Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

downcow

devnull wrote: »

If you're not going to honour an agreement then you shouldn't sign up to it.

Do you know any employers that give their staff unilateral right to start ignoring certain parts of their terms and employment if they desire to do so but are expected to still keep up their side of the bargain?

Do you know any insurers that have a unilateral right to end their insurance cover for your house the day that it catches fire and do you think that this is fair?

You can't have your cake and eat it and have the agreement a la carte, and keep the bits you want and discard the bits you don't when it suits - the whole idea of agreements is to keep both sides honest to ensure both sides stick to what they say they will - without it no agreement is worth the paper it's written on.

If people don't like agreements they don't have to sign them, but good luck to the UK getting trade deals when they simply want to start abandoning parts of the deal when it suits them - nobody will sign up on that principle.

Uk did not agree to anything. I clearly remember us being told when we were concerned about the backstop that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Mr.Wemmick

J Mysterio wrote: »

I suppose there are two things:

1. Loose the moral high ground
2. Risk lowering the tone to a point where everyone loosens their tongue and we have a sort of anarchy.

Tusk obviously used these words with some intent - to send a message - and while they were amusing, they probably were too strong. This situation is on such a knife edge that we have to be quite careful.

Better if he had been 'overheard' rather than say it from the podium, but he means it and wants to be direct. Hence the Twitter double down.

I agree with this too. It's clear the EU have the higher ground and I think they should have continued to be wise with concerned words from a distance.
The UK government are making such a dog's dinner of a dog's dinner, layers of mayhem, that they do not need Tusk stirring it up making it any worse than it is already.

It's not the first time Tusk has put the wrong foot forward. That said, the EU elections are coming up and maybe he just doesn't care.

Phonehead

downcow wrote: »

Uk did not agree to anything. I clearly remember us being told when we were concerned about the backstop that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

The backstop was your/UK's idea????

Hurrache

downcow wrote: »

Uk did not agree to anything. I clearly remember us being told when we were concerned about the backstop that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

The representatives of the UK did indeed agree, the governing negotiating team and prime minister agreed to it.
Are you purposely misrepresenting the facts?

Anthracite

downcow wrote: »

Uk did not agree to anything. I clearly remember us being told when we were concerned about the backstop that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

They agreed to the Good Friday agreement, and are now trying to slink out of the cooperation it requires.

Tell me how

downcow wrote: »

Uk did not agree to anything. I clearly remember us being told when we were concerned about the backstop that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Yes. But they had agreed to the backstop. Several times until they then let the ERG and the DUP take the reigns for a period.

You can be pedantic and say there was no deal until the final topic was closed out, that is fine, the adults in the room know what was what.

downcow

Tell me how wrote: »

First bolded point - Why don't you think the HoC will cop on and accept the deal which is on the table rather than crash out?

Second bolded point - There is a way out of the agreement. Put the solutions which they have been talking about in to action and demonstrate their effectiveness.

Third bolded point - Are you for real? Did you hear Tusk today. I'd say the pennys are fairly settled on that side of the water.

Last point first. I can’t take someone seriously who talks about punishing people in hell.

Tell me if the bottom line is
No deal with no backstop. Or. Deal with no backstop. Which will Eu countries prefer (alert from roi)?? Serious question.

listermint

downcow wrote: »

Last point first. I can’t take someone seriously who talks about punishing people in hell.

Tell me if the bottom line is
No deal with no backstop. Or. Deal with no backstop. Which will Eu countries prefer (alert from roi)?? Serious question.

Serious question.

Why

Are you continually misrepresenting easily provable facts. You do realise this is a reflection of you and anyone's ability to take your points seriously. You have told several lies over the last few pages with abandon.

ThePanjandrum

Ex-head of the Trade and WTO Group of the European Commission’s Legal Service (until two years ago) co-authors report for law firm which states that the backstop is illegal under EU law. https://order-order.com/2019/02/06/top-law-firm-says-backstop-illegal-eu-law/

https://sites-herbertsmithfreehills.vuturevx.com/20/19043/landing-pages/a-view-from-brussels-february-2018-briefing(2).pdf

downcow

Hurrache wrote: »

The representatives of the UK did indeed agree, the governing negotiating team and prime minister agreed to it.
Are you purposely misrepresenting the facts?

