Enda

(i) That you lot are going to seriously regret threatening peace in NI; (ii) we're relieved that our government is a lot more sensible than either the UK's or the US' at the moment; (iii) we're thankful for the boys of 1916 for getting us independence from your disastrous state of affairs; (iv) that we could never really trust our "best friend" Britain to act in good faith with the North anyway, and so if you're being unreasonable about the whole EU thing (and IMHO you are being completely unreasonable) well then we'll see yiz later.

UK universities (my industries) will be hit badly too. All six of America's 2016 Nobel Prize winners are/were immigrants there, several of them from the UK actually. Cambridge and Oxford and the LSE are not going to be able to attract the best in the world. The UK will lose out on brain power, on the free advice academics offer to government/the national debate, and on brilliant teachers inspiring the next generation. You'll be less innovative as a result.

Not sure if srs? If 3.7m foreign workers leave, then aggregate demand falls. Demand falls, places shut down, there are fewer jobs. Lump of labour fallacy, innit?

No way, not since we got those Recaro benches put in a few years back.

Ireland has been a net contributor for a few years now. The purely "taxes versus expenditures" component is relatively unimportant compared to the economic (i.e. private, not just government-based) benefits of freer trade. Since Brexit, Ireland has had a reminder of the benefits of the customs union and of the single market and so support for the EU has risen in the last year. There is wiggle room from year to year, but there are clear rules/boundaries set out on medium-term (i.e. seven year) horizons. That last seven year funding round is what you lot agreed to and are now pulling out from, which is causing the bit of a fuss.

It's a bit messier than that. The Treaties are not where you've agreed to fund scientific research for the next few years. Obviously what the EU spends its money on changes from year to year, so the specifics of that are not Treaty-worthy. You still signed up to pay scientists though, enforceable by the Treaties. Brexit causes all these hassles for other European countries (the Irish border, for example), and to add to that you're now skimping on what we had all previously agreed. That's not to say we (Europeans) don't respect the will of the British people to withdraw from the EU, we do -- but pulling out of agreed funding commitments? I'm a little bit surprised nobody is referring to this as a default. That's what it is. I think it's childish and, forgive me here, frankly arrogant to contest payment that you've committed to.

So, Labour wants you lot to stay in the single market and customs union. Meanwhile, the UK government is not making any progress on negotiations.

1. We're useless at little things like throw-ins, or blocking the fecking ball when it's pinging around the box. 2. Bruce was thick with that formation, but fair dues to him for changing it so soon. 3. I thought the ref was fair. Let the match flow. 4. Lucky to get anything from the game. 5. We're not getting promoted

I saw this on Twitter. The other day the UK government released an official policy document on Northern Ireland - link here. It claims the Good Friday Agreement says "Northern Ireland's constitutional status is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland alone to determine." . Only problem is that's completely false. The whole point of the Good Friday Agreement (what got the IRA to put the guns away) was that the Republic was given a say in the constitutional status of NI. Absolutely hopeless. Your government is hopeless, folks. You're being led by the blind.

This report thinks seems to think Ireland is in Schengen, and that there are passport controls on the border. http://imgur.com/a/ndeFI That's not true.

Yeah? About 6 out of every 1000 people in Great Britain is Irish (link). About 25 out of every 1000 people in the Republic of Ireland is British (link).

The weird gay bashers were the only party in NI to support Brexit. Given that they're losing ground to nationalists and republicans, I'm fairly sure they want as hard a border with the Republic as possible. Which the chlorinated chicken will give them, as we cannot let that into the EU. And how will a hard border, coupled with the appearance of Downing St breaking its commitment of neutrality, play out for the security of the people of NI? Ticking time bomb, quite literally. The hard Brexiteers are poking a terrorist machine that's been quiet for two decades. For chlorinated chickens.

1. I'll ask it again. Do you want to grant the Commission the power to forcibly make the UK accept asylum seekers that landed in Italy? Are you really okay with that, and all that it implies? 2. "What would you call the deal that Sweden is currently getting in a union that preaches equality between states?" I'd call it a messy compromise with no obvious solution. I'd call it a real world problem with so many complexities that phrases like "the EU should reform" are about as useful as saying "We should restructure the economy to work better for people." Nobody disagrees that last statement until you actually get into the meat and bones of it. What sort of restructuring do you want? Do you mean more generous rates of UB, or do you mean fully blown state control of enterprise? They're very different things, and there's no obvious right answer when you get beyond the slogans. Same with "reform the EU" imho.

The not hearing me comment came off as crass, sorry. Let me use an analogy. When I think of reform, I think big picture stuff. More "Let's abolish the House of Lords" than "Let's lower taxes by 5%". So when I hear reform I think more fundamental constitutional-esque changes like voting, rather than a fairly specific policy area like CAP. When I said "you're not hearing me", I should have said something along the lines of I wasn't clear what I was looking for.

