Will Britain ever just piss off and get on with Brexit? -mod warning in OP (21/12)

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

If the Roman Catholic Church were running the statelet in the northeastern part of this country and posing a massive economic, social and political threat to Irish society by their own version of Brexit that might be relevant. They're not, so it's not. Shifting blame on to the RCC for this is a complete strawman.

Brexit is showing, once again, the serious consequences for the rest of Ireland of a British state remaining in this country. Even the most mé féiner Blueshirt in Dublin 4 realises the cost for this society of putting a 500km-long border in place, not to mention that the British state will always have the Irish state by the balls - be it aligning our VAT rates, legislation, political policies, or whatever - via their presence here.

I was responding to your comment re: free our people by pointing out the removal of the British State did not free our people in the ROI - it put us into the thrall of a different overseas power.
I am not 'shifting blame' - I am pointing out the reality of the history of this Island. One of the slogans of the Unionists was that Home Rule meant Rome Rule. And they were absolutely correct. Ironically, a strong, mouthy, demanding Presbyterian presence might have prevented that happening.
They are Irish too.

I am well aware of the threat Brexit poses to the stability of this island - but that stability is also threatened by fleg waving jingoists on both sides of a stupid sectarian divide and if Ireland is united (and I hope it is) we will have to find a way to accommodate those who consider themselves British.
Banging on about Brits Out does not strike me as a good place to start.

First Up

Deleted User wrote: »

Very interesting intervention from the head of Germany's top business lobby group being reported on The Irish Times this evening:

German business ‘unwavering’ in support for Brexit backstop: Germany’s top business lobby says industry remains fully behind Ireland’s stance

Nice to know 'plucky little Ireland' has friends in her 'hour of need', to use the maudlin terminology of the British poppy brigade. Time to end the British state in this country for once and for all and free our people from being at the mercy of these jingoistic English cúnts and their centuries-long playing of the 'Orange card' in the remnant of their Irish colony.

He made those points in a presentation in Dublin last Friday. You can watch it here;



https://www.iiea.com/past-events/the-future-of-the-eu-27-post-brexit-a-german-industry-perspective-2/

threeball

Deleted User wrote: »

threeball wrote: »

Don't panic. The DUP and Tories have done more damage to the UK through their misplaced nationalism than 30yrs of IRA bombs ever did. Just sit back and watch them tear themselves apart. If Sinn Fein had any sense they'd shut their mouth and do the same.

You're not wrong there, but we shouldn't be keeping our head in the sand about the serious long-term consequences for this state, and its independence, of the British state remaining in Ireland. Brexit is bringing this home on a spectacular level to many Irish people who would have been too far from the border to view its existence as threatening.

It's not keeping your head in the sand. It's recognising that your dealing with people who spend their lives fumbling from one problem to the next and sometimes it's better to sit back and let them at it rather than giving them a focal point to rally against.

cryptocurrency

First Up wrote: »

He made those points in a presentation in Dublin last Friday. You can watch it here;



https://www.iiea.com/past-events/the-future-of-the-eu-27-post-brexit-a-german-industry-perspective-2/

There is over 1 million brits on this island, maybe much more. What do you propose to do?

You will find your european friends are all bark and no bite...we sure as hell know they are.

First Up

cryptocurrency wrote:

There is over 1 million brits on this island, maybe much more. What do you propose to do?

About what?
And what does your question have to do with how German industry sees the future after Britain walks away from its largest trading partner?

cryptocurrency wrote:

You will find your european friends are all bark and no bite...we sure as hell know they are.

Whatever.

FrancieBrady

cryptocurrency wrote: »

There is over 1 million brits on this island, maybe much more. What do you propose to do?

You will find your european friends are all bark and no bite...we sure as hell know they are.

The UK is in disarray crypto. They are literally tearing themselves apart politically in front of us.

Why, because they have tried to best the EU and spectacularly failed. That's the bottom line here. If Ireland decides to unite, our European friends will be there to help the process, not hinder it. Why? Because that is what is best for all the EU.

J Mysterio

https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/1171771816332922880

davedanon

cryptocurrency wrote: »

You will find your european friends are all bark and no bite...we sure as hell know they are.

Heh. Funny, there's something called "the UK" running around screaming that it's been savaged, crying it needs a tetanus, and wants something called "the EU" put down.

Kermit.de.frog

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Aegir,

You know, I know, and we all know, the only fair and democratic solution to this is to partition Britain and England. If partition was good enough for you English to do it to the Irish and Indians, it's surely good enough for yourselves?

