protestant/Unionist thugs and the British army was sent in to protect the former. Then the IRA felt threatened because the Catholics welcomed the army protection so they started attacking the army to drive them away from the population and also attacking civilians, both Protestant and Catholic.

You had a period where thugs on both sides were attacking 'enemies' but increasingly the Protestants seemed to accept the inclusion of Catholic rights as long as the attachment with Britain was maintained. The 'Catholic' terrorist groups became the primary source of violence, both with attacks on civilians and security forces inside N Ireland and increasingly also on targets on the mainland of Britain itself. Terrorist groups on both sides of the divide also got heavily involved in criminal activities during this period to fund their activities and possibly also to help lure in new supporters.

@stevep59

I definitely agree that terrorism is not a good thing, no matter the circumstances, and that during the trouble both sides did terrible things, but
I just want to point that I was talking about Ireland's independence in (around) 1920, so that a different issue.

But regarding the Troubles, I don't actually know that much about it, only the main idea, and from what I know I completely agree in that there was a lot of attacking civilians and doing terrible thing going on in both sides.

@Tamirkaden

I think the cartoon is referring to the expected queues in Britain due to problems with movement between Britain and the continent with the greater restrictions on movement that will occur. After all Britain is still seeking to preserve the GFA even through the EU look almost certain to kill it as their been threatening for the last 3 years.

@Tamirkaden So it's anticipation.. Lol

@Tamirkaden this isn't the NI/Irish border England is concerned about - it's the border control at Dover next to the ferry port. Miles of lorries parked up waiting to board boats, or having disembarked from boats. The Irish border is /supposed/ to be "transparent" (no customs or passport checks)

That's a very weird leap to make

In the US we used to call that "Drive-In Movies".