Everyone was very clear that British democracy meant it had to be agreed by the people’s representatives in hoc

Hurrache

downcow wrote: »

Last point first. I can’t take someone seriously who talks about punishing people in hell.

He's not going to punish anyone in hell, trust me on this one.

Tell me how

downcow wrote: »

Last point first. I can’t take someone seriously who talks about punishing people in hell.

Tell me if the bottom line is
No deal with no backstop. Or. Deal with no backstop. Which will Eu countries prefer (alert from roi)?? Serious question.

It does not surprise that you do not understand the use of metaphors.

(Did you get your head around May's red lines?)

downcow

listermint wrote: »

Serious question.

Why

Are you continually misrepresenting easily provable facts. You do realise this is a reflection of you and anyone's ability to take your points seriously. You have told several lies over the last few pages with abandon.

You will be getting me banned. Just identify one of those several lies. I have tried to be honest at all times. If I made that accusation about you I’d be gone. So highlight one of my several lies

ThePanjandrum

Tell me how wrote: »

Yes. But they had agreed to the backstop. Several times until they then let the ERG and the DUP take the reigns for a period.

You can be pedantic and say there was no deal until the final topic was closed out, that is fine, the adults in the room know what was what.

"Nothing is agreed until everything has been agreed" was the proviso that the EU placed at the beginning of the December report.

Kalyke

downcow wrote: »

I hadn’t been on here for a while so thought I would update on thoughts.

I am surprised by all the action today. I didn’t see that coming I guess the outcome of today is that the ordinary people on the UK are more determined not to give in to tusk and the likes. . I expected nothing dramatic until after the 14th. I don’t think much will happen on tomorrow visits
I am fairly convinced the backstop will go. There seems no other option. I know I’ve been told I’m talking out of my arse for saying that but it makes no sense to Eu or UK to do a no deal.
It will prob be a fudge but Irish pm said anything other than a permanent backstop is not a backstop. This I prob agree with him on. Hence the outcome has to be no backstop, with or without a deal. As no nation in its right mind would sign up to an agreement that there was no way out of.
When that penny drops with Eu after 14th. Then Eu and UK will have to think do we want ‘no backstop deal’ or ‘no backstop no deal’. Seems obvious deal is the way to go.

10 minutes??

Hurrache

downcow wrote: »

You will be getting me banned. Just identify one of those several lies. I have tried to be honest at all times. If I made that accusation about you I’d be gone. So highlight one of my several lies

You claimed to be neutral.

listermint

downcow wrote: »

You will be getting me banned. Just identify one of those several lies. I have tried to be honest at all times. If I made that accusation about you I’d be gone. So highlight one of my several lies

Your lying about Donal tusk

You are lying about the withdrawal agreement.

Enough is enough lad start being honest with yourself and then with us.

As pointed to above you even lied about Mays red lines and wanted people to outline what they where. There's no substance in that sort of posting.

And no no one's trying to get you banned. Start posting with some honesty.

downcow

Kalyke wrote: »

10 minutes??

I think you know what I mean. But I appreciate your humour

downcow

listermint wrote: »

Your lying about Donal tusk

You are lying about the withdrawal agreement.

Enough is enough lad start being honest with yourself and then with us.

As pointed to above you even lied about Mays red lines and wanted people to outline what they where. There's no substance in that sort of posting.

And no no one's trying to get you banned. Start posting with some honesty.

Just be specific on any one of those accusations. I can’t possibly correct you if I don’t know what the lie is you are accusing me off.
If you can’t then the mods should be looking closely at you for calling me a liar. Now if the is any substance to your noise then I will hold my hands up and admit
So just one specific example of a lie.

lawred2

Tell me how wrote: »

It does not surprise that you do not understand the use of metaphors.

(Did you get your head around May's red lines?)