If you're going to sit there and contend that the "majority in [your gerrymandered statelet of] Northern Ireland" have a right to stay in your preferred union of the "United Kingdom", then surely as a proud English democrat you will accept that London and other areas of England where a majority voted to remain in the EU should have a right to opt out of your Brexit Home Rule state and remain as part of the European Union?

Please do explain the English nationalist double standard on democracy right there.

Have you been on the poitin, you’re even more jingoistic then usual.

Still, I’m sure you rounded the evening off with a rousing chorus of a nation once again and burnt a few Union jacks.

McMurphy

You'd have to wonder how a headline like this will go down in Blighty tbh.



But even more interestingly, how will such a headline go down with the DUP and their supporters?

Can anyone remember what the loyal in loyalist stands for, or whom it is they're loyal to?

The wheels are starting to fall off, don't be surprised if brexit never happens at all now with the way things are declining over the pond.

Britain looks like a rogue state now the more this trundles on.

FrancieBrady

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You'd have to wonder how a headline like this will go down in Blighty tbh.



But even more interestingly, how will such a headline go down with the DUP and their supporters?

Can anyone remember what the loyal in loyalist stands for, or whom it is they're loyal to?

The wheels are starting to fall off, don't be surprised if brexit never happens at all now with the way things are declining over the pond.

Britain looks like a rogue state now the more this trundles on.

It won't be important to the Brexiteers. They are in a zombie like trance still, everybody is wrong, but them.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You are incorrect.

The United Kingdom exists because the Parliaments of Scotland and England voted to unite in 1707. Up until that point they were only loosely legally united albeit ruled by the same monarch (Hanover was for a time ruled by the British king but never became part of UK). In 1707 the United Kingdom of Great Britain was born due to the union of parliaments as it is known. If those two parliaments break apart the UK no longer exists.

wasn't there some bit about Ireland as well?

One part of a three way union does mean the union no longer exists, only that one part has left. The European Union is still a union, despite one of the 28 members leaving.

If NI opted to leave, then you may have a point, at which point it would be up to the other EU members to decide what to do, but regardless, EU membership would not be secured. The only way to secure it was to vote remain.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The situation with Germany (made up of Palatinates, Duchies, Principalities, Kingdoms etc) was not the same thing. Plus there have been 'tweaks' to Germany - Prussia no longer exists yet when Germany unified it was the most powerful state in the union.
Spain was united by Ferdinand and Isabella by conquest and marriage strategies but did not officially become 'Spain' as we know it until the reign of Charles I as Aragon and Castile were technically still separate kingdoms under Ferdinand and Isabella. Philip II 'added' Portugal but that broke away again.

You didn't pick very good examples tbh.

It's more like Yugoslavia. That was made up of different 'countries' when it broke up Yugoslavia ceased to exist.

If Macedonia decided to leave Yugoslavia, would that have been considered to be Yugoslavia breaking up, or simply Macedonia leaving?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

62% is not 'narrow' - 51.9% is 'narrow'

read again what i wrote. I clearly said In some regions.

Moray (49.9% leave. 51.1% remain)
Constituency of Banff and Buchan, (which is part of the Aberdeenshire Brexit count, but actually voted to leave).

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/general-election/scottish-constituency-of-banff-and-buchan-voted-for-brexit-1-4294559

Both the above were SNP safe seats, but were both lost to the Conservatives at the last General Election.

Kidchameleon

Anyone with any cop on doesn't take a red top seriously. The Queen has a team of top advisers & lawyers, her proroguing parliament is perfectly legal, & will not be overturned in the supreme court, it is just wishful thinking on the part of antidemocratic remainers. Also, the PM advises the Queen to prorogue, it is her that ultimately makes the decision therefore Boris cannot be responsible. Lastly, afaik, all conversations between the PM and the Queen take place in complete privacy so I cannot understand how the mirror thinks it knows what was said

Again, the court case next week will lead to nothing, just a waste of tax payer money - keep dreaming guys. Oct 31st cannot come soon enough.

Kidchameleon

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It won't be important to the Brexiteers. They are in a zombie like trance still, everybody is wrong, but them.

Says the guy who believes a red top which contradicts its headline in THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, did you read it at all? Or did you just read the headline?

McMurphy

You're quite free to disregard any headline from a red top newspaper you so wish, even if it they are reporting exactly what the Scottish courts ruled on.

Perhaps the Financial Times might be a bit more high brow for some around here?

