Brexit discussion thread III

Leroy42

123shooter wrote: »

But what choice do you have if you do not agree with any of the peoples policies.

Where I you given the choice for .........none of theses lot and I want change?

Probably will never be given that choice ever by anyone........I wonder why.

Well that is a deeper argument about democracy.

In this ref, it was a binary choice. By not voting you are letting those that vote have their views taken more seriously than yours.

You may not like the choices but simply avoiding making a choice does nothing to help your POV on the issue.

Professor Moriarty

123shooter wrote: »

I too spent a lot of time in the UK in the past and lets get things clear also on the things you have highlighted.

No Irish signs......I never saw any (but not around in the 1950's) but Irish people around the world are stereotyped as drinking and fighting.

Thick Paddy Jokes ......... Well again some of the Irish were not subject to great education at that time and again with Irish comedians highlighting this fact and exaggerated these facts in every part of their act all of the time throughout the 60's. 70's and 80's. Irish comedians like Spike Milligan, Frank Carson, Dave Allen, Jimmy Cricket. The list is almost endless.

There was a time for over 25 years were Irish people were also known for letting bombs of in the UK and killing lots of people. So the police will of course stop and detain Irish speaking people.

All of this was not the fault of the normal UK person and if they formed a bad opinion of Irish people it certainly never stopped them letting ..............Irish people enter the UK, ...............work in the UK, ............prosper in the UK .........and ...............inter marry in the UK.

In fact you could say the average British Joe in all has been very welcoming to Irish people and certainly wouldn't think that because they have chosen to leave the EU, that they think the Irish must be punished, whereas in this thread?

I wonder. :rolleyes:

I think you should read some of the recent articles about Ireland in the Tory press related to Brexit if you think anti-Irish sentiment has gone away.

Anyway, to your points. So it's fine to tell racist jokes because Irish people are perceived to be drunks and fighters. And because they are perceived to be uneducated. And it's fine for police to detain a person because of their accent (or for "speaking Irish"). Got that.

Tell me, if detaining people is fine because of their accent, I suppose colour of skin, the way they dress, the language they speak, where they worship etc. would also be reasons for people to be detained?

123shooter

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think you should read some of the recent articles about Ireland in the Tory press related to Brexit if you think anti-Irish sentiment has gone away.

Anyway, to your points. So it's fine to tell racist jokes because Irish people are perceived to be drunks and fighters. And because they are perceived to be uneducated. And it's fine for police to detain a person because of their accent (or for "speaking Irish". Got that.

Tell me, if detaining people is fine because of their accent, I suppose colour of skin, the way they dress, the language they speak, where they worship etc. would also be reasons for people to be detained?

Woah !!!!

Hold on this conversation was always about the UK average person........Not the press!!

If anyone gets an opinion of a countries people from the right wing press then it would never be correct. Most people I know couldn't give a monkeys who Prince Harry wants to marry.


As regards your points.........

Jokes........Ask those comedians listed.

Detaining people..........In those days !!........Thats what was done..........for the security of the country.........Today things are done differently.

Would Ireland and Irish people in Ireland done or be any different?

Professor Moriarty

123shooter wrote: »

Woah !!!!

Hold on this conversation was always about the UK average person........Not the press!!

If anyone gets an opinion of a countries people from the right wing press then it would never be correct. Most people I know couldn't give a monkeys who Prince Harry wants to marry.


As regards your points.........

Jokes........Ask those comedians listed.

Detaining people..........In those days !!........Thats what was done..........for the security of the country.........Today things are done differently.

Would Ireland and Irish people in Ireland done or be any different?

Of course it's different now, though that progression can be fragile as we have seen in the US. However, I suspect that the Little Englander press will whip up xenophobia even further after Brexit. Your attempts to justify anti-Irish sentiment by blaming Irish people is pathetic.

123shooter

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Of course it's different now, though that progression can be fragile as we have seen in the US. However, I suspect that the Little Englander press will whip up xenophobia even further after Brexit. Your attempts to justify anti-Irish sentiment by blaming Irish people is pathetic.

I think your attack on my points highlights a few things. :rolleyes: Especially how you have tried to twist things around as to I am trying to blame Irish people. :rolleyes:

Professor Moriarty

123shooter wrote: »

I think your attack on my points highlights a few things. :rolleyes: Especially how you have tried to twist things around as to I am trying to blame Irish people. :rolleyes:

"No Irish signs......I never saw any (but not around in the 1950's) but Irish people around the world are stereotyped as drinking and fighting."

