Leo is the new king of Ireland.

Good loser

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

If Sinn Fein went into the Commons and voted for the backstop (and won) wouldn't that make it 'legally binding'?

zell12

Praise indeed

Zubeneschamali

Podge_irl wrote: »

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.

And if, in fact, they do crash out without a deal, they will be back within a month looking for one to help them out of the depression they have landed themselves in.


And the EU will say "So, about that No Border commitment..."

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

The Green weren`t that naive in 2007 according to both John Gormley and Trevor Sargent when they were approached by FG to sound out SF on a coalition government. They told them to go and do their own dirty work.
Trevor Sargent didn`t see it as a kite flying exercise more a case of, as he put it "ask your sister will she go out with me".
According to Gormley that approach by FG included one Enda Kenny. Bit more than a kite flying exercise.


It`s not as if FG do not have previous in holding their noses when it suits them to gain power. 1997 they formed a coalition government with the Democratic Left.

Phoebas

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And if, in fact, they do crash out without a deal, they will be back within a month looking for one to help them out of the depression they have landed themselves in.


And the EU will say "So, about that No Border commitment..."

I have to agree with this. A No Deal Brexit isn't the end of the process; it's the start of a new relationship to be carved out between the UK and the EU, not limited to trade but including other bodies that cooperate on science, education, security etc

The EU will naturally raise broken promises on the Irish border when those discussions begin.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

The Green weren`t that naive in 2007 according to both John Gormley and Trevor Sargent when they were approached by FG to sound out SF on a coalition government. They told them to go and do their own dirty work.
Trevor Sargent didn`t see it as a kite flying exercise more a case of, as he put it "ask your sister will she go out with me".
According to Gormley that approach by FG included one Enda Kenny. Bit more than a kite flying exercise.


It`s not as if FG do not have previous in holding their noses when it suits them to gain power. 1997 they formed a coalition government with the Democratic Left.

So John Gormley and Trevor Sargent weren't as naive as I thought - they saw it as a complete non-runner too.

Just like some people used one line in one EU letter to "prove" there was an agenda to privatise Irish Water, using one reported conversation in the Dail as "proof" that FG will enter coalition with SF is a bit silly.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

So John Gormley and Trevor Sargent weren't as naive as I thought - they saw it as a complete non-runner too.

Just like some people used one line in one EU letter to "prove" there was an agenda to privatise Irish Water, using one reported conversation in the Dail as "proof" that FG will enter coalition with SF is a bit silly.

HowJohn Gormley or Trevor Sargent viewed that approach by FG it is not relevant.


What is relevant in the context of your original post on this is that FG were attempting to make sounding to SF on the formation of a government. Sounding according to the Greens that included members of FG in 2007 as senior as Enda Kenny.

It is not as if FG do not have history in holding their noses when it comes to gaining power.
They have formed a government with Democratic Left in the past.

FrancieBrady

Good loser wrote: »

If Sinn Fein went into the Commons and voted for the backstop (and won) wouldn't that make it 'legally binding'?

Loving the appeals for SF to bin a 100 year old principle now that the south might be affected.

The fact is here that the Dublin government had the chance in December to make a principled stand. They claimed they had something that was 'legally binding' and there wasn't.
If it was how and from whom do we seek recourse?

aroundthehouse

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Loving the appeals for SF to bin a 100 year old principle now that the south might be affected.

The fact is here that the Dublin government had the chance in December to make a principled stand. They claimed they had something that was 'legally binding' and there wasn't.
If it was how and from whom do we seek recourse?

As a matter of interest, do the SF MPs take their salaries from Westminister?

FrancieBrady

aroundthehouse wrote: »

As a matter of interest, do the SF MPs take their salaries from Westminister?

I don't know nor care. They do all the constituency work of an MP so I would imagine they do.

I never much cared for the abstentionist stance but it does have a principle behind it, 'not to interfere in what they see as a foreign entity'.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't know nor care. They do all the constituency work of an MP so I would imagine they do.

I never much cared for the abstentionist stance but it does have a principle behind it, 'not to interfere in what they see as a foreign entity'.

You cannot eat principles.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You cannot eat principles.

You do get to eat in an equal society where you share the power.

They managed to get there without welching on their principle. Leo and FG should take note.

Laois_Man

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Loving the appeals for SF to bin a 100 year old principle now that the south might be affected.

The fact is here that the Dublin government had the chance in December to make a principled stand. They claimed they had something that was 'legally binding' and there wasn't.
If it was how and from whom do we seek recourse?

Recourse from whom? In the event of a no-deal exit, if there is a hard border in Ireland along with it, that will be at the insistence of Brussels, not London!