Aegir

Aegir wrote: »

Have you been on the poitin, you’re even more jingoistic then usual.

Still, I’m sure you rounded the evening off with a rousing chorus of a nation once again and burnt a few Union jacks.

'Jingoistic' appears to be your new word for the entire month. The non-Brexiteers here can learn a new word every single day. Let that sink in.

Anyway, entertaining as always that our chief "my country right or wrong" defender of British imperialism in Ireland and across this planet is accusing others of jingoism for opposing this latest chapter of your country's rule in Ireland.

So, seeing as you're a big defender of the partition of our country, will you now support the partition of England, or are you going to force the "majority of the people" of southeast England out of the EU against their will?

PS: You're all doing a spiffing job over there in burning everything from Union Jacks to bridges yourselves. Nobody in the world to blame but yourselves. Have the courage to own your own mess and not seek scapegoats. Thank you.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

'Jingoistic' appears to be your new word for the entire month. The non-Brexiteers here can learn a new word every single day. Let that sink in.

Anyway, entertaining as always that our chief "my country right or wrong" defender of British imperialism in Ireland and across this planet is accusing others of jingoism for opposing this latest chapter of your country's rule in Ireland.

So, seeing as you're a big defender of the partition of our country, will you now support the partition of England, or are you going to force the "majority of the people" of southeast England out of the EU against their will?

PS: You're all doing a spiffing job over there in burning everything from Union Jacks to bridges yourselves. Nobody in the world to blame but yourselves. Have the courage to own your own mess and not seek scapegoats. Thank you.

I see the hangover has kicked in now.:rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Oct 31st cannot come soon enough.

What are you expecting on the 31st?

You will have to depend on the awful EU if you are to get a No Deal. Otherwise the UK limps on in it's now familiar chaos.

FrancieBrady

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You're quite free to disregard any headline from a red top newspaper you so wish, even if it they are reporting exactly what the Scottish courts ruled on.

Perhaps the Financial Times might be a bit more high brow for some around here?

What was I saying about 'zombie like trances'?

McMurphy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What was I saying about 'zombie like trances'?

I really can't decide if they're on a wind up, trolling, or just completely deluded.

The whole "ultimately Boris can't be blamed as it was the queen's decision" is pretty much the polar opposite to almost every media source I heard yesterday.

The whole reason she's takes advise, is so that she cannot be held responsible is how I heard it being discussed.

They might as well be claiming a judge should be prosecuted for a ruling they made because a lawyer misled him FFS.

pjohnson

I see kidchameleon still posting proving how effective his threxit was.

Can understand his BoJo fetish now.

McMurphy

pjohnson wrote: »

I see kidchameleon still posting proving how effective his threxit was.

Can understand his BoJo fetish now.

I think he has "Lanigans ball" playing on repeat in the background.

Donnielighto

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're not wrong there, but we shouldn't be keeping our head in the sand about the serious long-term consequences for this state, and its independence, of the British state remaining in Ireland. Brexit is bringing this home on a spectacular level to many Irish people who would have been too far from the border to view its existence as threatening.

You think the UK is going to invade Ireland?

Beasty

Aegir wrote: »

Have you been on the poitin, you’re even more jingoistic then usual.

Still, I’m sure you rounded the evening off with a rousing chorus of a nation once again and burnt a few Union jacks.

Aegir wrote: »

I see the hangover has kicked in now.:rolleyes:

Cut out the personal digs

FrancieBrady

Donnielighto wrote: »

You think the UK is going to invade Ireland?

If attempts to threaten(however obliquely) bully and control a smaller state and economy (for your own selfish interests) succeeds, that is tantamount to invading it imo.
The UK has tried all of that. Thankfully it has so far failed.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Donnielighto wrote: »

You think the UK is going to invade Ireland?

If attempts to threaten(however obliquely) bully and control a smaller state and economy (for your own selfish interests) succeeds, that is tantamount to invading it imo.
The UK has tried all of that. Thankfully it has so far failed.

Does that advice apply when you're sending a warship to Dundalk bay to threaten two small fishing boats?

Bannasidhe

Aegir wrote: »

wasn't there some bit about Ireland as well?

One part of a three way union does mean the union no longer exists, only that one part has left. The European Union is still a union, despite one of the 28 members leaving.

If NI opted to leave, then you may have a point, at which point it would be up to the other EU members to decide what to do, but regardless, EU membership would not be secured. The only way to secure it was to vote remain.



