Leo is the new king of Ireland.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

Your political choices are neither here nor there.

What is is that on an issue you yourself raised, according to an ex government minister of the Green Party, the Green`s were approached by FG to act as go-between with SF with a view to forming a coalition government.

Then why the unnecessary reference to my political choices unless you were making a personal dig?

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

They're out of office now for 2 x consecutive terms, also unprecedented.

They didn't want to go in with them last time though, this is a vote for FG or else scare monger

Correction: Micheal Martin didn't want to go in with them last time. There were plenty of others who did.

Micheal Martin won't be leader after the next election.

FrancieBrady

We are about to see what Leo is made of now that May has more or less said the 'cast iron' backstop is dead in the water.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Then why the unnecessary reference to my political choices unless you were making a personal dig?

No personal dig.

For someone who has stated so much admiration for the Green Party, I was a bit surprised you were not aware that they were approached by FG to act as a go-between to SF. Especially in light of your original post on SF and a coalition partner.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We are about to see what Leo is made of now that May has more or less said the 'cast iron' backstop is dead in the water.

That isn't what she said. In fact, it seems she is sticking quite closely to the text of the December agreement - as I pointed out at the time.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That isn't what she said. In fact, it seems she is sticking quite closely to the text of the December agreement - as I pointed out at the time.

Leo's spokesman in March:

A spokesman for Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has said Britain's commitment to a "backstop" solution to avoid a hard post-Brexit border is legally firm and will apply until something better is agreed.

"The backstop is as legally firm as the Government said it would be in December," the spokesman said.

Today: There is no backstop.

Podge_irl

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Leo's spokesman in March:


Today: There is no backstop.

Today: May asks the EU to drop the idea of the backstop she signed up to because she did it as a political expedient and is now in ****.
Tomorrow: The EU refuses.

FrancieBrady

Podge_irl wrote: »

Today: May asks the EU to drop the idea of the backstop she signed up to because she did it as a political expedient and is now in ****.
Tomorrow: The EU refuses.

We'll see. But Leo's spokesman was talking ****e when he said it was 'legally firm'.
It never was, and I was dubious at the time.

Podge_irl

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We'll see. But Leo's spokesman was talking ****e when he said it was 'legally firm'.
It never was, and I was dubious at the time.

Why was he talking ****e? The Telegraph, that bastion of Remainers, seems to disagree.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/07/19/irish-backstop-issue-brexit-poison-pill-cannot-swallowed-side/

The "backstop" is a prerequisite of any post-Brexit deal and there is absolutely no indication from anyone that that has changed. The UK just doesn't want it, but they are stuck with it.

FrancieBrady

Podge_irl wrote: »

Why was he talking ****e? The Telegraph, that bastion of Remainers, seems to disagree.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/07/19/irish-backstop-issue-brexit-poison-pill-cannot-swallowed-side/

The "backstop" is a prerequisite of any post-Brexit deal and there is absolutely no indication from anyone that that has changed. The UK just doesn't want it, but they are stuck with it.

It clearly wasn't legally firm.

We are now in new territory. And to be honest, other than whinging, I am not sure we have anything of substance to say.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

No personal dig.

For someone who has stated so much admiration for the Green Party, I was a bit surprised you were not aware that they were approached by FG to act as a go-between to SF. Especially in light of your original post on SF and a coalition partner.

I am aware of that comment. Someone in FG flew a kite through the Greens. As much as I like their policies, the Greens can be spectacularly naive. That was one example.

If you believe that was a serious attempt at coalition talks, you disappoint me. I thought you had a bit more than that.

The reality is that FF and SF are much closer in policy and personality than SF and FG. Anyone with half a political brain can see that.

Podge_irl

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It clearly wasn't legally firm.

We are now in new territory. And to be honest, other than whinging, I am not sure we have anything of substance to say.

Why is it clearly not legally firm? I genuinely don't understand.

It doesn't even need to be legally firm anyway as long as the EU are intent on following through on their stated proposition that it is a key factor in any deal. And based on pronouncements form the EU there is no reason to doubt it. The fact May wants to backtrack is kind of irrelevant.