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You do get to eat in an equal society where you share the power.

They managed to get there without welching on their principle. Leo and FG should take note.

They are putting their principles ahead of the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland. If that is they type of people they are, good luck to them. And if the people of Northern Ireland continue to blindly support that kind of non-representation, then maybe you can see why some of us aren't that keen on a united Ireland.

aroundthehouse

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't know nor care. They do all the constituency work of an MP so I would imagine they do.

I never much cared for the abstentionist stance but it does have a principle behind it, 'not to interfere in what they see as a foreign entity'.

It is laughable though, not to interfere in what they see as a foreign entity, just take their money..... the issue with the recent vote being, that foreign entity or not, it directly affects the place that they represent...

FrancieBrady

aroundthehouse wrote: »

It is laughable though, not to interfere in what they see as a foreign entity, just take their money..... the issue with the recent vote being, that foreign entity or not, it directly affects the place that they represent...

I don't think SF or their voters will lose too much sleep over somebody with only a surface understanding of an issue having a good old sneery laugh and pot shot tbh.

Podge_irl

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The fact is here that the Dublin government had the chance in December to make a principled stand.

No they didn't!!

The agreement they got, and the only agreement they were ever going to get is that it will be part of a final withdrawal treaty. What is it exactly you think they could have gotten?

blackwhite

Podge_irl wrote: »

No they didn't!!

The agreement they got, and the only agreement they were ever going to get is that it will be part of a final withdrawal treaty. What is it exactly you think they could have gotten?

The backstop means we are legally protected from the EU agreeing to a deal that imposes a hard border between NI and the Republic.
It doesn't mean, nor has anyone claimed that it means, that there's any protection in a "No Deal" scenario.

Posters pretending that it was claimed to be something else are simply being willfully ignorant to push the same old blinkered agenda that they've been peddling for years. Don't expect any honesty in debate when blinkered agendas are at play :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

The backstop means we are legally protected from the EU agreeing to a deal that imposes a hard border between NI and the Republic.
It doesn't mean, nor has anyone claimed that it means, that there's any protection in a "No Deal" scenario.

Posters pretending that it was claimed to be something else are simply being willfully ignorant to push the same old blinkered agenda that they've been peddling for years. Don't expect any honesty in debate when blinkered agendas are at play :rolleyes:

Leo claimed that the agreement on the need for a backstop was 'legally binding'.


Theresa May now says the backstop is anti the Belfast Agreement and will not agree to it.

A 'legally binding' deal was oversold is the point. Coveney is now back saying the same thing he was saying in December.

Podge_irl

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Leo claimed that the agreement on the need for a backstop was 'legally binding'.


Theresa May now says the backstop is anti the Belfast Agreement and will not agree to it.

A 'legally binding' deal was oversold is the point. Coveney is now back saying the same thing he was saying in December.

Theresa May can say whatever she wants. The dialogue coming out of Westminster is more and more deluded and desperate. She has no choice in the matter - either the backstop will be part of the withdrawal agreement or she won't have one.

You seem a lot happier to take May's increasingly erratic behaviour at face value than Varadkar's pretty consistent remarks.

Zubeneschamali

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Theresa May now says the backstop is anti the Belfast Agreement and will not agree to it.

She's bluffing to keep the DUP on side.

FrancieBrady

Podge_irl wrote: »

Theresa May can say whatever she wants. The dialogue coming out of Westminster is more and more deluded and desperate. She has no choice in the matter - either the backstop will be part of the withdrawal agreement or she won't have one.

You seem a lot happier to take May's increasingly erratic behaviour at face value than Varadkar's pretty consistent remarks.

Would you agree that there is at the present moment nothing 'legally binding'.

Where are the signatures on this 'legally binding' text?

Correct. You won't find any.

Therefore it's perfectly correct to say that this 'legally binding' PR nonsense was OVERSOLD in December.

aroundthehouse

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think SF or their voters will lose too much sleep over somebody with only a surface understanding of an issue having a good old sneery laugh and pot shot tbh.

depends on how they like it if/when a hard border comes into place

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Leo claimed that the agreement on the need for a backstop was 'legally binding'.


Theresa May now says the backstop is anti the Belfast Agreement and will not agree to it.

A 'legally binding' deal was oversold is the point. Coveney is now back saying the same thing he was saying in December.

"Legally binding" means that the EU and UK cannot agree something that imposes a hard border. There's legal recourse for us against both the EU and UK if they tried to agree otherwise.

There was never an implication (except maybe in your head :rolleyes:) that anything was agreed to cover a "no deal" scenario.

Stop making stuff up - it's transparent exactly what you're trying to push, and it's the same rubbish that drags so many threads into the gutter.