If Macedonia decided to leave Yugoslavia, would that have been considered to be Yugoslavia breaking up, or simply Macedonia leaving?



read again what i wrote. I clearly said In some regions.

Moray (49.9% leave. 51.1% remain)
Constituency of Banff and Buchan, (which is part of the Aberdeenshire Brexit count, but actually voted to leave).

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/general-election/scottish-constituency-of-banff-and-buchan-voted-for-brexit-1-4294559

Both the above were SNP safe seats, but were both lost to the Conservatives at the last General Election.

No. Ireland didn't join until 1801 - making the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It is currently the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The point being that the 'Great Britain' part refers to the union of England and Scotland.
This is reflected in the Union flag which is made up of the old national flags of the 3 'kingdoms' - England. Scotland, and Ireland. Wales was never considered a 'kingdom' but a principality and is not represented in the Union flag. They never removed the Irish part due to NI still being in the Union and no one wanted to listen to the Unionists up there having a screaming tantrum. We all know how worked up they get about flegs.

No Scotland = No United Kingdom of Great Britain.

Prior to that union it was England + Wales, and Scotland. No such place as the UK. An independent Scotland would put the political geographical landscape back to where it was before the death of Elizabeth I and the Stuart monarchy.

It's really quite simple. The United Kingdom of Great Britain IS the union of England and Scotland. It came into existence in 1707 when the two parliaments united. If it breaks apart there is no longer a 'Great Britain'.
Therefore - logically - if Scotland would have had to leave the EU - then so would England + Wales as England +Wales never joined the EU under that name.

The fact remains that Scotland overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU.
And the great hope of the Scottish Tory party just resigned - no-one believes for a second it was so she could spend more time with her family. She was also a vocal Remainer so pointing to Tory wins in Scotland does not indicate an automatic support for Leave.

Bannasidhe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Anyone with any cop on doesn't take a red top seriously. The Queen has a team of top advisers & lawyers, her proroguing parliament is perfectly legal, & will not be overturned in the supreme court, it is just wishful thinking on the part of antidemocratic remainers. Also, the PM advises the Queen to prorogue, it is her that ultimately makes the decision therefore Boris cannot be responsible. Lastly, afaik, all conversations between the PM and the Queen take place in complete privacy so I cannot understand how the mirror thinks it knows what was said

Again, the court case next week will lead to nothing, just a waste of tax payer money - keep dreaming guys. Oct 31st cannot come soon enough.

You really haven't a clue about how things are done in the UK do you?

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

wasn't there some bit about Ireland as well?

That came later.

In 1707, the kingdom of England (which had long included Wales as well) and the kingdom of Scotland were united into the kingdom of Great Britain. That was not [England, with Scotland added] or [Scotland, with England added]; it was a brand new kingdom, distinct from the two predecessor kingdoms.

Then, 1801, the kingdom of Great Britain and the kingdom of Ireland were united into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Signficantly, most commentators at the time did not regard this as a brand new kingdom; they regarded it as the existing kingdom of Great Britain, with Ireland added plus a change of name to reflect the new circumstances. They were probably influenced in this by the fact that Ireland had not previously been an independent or co-equal kingdom; it was very much dependent on the kingdom of Great Britain, legally and politically. (E.g. the legislative powers of the Irish parliament were conferred on it by British law, which had never been true for the Scottish parliament.)

Aegir wrote: »

One part of a three way union does mean the union no longer exists, only that one part has left. The European Union is still a union, despite one of the 28 members leaving.

Believe it or not, there’s rules about this. In public international law we call this topic “state succession”. Where states change their identities or characters, or merge, or demerge, to what extent are the new states continuations of the old states, and to what extent are they not?

This matters. In 1917 the Russian Empire collapsed. After a period of confusion and war, several new states emerged - Poland, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and the Soviet Union, which itself was at least formally a federation of republics which had come together to form the Union. Which, if any, of these entities was the successor to the Russian Empire? This mattered because the Russian Empire owed considerable debts to foreign creditors; who was going to pay them?

The Soviets took the view that the USSR was not successor of the Empire (and neither was the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, the largest and most Russian of the member states of the USSR). Therefore they were not bound by arrangements made by Tsarist Russia, had not received any loans from anyone, and would not be repaying them. The international community, for the most part, took the opposite view. This was a running sore in relations between the USSR and the rest of the world for decades.