"Thick Paddy Jokes ......... Well again some of the Irish were not subject to great education at that time"

"There was a time for over 25 years were Irish people were also known for letting bombs of in the UK and killing lots of people. So the police will of course stop and detain Irish speaking people."

You wrote these lines. They are worthy of the Little Englander Brexiteer Press. In fact, they are racist.

123shooter

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

"No Irish signs......I never saw any (but not around in the 1950's) but Irish people around the world are stereotyped as drinking and fighting."

"Thick Paddy Jokes ......... Well again some of the Irish were not subject to great education at that time"

"There was a time for over 25 years were Irish people were also known for letting bombs of in the UK and killing lots of people. So the police will of course stop and detain Irish speaking people."

You wrote these lines. They are worthy of the Little Englander Brexiteer Press. In fact, they are racist.

They are not at all racist.........They are actual facts of what is now history even up until quiet recently.

For example I remember Gerry Ryan I think it was talking about the same thing when an Irish person (charactor) appeared in an Australian soap in the 1990's.....Was this radio personality a racist?

How is mentioning the Police's actions on the acts of Irish terrorists racist?

How is mentioning that Irish people exagerate and tell jokes to make money racist?

Professor Moriarty

123shooter wrote: »

They are not at all racist.........They are actual facts of what is now history even up until quiet recently.

For example I remember Gerry Ryan I think it was talking about the same thing when an Irish person (charactor) appeared in an Australian soap in the 1990's.

Gerry Ryan... 1990s....Australian soap character... Whatever.

You're comments are racist. You're attempt to defend them speaks volumes. Typical of the latent racism just below the surface of the Tory Brexiteer press that I'm guessing you read.

123shooter

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Gerry Ryan... 1990s....Australian soap character... Whatever.

You're comments are racist. You're attempt to defend them speaks volumes. Typical of the latent racism just below the surface of the Tory Brexiteer press that I'm guessing you read.

No you are just trying to wriggle out of what you said about UK people being against Irish people.

I am not a Tory or a racist and I didn't vote for Brexit and not a newspaper reporter either.:)

Professor Moriarty

123shooter wrote: »

No you are just trying to wriggle out of what you said about UK people being against Irish people.

I am not a Tory or a racist and I didn't vote for Brexit and not a newspaper reporter either.:)

I stand over everything I said about anti-Irish sentiment being prevalent throughout British society until the 90s. I also stand over the fact that elements of latent anti-Irish sentiment have resurfaced in the Little Englander press over that past few weeks in the context of Ireland's refusal to acquiesce to Britain's Brexit demands.

I note that you stand over your racist comments that I highlighted.

This particular discussion is becoming circular. I'm leaving it at that.

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm leaving it at that.

Mod: Please do, both of you as we may be veering off topic. Thanks.

mickoneill31

123shooter wrote: »

But what choice do you have if you do not agree with any of the peoples policies.

Where I you given the choice for .........none of theses lot and I want change?

Probably will never be given that choice ever by anyone........I wonder why.

This is a Brexit thread. The choice was to stay in the EU or leave it. It's hard to argue disagreeing with both sides. I don't really listen to people who quote the percentages. The reality is that a certain percentage couldn't be bothered going to their polling station. So including them in either side isn't appropriate.

As for your general point, if you want change and you're not given the choice you want you can put yourself forward, or choose a candidate closest to your own political stance. You don't have to wait to be given the choice.

123shooter

mickoneill31 wrote: »

As for your general point, if you want change and you're not given the choice you want you can put yourself forward, or choose a candidate closest to your own political stance. You don't have to wait to be given the choice.

This is very true but the system is biased against that as it all comes down to cash.

An Ciarraioch

All that being said, perhaps we should careful ourselves not to fall into the same trap in relation to Northern unionism - what is viewed in the Republic as simply preserving the status quo, while promoting an all-island economy, has been interpreted by Unionists in a rather more political manner, so as ever, tact will be required to repair North-South relations.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Mod: Please do, both of you as we may be veering off topic. Thanks.

Off topic posts deleted.

Professor Moriarty

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

All that being said, perhaps we should careful ourselves not to fall into the same trap in relation to Northern unionism - what is viewed in the Republic as simply preserving the status quo, while promoting an all-island economy, has been interpreted by Unionists in a rather more political manner, so as ever, tact will be required to repair North-South relations.