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

"Legally binding" means that the EU and UK cannot agree something that imposes a hard border. There's legal recourse for us against both the EU and UK if they tried to agree otherwise.

There was never an implication (except maybe in your head :rolleyes:) that anything was agreed to cover a "no deal" scenario.

Stop making stuff up - it's transparent exactly what you're trying to push, and it's the same rubbish that drags so many threads into the gutter.

Nonsense reading of what I am saying.
I know you have to deliberately misread it because there was nothing 'legally binding' agreed or signed in December and it cannot be produced.
The UK rejected the draft legal text.

seamus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Loving the appeals for SF to bin a 100 year old principle now that the south might be affected.

The appeals here, certainly from my point of view, are because the entire island will be affected. You know, the 32 counties that Sinn Féin love so much?

A hard border on the island again has the potential to set the peace process back by 30 years and with it, any chance of achieving a united Ireland.

A no-deal Brexit leaves non-loyalist populations in the North at a significant disadvantage, since unbound by EU regulations the UK is under no obligation to uphold equality laws and human rights abuses are only reportable to the UN.

A unionist westminster presence in a non-aligned UK, gives them the power to permanently end devolution and begin a slow and systematic erosion of all of the rights and protections for nationalists in NI.

A return to violence is only one generation away.

All while Sinn Fein sit on their hands, because "principles".

This is a golden opportunity for Sinn Féin. The principle of their abstentionism is to refuse to recognise the primacy of Westminster over Northern Ireland.

Now they have their first chance, ever, to strike a death blow to that primacy. A border in the Irish Sea would make Irish unity all but inevitable. This is their biggest ever opportunity to use their power to rise up in civil rebellion against the crown's claim over Northern Ireland. If the UK leaves without a deal, they will not get a chance like this again for another century.

Podge_irl

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nonsense reading of what I am saying.
I know you have to deliberately misread it because there was nothing 'legally binding' agreed or signed in December and it cannot be produced.
The UK rejected the draft legal text.

The EU and the UK agreed to have a legally binding section on the backstop in any withdrawal agreement. It is a pre-requisite of any agreement whatsoever. If there is no withdrawal agreement then indeed there is no backstop.

This is rather absurd pedantry to criticise FG because the Conservatives in the UK are imploding.

FrancieBrady

seamus wrote: »

The appeals here, certainly from my point of view, are because the entire island will be affected. You know, the 32 counties that Sinn Féin love so much?

A hard border on the island again has the potential to set the peace process back by 30 years and with it, any chance of achieving a united Ireland.

A no-deal Brexit leaves non-loyalist populations in the North at a significant disadvantage, since unbound by EU regulations the UK is under no obligation to uphold equality laws and human rights abuses are only reportable to the UN.

A unionist westminster presence in a non-aligned UK, gives them the power to permanently end devolution and begin a slow and systematic erosion of all of the rights and protections for nationalists in NI.

A return to violence is only one generation away.

All while Sinn Fein sit on their hands, because "principles".

This is a golden opportunity for Sinn Féin. The principle of their abstentionism is to refuse to recognise the primacy of Westminster over Northern Ireland.

Now they have their first chance, ever, to strike a death blow to that primacy. A border in the Irish Sea would make Irish unity all but inevitable. This is their biggest ever opportunity to use their power to rise up in civil rebellion against the crown's claim over Northern Ireland. If the UK leaves without a deal, they will not get a chance like this again for another century.

That goes hand and hand with 'not wanting to interfere in the running of another country'.

You cannot switch that principle on and off just because it might suit. It isn't a 'principle' then.

The people who were at the 'table', who had the actual power(FG's coalition gov) could have walked away when the DUP pulled their strop, but they didn't, thus allowing the Irish Sea solution to be shelved.

McMurphy

seamus wrote: »

The appeals here, certainly from my point of view, are because the entire island will be affected. You know, the 32 counties that Sinn F love so much?

Many nationalist/Republican voters vote for them (SF) because they abstain.

They have an alternative party of a nationalist persuasion to vote for that do take their seats, ie SDLP, but they aren't showing much appetite to do so.

FrancieBrady

Podge_irl wrote: »

The EU and the UK agreed to have a legally binding section on the backstop in any withdrawal agreement. It is a pre-requisite of any agreement whatsoever. If there is no withdrawal agreement then indeed there is no backstop.

This is rather absurd pedantry to criticise FG because the Conservatives in the UK are imploding.

Varadkar himself said again and again that it was a 'legally binding' agreement, a 'cast iron political agreement' and that it was 'bulletproof'.

Are you seriously saying today that it was not 'oversold' as the above?