Fantasy time - Another option: Ireland invades and conquers the UK. The border issue vanishes. Brexit is no more. As part of greater Ireland, everyone is back in the EU.
Gotta think outside the box.
I vote for this.
That could be quite funny. However, it would be nice if Ireland gave us all time to write lots of sad songs about being taken over and colonised.
Edited to add: it would even make the DUP happy. Well, happy or confused or both. 
If Ireland were to try, it would swiftly find itself a wasteland. That solves the problem too.
More that people like you couched xenophobia as “wanting control of immigration”. Consider the fearmongering language used to make the argument by the Leave campaign: the aforementioned rape gangs claim, the NHS being overrun by “millions of Turks”, the posters of refugees and persistent references to them as “swarms”. That strongly indicates that the argument wasn’t being made on a strong rational basis.
And, ironically, Britain is still as likely as not to end up with free movement of workers in the end. So much for controlling immigration.
I do so love this argument. It basically says “We won on the basis of lies and we want to avoid any accountability for them so no backsies!”. Like the people crowing about Trump’s victory, you don’t care about the consequences, no matter how dire; you only care that you won. Except that we all lost; it’s just that some people haven’t realised it yet.
But if democratic decisions can never be reversed, one might as well argue that the UK agreed to join the EU and therefore that decision should never be changed.
The referendum wasn’t “binding”; it was “advisory”. And given that the Leave campaign was based on lies (the oft-touted £350m figure), false promises (that the government would cover all areas currently receiving EU funding), undeliverable aspirations (that the UK would be able to negotiate more favourable trade deals with the EU and other countries) and meaningless phrases (more “sovereignty” and “democracy”), requiring the decision to be reconsidered on the basis of reality isn’t “disrespecting democracy”; it’s applying basic common sense. If I ask an estate agent to sell my five-bedroom house in Mayfair and the only offer he gets is £20 and a packet of crisps, the logical response is not “I agreed to sell the house and house sale means house sale” and then to send in David Davis to negotiate on the flavour of the crisps. Yet that is the kind of incisive argument being made with regard to Brexit.
We were promised that there would be more money for the UK, a stronger negotiating position, a better business environment, more control of our borders and more say in the government for the people. What we’re getting is drastic cuts in economically deprived areas and agriculture, a greatly weakened negotiating position for business deals (including having to now compete with the EU, as the recent trip to Japan demonstrated), increased costs to manufacturers and a reduced level of influence in London’s financial sector, potentially no change to border controls (and likely chaos at the Irish border), and the Tory government derogating to itself all sorts of new powers and bypassing Parliament to do it. We’re also getting higher food prices for poorer quality food, greatly weakened workers’ rights, and significant cutbacks in access to research projects and foreign students by higher education institutions. But why should we reconsider when things are going so well?
Incidentally I note the IrExit campaign is already kicking off - I’ve already seen articles claiming that “the EU Commission can declare things illegal just because it doesn’t like them” and citing the Catalonian referendum, when in fact the EU Commission merely observed that the Catalonian referendum was illegal under Spanish law. Already the lies are cranking up…
Perhaps, if they wanted to complicate things for no reason and keep the boarders open, just have a website and smart phone app where people could just indicate their intended crossing, even regular repeated crossings, or apply form some form of free passage for those who need to make that trip frequently, with computer stations/ and ‘telephone’ assistance if needed at the crossings for those without the ability to do it themselves online.
No. There’s a difference, and Remain refused to accept that.
Which was actually true. The Asian gang in the UK and the immigrant gang in Germany for two.
Not true.
Ahem. I was expecting a Remain victory.
Time will tell.
Once we’ve had some time outside the EU then feel free to start a campaign to rejoin it.
As was Remain.
That was the Remain side; what did Leave promise?
In case you hadn’t notice, we have yet to leave.
You mean just like the £500M Aston-Martin deal the UK won in August?
Cite?
Cite?
Etc.
Either you believe in and respect democracy or you don’t. Are you really in the latter group? Or is democracy only fine when the result is the one you want?
hrrumph, i say! Hrrumph! We’ll have none of that!
I cited examples. You ignored them.
Do keep a strong grip on those straws you’re grasping. The connection between the EU and those incidents is non-existent. I’m surprised you didn’t manage to work the Croydon riots in there somewhere.
It certainly seems like it’s true, from your responses.
Or I could start a campaign not to leave it in the first place now that it’s clearer that what was promised cannot be delivered and that the government is woefully unprepared to negotiate on behalf of the country. I’m still represented in Parliament and the Government haven’t quite managed to seize full unilateral power yet (though not for lack of trying lately), so in theory I’m perfectly within my rights to attempt to influence policy.
Again - I gave you specific examples of Leave campaign lies. You ignored them. What did the Remain campaign lie about?
Much as I enjoy the occasional “no u” response, this is nonsense. Leave promised all those things.
I have noticed. And apart from the fact that we’re already seeing the changes, the argument that “We are perfectly safe because we haven’t driven off the cliff edge yet, therefore we don’t need to turn away from it” is not one that inspires confidence. Enjoy your post-Brexit limited choice of overpriced questionable meat.
You mean like the recent Bombardier mess?