Neither should we dilute the defence of our own interests lest the DUP disapproves. Tact and sensitivity yes, but we must assert ourselves and defend the rights of those in NI who look to the Republic for support. Reading the British press' reportage of Brexit discussions and the border issue, you would assume that NI was a single party state consisting of Unionists only.

An Ciarraioch

Tony Connelly believes Phase 2 will only begin when Phase 1 is enacted:

https://mobile.twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/939880734625591296

Professor Moriarty

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Tony Connelly believes Phase 2 will only begin when Phase 1 is enacted:

https://mobile.twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/939880734625591296

If Connelly is right then Davis lied to the British public this morning.

Leroy42

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Tony Connelly believes Phase 2 will only begin when Phase 1 is enacted:

https://mobile.twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/939880734625591296

Inacted? How? By not having a border in NI? Are they expecting the UK to pass legislation based on it?

Enzokk

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If Connelly is right then Davis lied to the British public this morning.

That would be twice in one week. You would expect the EU to not be happy with the UK officials basically saying progress so far is conditional and can be withdrawn at the UK's will.

You can expect the pressure to be ramped up on Theresa May now to ensure this is actually followed through by the UK side and not just hollow agreements for local consumption.

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

That would be twice in one week. You would expect the EU to not be happy with the UK officials basically saying progress so far is conditional and can be withdrawn at the UK's will.

You can expect the pressure to be ramped up on Theresa May now to ensure this is actually followed through by the UK side and not just hollow agreements for local consumption.

Whatever about Leo and Simon, who will be seen as bit players by the Tories, Juncker, Tusk and Barnier are far too powerful to be deceiving. A combination of arrogance and an incoherent stategy means that the likes of Davis can go on the BBC and contradict an agreement made three days ago. I expect the EU to respond in kind with a reiteration that the agreement must be adhered to definitively and in full. Something that will drive the Brexiteers crazy, which is unfortunate.

Water John

As posted here last night, by An Ciarroich, the EU are already ranking up the pressure on the UK. The notion of the UK now being ambivalent on Phase 1 is laughable.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/09/global-powers-lobby-to-stop-special-brexit-deal-for-uk

J Mysterio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If Connelly is right then Davis lied to the British public this morning.

Again...

Water John

At the start, I saw him on Question Time, with his condescending sneer. Put him down as a buffoon. Knew Barnier would chew him up and spit him out.

Barnier, for us was a master choice, he had, skin in the game, having been previously involved in the GFA. Sorry DUP, Belfast Agreement.

steddyeddy

The BBC reporting that the Irish government's chief whip is questioning Davis' claim that the UK/EU deal isn't binding.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-42298971

"But he (Davis) stressed that the deal struck by Theresa May on Friday to move to the next phase of talks was a "statement of intent" and not "legally enforceable".

And if the UK failed to get a trade deal with the EU then it would not pay its divorce bill, which the Treasury says will be between £35bn and £39bn.

But the Irish government said that as far as it was concerned the agreement signed on Friday between the EU and the UK was binding. Once again the Irish are the ones calling out the falsehoods of UK politicians.



"The European Union will be holding the United Kingdom to account," the Irish government's chief whip told RTE.

"My question to anybody within the British government would be, why would there be an agreement, a set of principled agreements, in order to get to phase two, if they weren't going to be held up? That just sounds bizarre to me," Joe McHugh told RTE Radio's This Week."

recedite

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Tony Connelly believes Phase 2 will only begin when Phase 1 is enacted:

https://mobile.twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/939880734625591296

The word used in the text is "progress" not "begin".
The EU is likely to certify next Friday that sufficient progress was made in Phase 1 for Phase 2 to begin. If it transpires later that the UK is not bothering to draft a Withdrawal Agreement, then progress in Phase 2 could be halted. When that Withdrawal Agreement has been signed by HM govt and ratified in Parliament then it becomes binding as far as the UK is concerned.

Any future trade agreement will presumably be a different agreement, but presumably the UK Parliament will want to know what is in it before they ratify the Withdrawal Agreement.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-text/eu-draft-guidelines-on-brexit-transition-and-a-future-relationship-with-britain-idUSKBN1E20WM

Samaris

Leroy42 wrote: »

Inacted? How? By not having a border in NI? Are they expecting the UK to pass legislation based on it?

Yes, it would seem so. I did see the line in the document, it's fairly near the beginning and I think in the Divorce bill section, indicating that the Withdrawel bill is to be put into legislation to ensure it is committed to.

