Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

fash

RobMc59 wrote: »

How can you welch on a deal that was never in force?

That depends on what you call the "deal" - Theresa may signed off on the WA draft and the general principles were signed off on by the cabinet. They are the ones who "welched" in the deal.
Parliament was entitled to do what it did- although it was quite incompetent of Theresa May that it arrived at that point.

woohoo!!!

The department of foreign affairs identified early on that the issue of the border would cause havoc if it formed part of trade deal negotiations, that it would be used as a bargaining chip used by Westminster. Therefore it was of utmost importance that it did not and needed to be nailed down before trade negotiations commenced.

As events have proved this foresight has been proven 100% correct. That the UK has proven to be such a shambles has always been on the cards since their GE, just that the extent of it has caught people off guard.

The backstop is an absolute pre-require to trade talks, it actually protects both sides from the border being used against them.

The proof in the pudding is that whilst their is a lot of division and tension over a range of issues within the EU27, but not over Brexit, at all.

VonZan

Imreoir2 wrote: »

What is more important, the GFA or the only avalable credible mechanism to protect the GFA?

How do you suppose the GFA can be protected without the backstop? Please, answer that one if you can.

He can't and they can't. Some people in the UK think an empire still exists and that they can do what they want simply because they're British. Unfortunately what they want is simply impossible to deliver. You cannot have a frictionless border or trade without a common set of rules, something the UK wants to leave.

I have no doubt we'll get no deal and a hard border and Rees-Mogg, Farage and co will be able to, successfully, blame the EU for the mess that happens post-Brexit.

Of course, ultimately Brexit could end up a success but that's extremely remote given that we have yet to hear a cohesive arguement from its supporters in the UK.

Topgear on Dave

Has everyone seen this video doing the rounds of Corbyn at an Irish anti war movement meeting about the Lisbon treaty?

He lays his views out fairly straight, hard brexit here we go with this fella.

Jeremy Corbyn claimed he does “not want to live in a European empire of the 21st century” at a rally during the 2009 Irish referendum campaign.


https://www.theredroar.com/2019/02/exclusive-corbyn-branded-eu-military-frankenstein-and-trashed-second-irish-referendum-in-unearthed-footage/


*Much apologies if it has been posted already.

fash

woohoo!!! wrote: »

The department of foreign affairs identified early on that the issue of the border would cause havoc if it formed part of trade deal negotiations, that it would be used as a bargaining chip used by Westminster. Therefore it was of utmost importance that it did not and needed to be nailed down before trade negotiations commenced.

As events have proved this foresight has been proven 100% correct.

Hats off to them in fairness

woohoo!!!

fash wrote: »

RobMc59 wrote: »

How can you welch on a deal that was never in force?

That depends on what you call the "deal" - Theresa may signed off on the WA draft and the general principles were signed off on by the cabinet. They are the ones who "welched" in the deal.
Parliament was entitled to do what it did- although it was quite incompetent of Theresa May that it arrived at that point.

The HoC, as is their right, refused to ratify the agreement made by the executive. Normally the process of ratification is a mere formality.

Twice, Ireland via referendum failed to ratify EU agrrements made by the Executive. Changes were made by the consent of the other EU countries and then were ratified via referendum.

RobMc59

Imreoir2 wrote: »

What is more important, the GFA or the only avalable credible mechanism to protect the GFA?

How do you suppose the GFA can be protected without the backstop? Please, answer that one if you can.

Certainty not with soldiers on a hard border-there is a difference of opinion in that you can either blindly adhere to EVERYTHING the EU say or you can question some of what they say-not every other EU country follows the EU line to the letter-may and co.are idiots but Ireland is painting itself into a corner where the reality of having to actually erect a hard border and police it are a reality.Regardless of what you think of me or my opinions I believe in the EU but don't think you have to slavishly adhere to everything that comes out of Brussels and I don't think they expect everyone to do that in truth.

Water John

History on this is interesting. Collins wanted to come back from Treaty negotiations to check would the Dail approve of it. Lloyd George told him to sign now or a terrible attrition would be visited on them.
TM signed off on behalf of the people of the UK. With modern communications HOC should always have been kept fully briefed on talks, but then her own Cabinet didn't know.