Lads, you're not hearing me. Saying we should enforce quotas on asylum seekers is a complaint, not a specific reform. The issue is legal authority. Do you want to grant the Commission the power to forcibly make the UK accept asylum seekers that landed in Italy? Are you really okay with that, and all that it implies? If you are, grand, then say you want the Commission to have powers to relocate people between Member States' borders. (For what it's worth, I'd be completely against that. Although the asylum seeker numbers are very clearly a big issue, I don't see it as a problem that's easily solved/something which I can rightly blame the EU for. Sweden, very very decently, have accepted a ton of immigrants under their roof. That's not Ireland's problem. The most I'd be willing to accept is we sit down with Sweden and have a chat about our moral responsibilities and try reach a friendly agreement. I don't want the EU to have stronger powers there, so I don't see this as an EU problem.) Same thing with environmental laws or the CAP. Step forward and proclaim you want the Commission more powers to punish/fine the UK if it doesn't adhere to standards. Coming up with something that: Is more than a symbolic gesture Permits the Commission or the European Parliament to act swiftly and decisively Respects national sovereignty/"take back control"/not moving towards a United States of Europe situation is bloody hard. I'd suggest that the actual location of Parliament is relatively minor in terms of point 1 above, though happy to agree to disagree on that. Any reforms to CAP or environmental enforcement quickly pushes against 3. I'm not asking for you to point out the bloody obvious that Sweden has taken more asylum seekers than it can handle or that CAP "isn't perfect". The real issue here, the way I see it, is people want the EU to function more decisively, but also want to "take back control" or complain about laws that go against their own national interest. You cannot have both. It's very very very easy to bitch about the EU and say it needs reform. It's much harder to make a suggestion that satisfies all three of the above.

One two specific questions for ya, blandy: do you think the EU should consider a country's environmental policy/carbon footprint/ratification of Paris Accord when it is negotiating trade deals with them, i.e. do you think we should be "friendlier" with countries that are trying to curb carbon emissions? Second question: should the EU consider a country's human rights/military policy when it is negotiating trade deals with them, i.e. do you think we should use our economic strength to influence whether Russia invades Ukraine/Uganda kills gay people etc?

Fair enough on the movement of the Parliament, no complaints there. The other two are a lot more murky and again sort of just refer to "reform" without any detail. For example, would you like the Commission to have more executive power to plow ahead without much discussion with UK farmers over CAP payments, or would you like it more decentralised and more bargaining power given to Member States? Same question with trade negotiations. Are you happy with the new Union Customs Code, or which bits should be changed? Do you think Member States should have more say, even if this inevitably slows the process down? As I said, "I hear this a lot, but I've never heard specifics." I know I'm being picky here, sorry for that, but I would love if we put a tax on saying "The EU needs reform" without giving any specific ideas/critiques/suggestions!

I hear this a lot, but I've never heard specifics. Please list the top three processes you'd like to see reformed. Not policies, or contentious issues, or personalities, or mutterings about bureaucrats in Brussels, but actual clear processes. For example, "I would like the Commission to be directly elected" or "I would like QMV applied to matter of taxation." Your top three. Thanks.

The same Japanese Ambassador that said you'd lose jobs unless you stayed in the Single Market, yeah?

BBC I'd imagine the time this gets formally singed ye're not going to be part of it, unfortunately.

Reading old posts in this thread is wonderful. Macron will never be leader of France, the Euro will be dead, access the single market without freedom of movement, the British economy will never slip into recession, refuse to engage in trade negotiations until Gibraltar is taken off the table... some great ones altogether.

Obviously Brexit man above is a good example an uninformed voter, but he was a teeny bit tricked in the interview. “If every single member could veto every single bill in the European Parliament. If every member country had the power to veto anything significant?” This is mostly true. All bills on very important issues (taxes, foreign policy, etc) require unanimity, i.e. any one country can veto. But most legislation is passed by qualified majority voting, and there *are* some areas that are done by QMV that are "significant", e.g. environmental policy. So Malta/Ireland/Germany can't veto just anything - thankfully, otherwise nothing would get done - but Malta/Ireland/Germany can veto anything crucial. So the distinction is "crucial" rather than "significant", which I admit is sort of splitting hairs, but still. The U.K. can be outvoted on some things.

Again, I'm asking you name me one "extreme consequence" from the EU if the UK lowered its corporate tax rate to 0%. Just one will do.

Because we Europeans would like to continue having the UK as part of the open skies agreement so we can all fly to each other without much hassle, but we need to make sure you're not going to privatise air traffic control first. And we'd like to have free trade in poultry with you too, but need to make sure you're not using chlorine to wash your chickens. And we'd like to figure out how we can avoid a border in Northern Ireland, but need to make sure you're not going to use that as a round-about way to get your Chinese TVs you got in that hypothetical free trade deal into the single market via Dublin.