Well apart from the fact that the manufacturing sector came out overwhelmingly for remaining in the UK, there’s the effect on the UK auto industry overall. I mean, will they even be able to get the parts without significant tariffs? And there’s Smiffy’s going already, and Lush, and the general fact that a lot of Northern industries have their largest non-domestic customer base on the Continent.
I work in the financial sector and see a lot of this directly, but I don’t expect you to take by word for it (and obviously there are things I cannot say, so I’ll stick to public information). But consider all the large multi-nationals that are planning to move or already moving jobs out of London because of Brexit, including Barclays, Deutsche Bank, HSBC and Goldman Sachs. Main beneficiaries are Frankfurt, Brussels, Paris and Dublin. At the next level down, a lot of financial firms are waiting for more information on what the terms of Brexit will be before taking any action but that does not mean there will not be negative consequences.
Etc. indeed. This has been hashed out - with cites - in other threads on the subject.
Either you understand what an advisory referendum is or you don’t. Are you really in the latter group? Or is democracy only fine when the result is the one you want, at which point everything is set in stone and democracy can never be exercised again?
No I didn’t. That there were racists who were on the Leave side is incontrovertible. But the Leave side itself was not racist.
And Bombardier is nothing to do with Brexit.
As for the rest of your rubbish, we’ve been through this before and I’ll just say that you have a very different perspective. Time will tell who is correct.
The most authoritative study on the issue concludes:
“Post-Brexit invisible border is impossible.”
The Irish customs department says “customs posts will be needed” between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland.
They would say that, wouldn’t they? I’m not saying they’re wrong, mind, but they’re not an unbiased source.
Also note near the end:
For the first time since, Henry II, Ireland faces the prospect of being an actual honest to goodness foreign country to England/Britain/UK.
Before that it’s been the commonwealth, then the Ireland Act. Then the EEC/EU, some legal links have always remained. Unlikely anymore.
And they think it sucks.
Here’s a hint: something to do with six counties. Ring any bells?
There is no IrExit campaign in Ireland. None whatsoever, at least of any substance. Even the far left parties that praised Brexit as a “working class victory” in the immediate aftermath of the election have gone all quiet now that the full scale of the disaster it will be has become impossible to ignore.
I predicted at the time - while Brexit supporters were claiming this would inspire exit movements all over the EU - that the exact opposite would happen: the UK would make such a hames of it that support for leaving would fall in other countries. Pro-leave parties don’t seem to have done very well in national elections since then, so it seems I may have been right. Of course it remains to be seen how bad Brexit actually gets, but there’s nothing to inspire any optimism.
And I am saying this as, some Dopers might recall, a person from the left Eurosceptic tradition myself.
The Ireland Act is still in force and the UK has made it plain that it intends that to continue.
And, as Ruadh pointed out, what’s bugging us in Ireland is the border. We’ve never liked that.
The operative part of the Ireland Act 1949 is
In 1949, this was easy. It was also tolerably achievable in 1972 when both the UK and Ireland joined the EEC, ECSC, Euratom.
Nowadays the section is basically unworkable in light of Brexit and the massive amounts of EU law that exist. Whatever the UK and Irish Governments may say in public.
Ireland will either i) be an actual foreign country to the UK, with the massive attendant economic damage that brings, it ii) be an anchor by which EU law, rules and regulations continue to effect the UK.
Neither situation is ideal. And would happen 6 counties or no 6 counties.
I think the “not a foreign country in law” provision has as much to do with the position of people of Irish descent in the UK as with trade. It was no easier to disentangle whether they should count as foreigners or not in 1949 than it is now or had been in 1922.
So, say an Irish Company wishes to setup in the UK. Should it be considered a foreign or a local cooperation?
An Irish Company wishes to set up a passenger ferry service between Liverpool and Belfast; can they? EU rules on Cabotage are pretty clear, but the UK will not offer such things post Brexit.
Irish farmers sell mainly to the UK. Irish beef and milk follow EU standards like the UK does. When said standards inevitably diverge, will Ireland still be able to sell to the UK? Will they have to get a waiver?
The question of trade are major questions. Each of the above will need specific legislation or rules to cover it if you hope for it to function smoothly. Which will be based on years of detailed negotiations. And of course the EU won’t necessarily be too happy about one of its members getting privileged market access to the UK.
Now multiply the above by 1000 cases and senarios and you get an appreciation of the questions to be decided.
ETA: In 1949, Ireland was part of the Sterling Area anyway.
This is true. Unfortunately the racists were the most vocal side of the campaign.
But it is everything to do with challenging the assertion that the UK will automatically be able to get awesome business deals with the US due to the “special relationship”. The US will do what’s best for the US, the EU will do what’s best for the EU, and the UK will have very little leverage in negotiating with - or competing with - either.
Some of this stuff is already happening. UK universities are already being excluded from ERASMUS research projects. The £60m/year this involves is largely budget-neutral -the money that comes in spent on the projects, so it doesn’t affect the bottom line of the universities involved if it goes away - but it significantly reduces the drawing power of the universities, and ERASMUS is only one area of joint higher-education project funding. The universities are already taking a recruitment hit.
Time is already telling.
That’s gratifying to know. Now if only they’d get off my Facebook feed…