RobMc59

RobMc59 wrote: »

Certainty not with soldiers on a hard border-there is a difference of opinion in that you can either blindly adhere to EVERYTHING the EU say or you can question some of what they say-not every other EU country follows the EU line to the letter-may and co.are idiots but Ireland is painting itself into a corner where the reality of having to actually erect a hard border and police it are a reality.Regardless of what you think of me or my opinions I believe in the EU but don't think you have to slavishly adhere to everything that comes out of Brussels and I don't think they expect everyone to do that in truth.

So you have no idea, just like Bit Cynical. Always moaning and questioning everything, but without a single idea between the pair of ye.

Answer the question he asked if you want to prove me wrong.

Tell me how

Water John wrote: »

History on this is interesting. Collins wanted to come back from Treaty negotiations to check would the Dail approve of it. Lloyd George told him to sign now or a terrible attrition would be visited on them.
TM signed off on behalf of the people of the UK. With modern communications HOC should always have been kept fully briefed on talks, but then her own Cabinet didn't know.

The reason there is a government and then cabinets and negotiating teams is to prevent the need to have everyone involved at every step.

Management by committee is fine but nothing would ever get done if it was attempted on serious topics with large numbers of stakeholders.

woohoo!!!

Water John wrote: »

History on this is interesting. Collins wanted to come back from Treaty negotiations to check would the Dail approve of it. Lloyd George told him to sign now or a terrible attrition would be visited on them.
TM signed off on behalf of the people of the UK. With modern communications HOC should always have been kept fully briefed on talks, but then her own Cabinet didn't know.

May deliberately kept just about everyone in the dark. Safe to say, this failure or failure to even attempt to bring along sufficient numbers in HoC, is the reason for the current impasse.

When no deal exit occurs, as seems likely, there'll be no transition period thus further weakening an already weak UK hand due to an astonishing inability to firmly articulate what they actually want.

lawred2

RobMc59 wrote: »

Certainty not with soldiers on a hard border-there is a difference of opinion in that you can either blindly adhere to EVERYTHING the EU say or you can question some of what they say-not every other EU country follows the EU line to the letter-may and co.are idiots but Ireland is painting itself into a corner where the reality of having to actually erect a hard border and police it are a reality.Regardless of what you think of me or my opinions I believe in the EU but don't think you have to slavishly adhere to everything that comes out of Brussels and I don't think they expect everyone to do that in truth.

Tabloid waffle.

We are members of the EU. That means Ireland has signed 45 years worth of treaties.

Treaties that detail the roles and responsibilities of nations at the frontier of the European Union..

We are not creating a border but a frontier border is currently without a change in tack by the UK going to be forced upon us. That's the reality and when that happens we have a role to protect the integrity of the EU.

International treaties are something the Irish government takes seriously.

The UK would do well to do the same.

Now maybe you could put away the telegraph or log out from whatever site you're getting your Brexit material from and knock off the lowest common denominator sound bytes and editorial cliches

RobMc59

lawred2 wrote: »

Tabloid waffle.

We are members of the EU. That means Ireland has signed 45 years worth of treaties.

Treaties that detail the roles and responsibilities of nations at the frontier of the European Union..

We are not creating a border but a frontier border is currently without a change in tack by the UK going to be forced upon us. That's the reality and when that happens we have a role to protect the integrity of the EU.

International treaties are something the Irish government takes seriously.

The UK would do well to do the same.

Now maybe you could put away the sun and knock off the lowest common denominator sound bytes and editorial cliches

Actually I wouldn't read the sun -apart from the fact it is virtually none existent on Merseyside

Imreoir2

RobMc59 wrote: »

Certainty not with soldiers on a hard border-there is a difference of opinion in that you can either blindly adhere to EVERYTHING the EU say or you can question some of what they say-not every other EU country follows the EU line to the letter-may and co.are idiots but Ireland is painting itself into a corner where the reality of having to actually erect a hard border and police it are a reality. Regardless of what you think of me or my opinions I believe in the EU but don't think you have to slavishly adhere to everything that comes out of Brussels and I don't think they expect everyone to do that in truth.