I wasn't quite sure at the time if there were any bits excepted, so I'm glad someone like Connolly is saying as much too.

Either a) Davis lied, b) Davis is a bloody idiot who didn't read the thing or c) both. I'd hazard, based on prior form, c.

Samaris

Missed your post when I was posting, recedite. But on that reuters article, about time the other WTO countries came out and went "Oy". The EU weren't going to give Britain a bells-and-whistles "gold plated" trade deal, it's bad for the EU on several fronts, notably the WTO one. But the comments in the Reuters article give EU spokespeople a chance to shrug and say "The world doesn't accept it", rather than being the baddies of the piece (read; responsible adults of the piece). Although I note they did reiterate both reasons, and tbh, both are fair.

recedite

Well certainly there's a lot of weaselly words around, and not much in the way of actual signatures.
My reading of Varadkar's "victory" is that the paragraph containing the committment to NI regulatory alignment will be in the Withdrawal Agreement... when it appears.
Not that it is binding now. I know others seem to think it is binding now, but I don't see any signatures on treaties yet.
May probably said as much to Arlene over the phone, allowing her to agree to it in advance of next Friday's deadline.

recedite

recedite wrote: »

Well certainly there's a lot of weaselly words around, and not much in the way of actual signatures.
My reading of Varadkar's "victory" is that the paragraph containing the committment to NI regulatory alignment will be in the Withdrawal Agreement... when it appears.
Not that it is binding now. I know others seem to think it is binding now, but I don't see any signatures on treaties yet.
May probably said as much to Arlene over the phone, allowing her to agree to it in advance of next Friday's deadline.

No UK government can bind a future parliament to legislation, so the British government simply cannot commit to this yet. Whatever agreement it does sign, will be on behalf of the government and will be drafted in such a way that it can be overturned by parliament. anything else would not be constitutionally legal within the UK. The eu's only course of action will be to withdraw any reciprocal agreement and as there is none as yet, this agreement simply can't be binding.

Really Interested

Aegir wrote: »

No UK government can bind a future parliament to legislation, so the British government simply cannot commit to this yet. Whatever agreement it does sign, will be on behalf of the government and will be drafted in such a way that it can be overturned by parliament. anything else would not be constitutionally legal within the UK. The eu's only course of action will be to withdraw any reciprocal agreement and as there is none as yet, this agreement simply can't be binding.

So in effect the UK is saying to the whole world our word means nothing, the word of the Queens government means nothing at all. Great tactic when you want a hundred plus countries to do deals with you.

Really Interested

Really Interested wrote: »

So in effect the UK is saying to the whole world our word means nothing, the word of the Queens government means nothing at all. Great tactic when you want a hundred plus countries to do deals with you.

It’s no different to any other country where parliament is sovereign. Don’t confuse “government” with “parliament”.

Besides, how can legislation be passed when we still have no idea what the future uk/eu relationship will look like?

Really Interested

Aegir wrote: »

It’s no different to any other country where parliament is sovereign. Don’t confuse “government” with “parliament”.

Besides, how can legislation be passed when we still have no idea what the future uk/eu relationship will look like?

I know the difference between the UK parliament and government there was a recent SC case on the issue.

But that does not take away from the UK saying our HMG really can’t do any deal and even if ratified by parliament we can walk away any time.

Really Interested

Really Interested wrote: »

I know the difference between the UK parliament and government there was a recent SC case on the issue.

But that does not take away from the UK saying our HMG really can’t do any deal and even if ratified by parliament we can walk away any time.

That’s no different to what the eu are saying.

Really Interested

Aegir wrote: »

That’s no different to what the eu are saying.

What issue has the EU given a agreement on and a senior politicians says but sure that agreement does not matter if we don’t get what we want we will pull out?

Really Interested

Really Interested wrote: »

What issue has the EU given a agreement on and a senior politicians says but sure that agreement does not matter if we don’t get what we want we will pull out?

One of the eu’s core principles was that the negotiations will be transparent and treated as an entire package, on the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

So yes, that’s what they’ve been saying from the get go.

Tell me how

Aegir wrote: »

No UK government can bind a future parliament to legislation, so the British government simply cannot commit to this yet. Whatever agreement it does sign, will be on behalf of the government and will be drafted in such a way that it can be overturned by parliament. anything else would not be constitutionally legal within the UK. The eu's only course of action will be to withdraw any reciprocal agreement and as there is none as yet, this agreement simply can't be binding.