FrancieBrady

Podge_irl wrote: »

Why is it clearly not legally firm? I genuinely don't understand.

It doesn't even need to be legally firm anyway as long as the EU are intent on following through on their stated proposition that it is a key factor in any deal. And based on pronouncements form the EU there is no reason to doubt it. The fact May wants to backtrack is kind of irrelevant.

My understanding of 'legally firm' is that we have recourse.
Of course, we don't. It was a fiction. We are back to pre December.

Podge_irl

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My understanding of 'legally firm' is that we have recourse.
Of course, we don't. It was a fiction. We are back to pre December.

Its legally firm insofar as it absolutely has to be contained in any post-Brexit agreement. That hasn't changed and there is absolutely no reason to think it is going to. May can bleat on about it as much as she wants.

It absolutely was never intended to be legally firm in the sense that a complete no-deal Brexit would still involve a "no border" element. It is all part of the Brexit negotiations.

FrancieBrady

Podge_irl wrote: »

Its legally firm insofar as it absolutely has to be contained in any post-Brexit agreement. That hasn't changed and there is absolutely no reason to think it is going to. May can bleat on about it as much as she wants.

It absolutely was never intended to be legally firm in the sense that a complete no-deal Brexit would still involve a "no border" element. It is all part of the Brexit negotiations.

So, instead of the backslapping that went on, we should never have heard the 'bullet proof' and 'legally firm' nonsense from Leo.

Tomorrow morning we are still back where we where in December.

BonnieSituation

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, instead of the backslapping that went on, we should never have heard the 'bullet proof' and 'legally firm' nonsense from Leo.

Tomorrow morning we are still back where we where in December.

how is that our fault?

Did you think that in December that the UK would still be figuring this out at the end of JULY?

Your standards for FG are ridiculous. They have literally done everything they can re Brexit.

So much so that not one party has found a way to criticise them on that fact.

Podge_irl

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, instead of the backslapping that went on, we should never have heard the 'bullet proof' and 'legally firm' nonsense from Leo.

Tomorrow morning we are still back where we where in December.

It is legally firm in the sense that it has to be included in any post-Brexit deal.

If there is no deal there is literally no deal so obviously there will be nothing on the Irish border. There is nothing wrong with what he said whatsoever. We are absolutely not back where we were in December. Obviously the expectation is that the UK is not ludicrously stupid enough to leave without any deal whatsoever but that may in fact not be true. But there is nothing Varadkar can do about that.

FrancieBrady

BonnieSituation wrote: »

how is that our fault?

Did you think that in December that the UK would still be figuring this out at the end of JULY?

Your standards for FG are ridiculous. They have literally done everything they can re Brexit.

So much so that not one party has found a way to criticise them on that fact.

There was nothing 'legally firm' and they shouldn't have sold it as such.

Podge_irl

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There was nothing 'legally firm' and they shouldn't have sold it as such.

Have you not seen the absolute chaos it is causing in the UK? They are creating such a bloody fuss about it now because they realise how constrained they are in any possible deal by it.

It is required to be part of the post-Brexit deal. If they leave with no deal then obviously there is no agreement on the border. There is literally zero that anyone can do about that.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There was nothing 'legally firm' and they shouldn't have sold it as such.

You are posting nonsense once again. No-deal Brexit means no-deal Brexit.

No-deal means no deal on anything, including the backstop.

Varadkar did everything possible, you can't legislate or prepare for madness.

FrancieBrady

Podge_irl wrote: »

Have you not seen the absolute chaos it is causing in the UK? They are creating such a bloody fuss about it now because they realise how constrained they are in any possible deal by it.

It is required to be part of the post-Brexit deal. If they leave with no deal then obviously there is no agreement on the border. There is literally zero that anyone can do about that.

So why sell it as 'legally firm'?

Leo oversold what hadn't been achieved in December. Face it. Simple as that.

He has to step to the plate again, and I am not confident tbh.

Podge_irl

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So why sell it as 'legally firm'?

Leo oversold what hadn't been achieved in December. Face it. Simple as that.