Much as I'm sure we all expected, the answer is no, you can't explain how we protect the GFA or avoid a hard border without the backstop.

You want to push a perspective that Ireland is slavishly adhereing to everything that Brussels says whereas the reality is far different. Ireland identified the border issue as being one of paramount importance to us from the outset. Brexit, in the absence of agreed arangements to prevent it, inevitably creates the conditions that require a hard border being enforced. Recognising this, Ireland has ensured that the Irish position on the border has been adoped by the EU. We need an arangement to protect the GFA and keep the border open or we are faced with a hard border. That we have succeeded in making the need for an open border a conditon for an orderly Brexit and a precondition for any trade agreement between the UK and the EU is a huge success for our forigen policy and dioplomatic efforts over the past two years.

We can't force the UK to accept an arangement that prevents the creation of a situation that requires a hard border, but we can make doing so as damaging as possible to the UK. If they go ahead anyway without agreeing an arangement that avoids the need for a hard border, regardless of the damage it causes them, then on what planet does it make sence that some other approch that does not require a legal guarantee over the border would successfully prevent the need for a hard border?

lawred2

RobMc59 wrote: »

Actually I wouldn't read the sun -apart from the fact it is virtually none existent on Merseyside

In before my ninja edit with a rebuttal to the least relevant item

briany

Water John wrote: »

History on this is interesting. Collins wanted to come back from Treaty negotiations to check would the Dail approve of it. Lloyd George told him to sign now or a terrible attrition would be visited on them.
TM signed off on behalf of the people of the UK. With modern communications HOC should always have been kept fully briefed on talks, but then her own Cabinet didn't know.

The only difference would have been the amount of time saved not having to go through the pantomime of the meaningful vote, knowing that the thing was going to crash and burn.

If there'd been a real-time input from the HoC, it would have gone like this,

May: OK, guys. Negotiated a deal. The EU want this, this & this

HoC: OK can live with that

May: And also the backstop...

HoC: Nah

May (to the EU): OK, so the lads back home are saying this backstop proposal
won't fly.

EU: That's not negotiable

May: Not even a bit?

EU: .....no.

May: .....sh_t

So, either way we'd still arrive at the same impasse. And also the deal always was that the UK would dispatch a crack negotiating team to Brussels. No doubt that if they'd been able to bring back something the HoC could agree to, nobody would have criticised that system.

prawnsambo

RobMc59 wrote: »

Actually I wouldn't read the sun -apart from the fact it is virtually none existent on Merseyside

You've been posting here for long enough to know that [insert name of jingoistic rag here] headlines go down as well here as the Sun in Liverpool. So talk of 'the EU' doesn't carry the same rage inducing vitriol here that it does on your side of the water. Because in general, it's understood that we are 'the EU' and they are us.

woohoo!!!

RobMc59 wrote: »

Imreoir2 wrote: »

What is more important, the GFA or the only avalable credible mechanism to protect the GFA?

How do you suppose the GFA can be protected without the backstop? Please, answer that one if you can.

Certainty not with soldiers on a hard border-there is a difference of opinion in that you can either blindly adhere to EVERYTHING the EU say or you can question some of what they say-not every other EU country follows the EU line to the letter-may and co.are idiots but Ireland is painting itself into a corner where the reality of having to actually erect a hard border and police it are a reality.Regardless of what you think of me or my opinions I believe in the EU but don't think you have to slavishly adhere to everything that comes out of Brussels and I don't think they expect everyone to do that in truth.

I would suggest that the government, backed by the vast majority in the Dail, is fundamentally obliged to defend and promote Irish interests vis-a-vis the backstop. I would further suggest that it is British red lines that has boxed them into a corner. No other remotely credible alternatives to the backstop have been put forward to resolve the peace process and Brexit conundrum.

Additionally, our EU partners fully understand that once trade negotiations actually begin, Ireland will be taking the UKs side in many aspects of the negotiations.