It's all a case of 'won't somebody please think of the children' mock outrage

Cringe inducing really

Blowfish

downcow wrote: »

You will be getting me banned. Just identify one of those several lies. I have tried to be honest at all times. If I made that accusation about you I’d be gone. So highlight one of my several lies

Ok:

downcow wrote: »

It will prob be a fudge but Irish pm said anything other than a permanent backstop is not a backstop. This I prob agree with him on. Hence the outcome has to be no backstop, with or without a deal. As no nation in its right mind would sign up to an agreement that there was no way out of.
When that penny drops with Eu after 14th. Then Eu and UK will have to think do we want ‘no backstop deal’ or ‘no backstop no deal’. Seems obvious deal is the way to go.

Both of these are clear lies. Nobody has ever suggested a permanent backstop, only one that lasts 'unless and until' it's replaced by a further agreement that keeps the border open.

downcow

Hurrache wrote: »

You claimed to be neutral.

Yeah. And I stand over it. I promise you I was neutral in 2016 (or didn’t know how to vote if that’s the same thing). I am no longer neutral because of roi and Eu behaviour over last 6 months

VonZan

downcow wrote: »

Uk did not agree to anything. I clearly remember us being told when we were concerned about the backstop that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Why did Mrs May's government negotiate with the EU and then try and ratify a deal that was just about unacceptable to everyone bar the EU? She has completely mismanaged the UK at a critical time. It's not the EU's fault the UK is in the midst of a political crisis with no leaders on either side of the house. Blaming the EU isn't going to wash when you start to get tangible impacts of Brexit post March 29th or whenever the UK inevitably leaves the EU.

listermint

downcow wrote: »

Just be specific on any one of those accusations. I can’t possibly correct you if I don’t know what the lie is you are accusing me off.
If you can’t then the mods should be looking closely at you for calling me a liar. Now if the is any substance to your noise then I will hold my hands up and admit
So just one specific example of a lie.

What's the point anymore. You do this every week it's the same pattern. Pretend to be neutral pretend to be reasonable . Push out some mad contrary opinion and then apologies for half it and bring up banning into the discussion.

It's actually not amusing anymore.


Far from it. It's boring. It's not discussion.

Hurrache

downcow wrote: »

Yeah. And I stand over it. I promise you I was neutral in 2016 (or didn’t know how to vote if that’s the same thing). I am no longer neutral because of roi and Eu behaviour over last 6 months

Another lie.

VonZan

downcow wrote: »

Yeah. And I stand over it. I promise you I was neutral in 2016 (or didn’t know how to vote if that’s the same thing). I am no longer neutral because of roi and Eu behaviour over last 6 months

What exact behaviour are you offended by from the Irish government? This will be very interesting.

lawred2

downcow wrote: »

Yeah. And I stand over it. I promise you I was neutral in 2016 (or didn’t know how to vote if that’s the same thing). I am no longer neutral because of roi and Eu behaviour over last 6 months

ROI behavior?

Yerra knock of the bait posting will you..

You've been pulled on the ROI thing before. There is no such entity outside of a registration with FIFA.

As for this alleged behaviour that's roused your irrational inner unionist - what would these be exactly?

downcow

Blowfish wrote: »

Ok:
Both of these are clear lies. Nobody has ever suggested a permanent backstop, only one that lasts 'unless and until' it's replaced by a further agreement that keeps the border open.

Nonsense. Irish pm has said a time bounded backstop is not a backstop.

So unless and until doesn’t meant that it is indefinite.
Are you seriously telling me I can’t be permanent because if that is the case I can support it.

Tell me how

downcow wrote: »

Nonsense. Irish pm has said a time bounded backstop is not a backstop.

So unless and until doesn’t meant that it is indefinite.
Are you seriously telling me I can’t be permanent because if that is the case I can support it.

A solely time-bound back stop is not a solution as the UK would put no effort in to materialising their unicorns.

Once the unicorns are proven to be real, the Irish and the EU will gladly remove the backstop.

downcow

listermint wrote: »

What's the point anymore. You do this every week it's the same pattern. Pretend to be neutral pretend to be reasonable . Push out some mad contrary opinion and then apologies for half it and bring up banning into the discussion.

It's actually not amusing anymore.


Far from it. It's boring. It's not discussion.

Well if you can’t point out one of my several lies then I have no choice but to report you to the mods