It’s not always about money. The issue arises in relation to any obligations the old state may have entered into - treaty obligations, for example. British India was a founding member of the United Nations. Quite soon afterwards it was divided into the Dominion of India and the Dominion of Pakistan. Pakistan regarded itself as a successor state to British India in relation to matters affecting Pakistan, and argued that it was already a member of the United Nations. The UN disagreed, and made Pakistan apply for membership. India, by contrast, was treated as the successor to British India, and therefore already a member.

Right. Hypothetically, the UK is divided into two states - Scotland, and a kingdom (whose name we need not concern ourselves with) covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Which, if either, is the successsor state? Who, if anyone, gets the permanent seat on the UN Council?

Ideall, this will be resolved by discussion and agreement at the time. Most likely Scotland would agree, for example, to take on a proportion of the UK’s national debt. The rest of the world will probably accept this because, really, why wouldn’t you? They are offering to pay, after all. Othe aspects might require a bit more negotiation with the rest of the world; for example Scotland and rumpUK might agree that rumpUK would inherit the UK’s permament seat on the Security Council, but that agreement would mean nothing unless the UN and its member states accepted it.

In general, it’s better for the international community that there should be a successor state, so any succession arrangements that get worked out between the states involved, the rest of the world is prone to accept. And the likely agreed position here would be - rumpUK is the successor state to the UK, inheriting its memberships of international bodies, its international assets, its dependencies around the world, its obligations (except as voluntarily taken on by Scotland), etc. Scotland is a new state, free of the UK’s obligations, except as it chooses to take them on. I’ve already mentioned that Scotland would probably take on an agreed chunk of debt; it would probably also agree to continue to be bound by most or all of the multilateral treaties by which the UK is bound, and it might also take on bilateral treaties of particular relevance to Scotland.

That’s the kind of thing that normally happens when a small state is seceding from a much larger one. It’s different where a state breaks into more equal sized states - when Czechoslovakia split in 1992, for example, neither the Czech Republic nor Slovakia claimed to be, or was treated as, the primary succsessor state to Czechoslovakia. They divided up the countries assets and liablities between them by agreement, each indicated which of the treaties made by Czechoslovakia it wished to continue to be bound by, and both applied for admission to the UK as new members.

Aegir wrote: »

If Macedonia decided to leave Yugoslavia, would that have been considered to be Yugoslavia breaking up, or simply Macedonia leaving?

A very pertinent example. Events unfolded as follows:

June 1991: Slovenia and Croatia declare independence from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). The Yugoslav government does not accept this, and deploys the army. Fighting breaks out in Croatia. The EU attempts to mediate. The general view is that SFRY is in the process of dissolution, that each of its six republics should recognise the independence of the others, and that this should be facilitated by providing guarantees for the Serbian minorities in other states. Serbia and Montenegro, alone of the six republics of the SFRY, reject this.

September 1991: Macedonia declares independence from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). SFRY does not resist or protest.

December 1991: Germany recognises the independence of Slovenia and Croatia, arguing (not unrealistically) that it’s already the reality. SFRY rejects this, and also the EU attempts to mediate a peaceful dissolution, but all the other former Yugoslav Republics accept it. Fighting between Yugoslavia and Croatia intensifies; Serb-dominated parts of Bosnia attempt to secede from Bosnia.

January 1992: Independence of Croatia and Slovenia recognised by the international community.

March 1992: Bosnia/Herzegovina declares independence.

April 1992: The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is formed, consisting only of Serbia and Montenegro. This is effectively an admission that the SFRY has ceased to exist. FRY claims to be the sole successor state to SRFY, but this is not accepted by the international community, which takes the view that SFRY had effectively dissolved by, at the latest, December 1991

May 1992: Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia/Herzegovina are admitted as UN member states.

September 1992: FRY’s attempt to occupy the UN seat of the former SFRY is rejected by the UN.

1996: FRY abandons its claim to be the sole successor state to SFRY

2000: FRY admitted to UN

2003: FRY renames itself “State Union of Serbia and Montenegro” (SUSM)

2006: Montenegro declares independence of the SUSM. Serbia accepts this, and also declares it independence,ending the SUSM. Serbia is accepted as the successor state and inherits the SUSM seat in the UN; Montenegro is admitted as a new member.

So, the general view is that SFRY dissolved over a period between June and December 1991. Macedonia left half-way through this period, but Slovenia and Croatia had already left. No other states had left by December 1991, so it could well be argued that, yes, Macedonia leaving (without SFRY objection or resistance) was the significant event which convinced the international community that the permanent dissolution of the SFRY was happening, and from December onwards they took the view that it had happened.