He has to step to the plate again, and I am not confident tbh.

Because it 100% has to be included in any deal. It is legally firm that it is going to be part of any post-Brexit deal. That is all that anyone could have achieved and frankly I think its clear what was meant by the comments after it was achieved.

Why does he have to step up to the plate again? If the UK are stupid enough to head out with a no-deal Brexit there is nothing he can do about that.

FrancieBrady

Podge_irl wrote: »

Because it 100% has to be included in any deal. It is legally firm that it is going to be part of any post-Brexit deal. That is all that anyone could have achieved and frankly I think its clear what was meant by the comments after it was achieved.

Why does he have to step up to the plate again? If the UK are stupid enough to head out with a no-deal Brexit there is nothing he can do about that.

If it was 'legally firm' then he can sue on our behalf. Who's he gonna sue?

Stop defending, the impression was given that we had something legally unassailable. We didn't. Leo was spinning...again.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If it was 'legally firm' then he can sue on our behalf. Who's he gonna sue?

Stop defending, the impression was given that we had something legally unassailable. We didn't. Leo was spinning...again.

In what court could he have sued????

If there is a no-deal exit, then the ECJ is unavailable. Please explain how Leo could have sued if its was legally firm? You need to take some lessons in international law.

Podge_irl

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If it was 'legally firm' then he can sue on our behalf. Who's he gonna sue?

Stop defending, the impression was given that we had something legally unassailable. We didn't. Leo was spinning...again.

It is unassailably part of any post-Brexit deal. Nothing has changed in that respect. It is 100%, absolutely and irrefutably going to be part of any post-Brexit deal.

Other than somewhat pathetic bleating from the UK there is no indication that the deal is at risk at all. Unless they UK leave the EU with absolutely no deal whatsoever. And there is, quite obviously, nothing that can be done about that. The impression I was given is that the UK has no choice but to include this in any deal. And that is still true. If you got the impression that the UK was committing to no border even in a no-deal Brexit scenario I would suggest you simply misunderstood the entire concept of what is going on.

FrancieBrady

Podge_irl wrote: »

It is unassailably part of any post-Brexit deal. Nothing has changed in that respect. It is 100%, absolutely and irrefutably going to be part of any post-Brexit deal.

Other than somewhat pathetic bleating from the UK there is no indication that the deal is at risk at all. Unless they UK leave the EU with absolutely no deal whatsoever. And there is, quite obviously, nothing that can be done about that. The impression I was given is that the UK has no choice but to include this in any deal. And that is still true. If you got the impression that the UK was committing to no border even in a no-deal Brexit scenario I would suggest you simply misunderstood the entire concept of what is going on.

The UK has welched on the 'legally firm' deal. After we were told they wouldn't/couldn't.

"The UK has today publicly accepted the need for such a backstop to be in the text of the (EU) withdrawal agreement.

What does Leo do now? He is back in December tactically.

Podge_irl

There is absolutely, 100% nothing incorrect in that statement. The only way there won't be a backstop is if there is no EU withdrawal agreement.

FrancieBrady

Podge_irl wrote: »

There is absolutely, 100% nothing incorrect in that statement. The only way there won't be a backstop is if there is no EU withdrawal agreement.

We were told by Leo and Simon in December we had something, we had something 'legally binding;. We have nothing as it turns out. We have the Irish equivalent of 'peace in our time'.

Podge_irl

We do have something legally binding. The Irish border backstop legally has to be part of any post-Brexit deal.

If you think that is nothing you are simply incorrect. The reason May is now bringing it up is because she neither wants the backstop nor a no-deal Brexit. Unfortunately, she is completely constrained by the agreement and the backstop is forced upon her if she wants any deal. It is a desperate gamble by an increasingly desperate government. So now you are essentially using the Conservatives in the UK being weak and increasingly desperate to somehow berate FG. It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

If the UK doesn't want the backstop their only choice is a no-deal Brexit.

FrancieBrady

Podge_irl wrote: »

We do have something legally binding.

Can you link to something that is 'legally binding'? Genuinely interested in seeing that.