RobMc59

prawnsambo wrote: »

You've been posting here for long enough to know that [insert name of jingoistic rag here] headlines go down as well here as the Sun in Liverpool. So talk of 'the EU' doesn't carry the same rage inducing vitriol here that it does on your side of the water. Because in general, it's understood that we are 'the EU' and they are us.

Bit of a difference when you compare headlines about the EU to the sun printing lies about 96 poor souls that died at a football match.

An Ciarraioch

Even Peter Foster, of the Telegraph, appears exasperated with May at this stage:

http://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1092847023651516416

Mech1

demfad wrote: »

I made this...if anyone fancies a laugh....

https://www.captiongenerator.com/1272822/Brexit-preparation

Going viral!!!!

Christy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

prawnsambo wrote: »

You've been posting here for long enough to know that [insert name of jingoistic rag here] headlines go down as well here as the Sun in Liverpool. So talk of 'the EU' doesn't carry the same rage inducing vitriol here that it does on your side of the water. Because in general, it's understood that we are 'the EU' and they are us.

Bit of a difference when you compare headlines about the EU to the sun printing lies about 96 poor souls that died at a football match.

What do you want at this point. If there is a no deal we either have a complete destruction of all our industries or we have a border (or at least as soon as the UK deviates from the EU in terms of tariffs etc.). We might be able to sneak by for a bit but other countries (and I mean around the world) won't be happy with is flaunting WTO rules we are signed up for.

The only part of the WA the UK is currently arguing against is the soft border. If they want a hard border we can't stop them.

New ideas but right now the EU has been backing us. The backstop is there for us. Otherwise the EU could have simply cut us out of the single market and got on with the deal.

New ideas or stop with the meaningless phrases. What would you do. I want serious specifics here, not just "do a deal for no border".

prawnsambo

RobMc59 wrote: »

Bit of a difference when you compare headlines about the EU to the sun printing lies about 96 poor souls that died at a football match.

No. They are all lies. And bad and all as the lies the Sun wrote were, they didn't put lives or livelihoods in danger.

ThePanjandrum

prawnsambo wrote: »

You've been posting here for long enough to know that [insert name of jingoistic rag here] headlines go down as well here as the Sun in Liverpool. So talk of 'the EU' doesn't carry the same rage inducing vitriol here that it does on your side of the water. Because in general, it's understood that we are 'the EU' and they are us.

So you see Ireland as being part of a superstate rather than an independent country. It makes me wonder why so many lives were lost in the fight for independence if you don't really want it.

prawnsambo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

So you see Ireland as being part of a superstate rather than an independent country. It makes me wonder why so many lives were lost in the fight for independence if you don't really want it.

If you're going to quote me, look at the context before you jump to conclusions about what I'm saying.

ThePanjandrum

Hurrache wrote: »

You keep mentioning "EU directives", what the "EU say". We're the EU, and as you know there's legal obligations that come with this.

You are part of the EU. You can find yourself with legal obligations placed upon you. Some of us have seen that the EEC and later the EU has developed and is continuing to develop in different ways to what we want and have decided that it is not the place for us.

bobmalooka

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

prawnsambo wrote: »

You've been posting here for long enough to know that [insert name of jingoistic rag here] headlines go down as well here as the Sun in Liverpool. So talk of 'the EU' doesn't carry the same rage inducing vitriol here that it does on your side of the water. Because in general, it's understood that we are 'the EU' and they are us.

So you see Ireland as being part of a superstate rather than an independent country. It makes me wonder why so many lives were lost in the fight for independence if you don't really want it.

Try harder

ancapailldorcha

bobmalooka wrote: »

Try harder

Don't post like this here again please. Serious discussion only.

ThePanjandrum

prawnsambo wrote: »

If you're going to quote me, look at the context before you jump to conclusions about what I'm saying.

You wrote

You've been posting here for long enough to know that [insert name of jingoistic rag here] headlines go down as well here as the Sun in Liverpool. So talk of 'the EU' doesn't carry the same rage inducing vitriol here that it does on your side of the water. Because in general, it's understood that we are 'the EU' and they are us.

I really don't see that that changes the context.

prawnsambo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

You wrote

I really don't see that that changes the context.

What did I reply to? There's a thread of posts. That's the context.