Who would then be willing to sign deals with the UK if they just ripped it up and started again as it suited them?

It isn't a video game where you can go back to the last saved position if the sh*t hits the fan.

Really Interested

Aegir wrote: »

One of the eu’s core principles was that the negotiations will be transparent and treated as an entire package, on the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

So yes, that’s what they’ve been saying from the get go.

That is not the same as saying if we not happy we can throw out a bit we agreed in good faith.

The EU says nothing is a deal until the end. Davis says you can’t take anything we say as our promise.

Vronsky

Really Interested wrote: »

That is not the same as saying if we not happy we can throw out a bit we agreed in good faith.

The EU says nothing is a deal until the end. Davis says you can’t take anything we say as our promise.

This is correct. Essentially the first phase can be considered as a chapter that is now closed - Davis stating that what was agreed had no meaning means the UK was negotiating in bad faith.

It's bizarre since the council hasn't agreed to move to phase two. It would be delicious if his loose lips sunk the agreement.

Really Interested

Really Interested wrote: »

That is not the same as saying if we not happy we can throw out a bit we agreed in good faith.

The EU says nothing is a deal until the end. Davis says you can’t take anything we say as our promise.

Both sides are effectively saying that if we aren’t happy, then we walk away.

Or, to put it another way, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Nate--IRL--

Aegir wrote: »

It’s no different to any other country where parliament is sovereign. Don’t confuse “government” with “parliament”.

Besides, how can legislation be passed when we still have no idea what the future uk/eu relationship will look like?

Fine, we'll wait until Parliament gives its consent for Phase 1......

Nate

Samaris

Having committed to bind itself to it is much the same as being bound by it in terms of trade agreements going ahead. If the government is not intending to follow through, that is going to be noticed very quickly. And it's a bit daft to go back to your side shouting "It's okay, I had my fingers crossed!" But even if Davis hadn't noticed the rest of the world could hear him, it would have fallen through by February or so. The talks aren't even going to start until February or March, so if they stall, the same game over scenario awaits.

It is very pointless. This will all go nowhere until this pack of Etonian nitwits take the whole thing seriously.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Who would then be willing to sign deals with the UK if they just ripped it up and started again as it suited them.

Every deal ever signed between two parliamentary democracies will be on that basis.

I would hazard a guess and say that if the eu parliament wanted to, it could rip up every single trade deal the eu has ever signed.

If a parliament can’t change things, then what is the point of having a parliament?

steddyeddy

The Irish government says Ireland and the EU will hold the UK to account over the Irish border promise. Does Davis not know he said what he said on TV?

http://jrnl.ie/3742638f

Samaris

Samaris wrote: »

Having committed to bind itself to it is much the same as being bound by it in terms of trade agreements going ahead.

That’s it though, isn’t it.

If the uk reneges, it gets no trade deal, which is what it desperately wants. If the eu decide that no, it’s ok thanks, we’re not doing a trade deal, then the uk walks away from what has already been agreed.

steddyeddy

I actually thought the capitulation of the UK government to every demand meant they had learned a lesson in power balance. I guess not.

axer

steddyeddy wrote: »

I actually thought the capitulation of the UK government to every demand meant they had learned a lesson in power balance. I guess not.

I think they still think we'd better go along just to get past this hurdle but we are still in control since we can just say "no thanks" and walk away from things if we don't get a good trade deal. Deluded isn't a strong enough word...

Water John

Maybe it's more of, them thinking, they can delude the UK public.

Capt'n Midnight

Water John wrote: »

Maybe it's more of, them thinking, they can delude the UK public.

He can even delude himself

Brexit: David Davis wants 'Canada plus plus plus' trade deal

Mr Davis said he wanted a "bespoke" deal with the EU and was aiming for "overarching" agreement with no tariffs, that included the service industries - which are a key part of the British economy.

and denial is a big river in Egypt

Samaris

Aegir wrote: »

That’s it though, isn’t it.

If the uk reneges, it gets no trade deal, which is what it desperately wants. If the eu decide that no, it’s ok thanks, we’re not doing a trade deal, then the uk walks away from what has already been agreed.

And then the chaos really starts of a hard brexit, with no trade deals, a total lack of preparation from the British side, and the EU as a hostile actor in trade talks within the WTO. Again, I really don't see the point, although I absolutely accept that the current government is just deluded and incompetent enough to try it. God knows just how severe reality will have to get for it to set in to them that all of this was an exercise in massive hubris with no discernible ability or sense to see it through.