Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

lawred2

Sam Russell wrote: »

Is that the one from Larne to Stranraer? that Boris wanted to build?

How realistic is a 6 lane tunnel with rail to France?

As it goes - with our frequent need to take that Belfast to Cairnryan ferry I for one would gladly welcome Boris Johnson investing 100Bn of British taxpayer's money on such a bridge.

I'd like to see it as a precondition to unification that the bridge is complete.

gmisk

Sam Russell wrote: »

Is that the one from Larne to Stranraer? that Boris wanted to build?

Boris is obsessed with bridges!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/17/absurd-vanity-project-for-our-age-boris-johnson-garden-bridge

Forty Seven

Enzokk wrote: »

Do you mean first two or last two paragraphs?

Here is the 1st two paragraphs,



And here is the last 2 paragraphs,




I think you mean this part,



That is the only place where the ECHR is mentioned, but if you had read the article you would have seen the problem with this case was not the ECHR, it was that there were failures to determine whether it would have been appropriate to place her in the womans prison.



So it seems quite clear to me that the ECHR article 8 obviously doesn't do what you think it does as the person is in a men's prison when the article was printed. If it did then surely she could have appealed it and be sent to a woman's prison, or do I have that wrong?





What about the 2017 election? Just after article 50 was triggered and May was trying to get a majority for her Brexit, and she lost it because?

Thank you for highlighting my mistake, yes, you have the correct paragraphs there. The policy of allocation cited article 8. I agree it is the UKs interpretation. This case has highlighted deficiencies in the policy but it is article 8 that formed that policy in the first place. An appeal against being held in a male prison now is a moot point given the risk posed by the inmate. I believe transgender prisoners should be held in a seperate facility for their own and others safety but we all know that would be deemed discriminatory.



The 2017 election was a Corbyn love in with a dose of SNP fatigue on the question of independence. Haven't heard anyone singing oooh, Jeremy Corbyn recently. He has lost the momentum and has flip flopped so much nobody knows what he stands for. This new election is anyone's guess. In England and Wales it is Brexit. In Scotland it is Brexit but with a chaser of independence. In issues as large as these it would be foolish to vote on the basis of day to day policy.

nc6000

Just saw some woman from the Brexit Party debating with Femi on Sky News, didn't catch her name but her view was that the Brexiteers won the referendum in 2016 so they get to decide they type of Brexit they implement. :rolleyes:

This is a selfie he took before the interview, the comments are interesting :

https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1169623261812023296/photo/1

Two posts down says her name is Lucy Harris.

BluePlanet

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Quite incredible that Johnson has not had a single meeting with Varadkar since he became PM given that the border is the single biggest issue in Brexit atm.

As Merkel told Theresa May at her last EU council - "we are not the ones with the border with the Rep Ireland"...in other words, that's great but you should be talking to the Irish.

Hopefully the welcome is as warm as the snub.

I doubt the meeting will produce anything other than used by BoJo as a propaganda victory.

Headshot

Oh wow did anyone see that segment on Sky news

Lucy Harris v Femi

What a nasty woman and fair play to Kay Burley

Forty Seven

Enzokk wrote: »

In any case, what are your thoughts about the ECHR, the GFA and Brexit?

ECHR is fair enough. ECtHR is a court that has lost it's way becoming a very expensive nit picking exercise for governments trying their best to legislate but getting brought to court by individuals with marginal issues.



GFA is like any other agreement. Agreed in good faith and upheld in good faith during its time of operation. (Although I doubt the IRA decommisioned everything) Now it has become an issue in a seperate (much larger) quagmire and work needs to be done to make sure it is not compromised.



I'm a remainer, trapped in a country that wants to leave, I can see their side, I disagree but that is democracy. I live in Scotland and I'm a Unionist so I also face being further isolated or rejoining the EU.



If you think the NI border is a problem just wait until England realises they have no way to store their nuclear arsenal which will have to be removed immediately according to Nicola Sturgeon. A nuclear power disarmed overnight and another border that blocks NI access to England. Work that one out.

listermint

Forty Seven wrote: »

Thank you for highlighting my mistake, yes, you have the correct paragraphs there. The policy of allocation cited article 8. I agree it is the UKs interpretation. This case has highlighted deficiencies in the policy but it is article 8 that formed that policy in the first place. An appeal against being held in a male prison now is a moot point given the risk posed by the inmate. I believe transgender prisoners should be held in a seperate facility for their own and others safety but we all know that would be deemed discriminatory.



The 2017 election was a Corbyn love in with a dose of SNP fatigue on the question of independence. Haven't heard anyone singing oooh, Jeremy Corbyn recently. He has lost the momentum and has flip flopped so much nobody knows what he stands for. This new election is anyone's guess. In England and Wales it is Brexit. In Scotland it is Brexit but with a chaser of independence. In issues as large as these it would be foolish to vote on the basis of day to day policy.

Aye Corbyns lost his momentum when this week alone he got a front page love in cover from the financial times of all places.

I see your still running off 'feelings' and not facts against the EU.

And you voted remain .. aye

Forty Seven

jm08 wrote: »

If the UK wants a security agreement with the EU, the UK will need to have signed up to the ECHR. Countries who have signed up to the ECHR won't extradite people to a country that isn't signed up to the convention. If the UK wants to extradite any paramilitiries from the ROI to NI/UK, it can't do it.

The Dutch refused to extradite a major drug dealer as his cell in Liverpool wasn't up to scratch.



Not the point but being in the ECHR didn't make a difference then. I'm sure a country like the UK could come to some arrangement regarding extradition. It does work both ways.

Zubeneschamali

Forty Seven wrote: »

[Scottish Independence]another border that blocks NI access to England. Work that one out.

Most traffic from NI to England goes through Dublin already.

prawnsambo

Forty Seven wrote: »

If you think the NI border is a problem just wait until England realises they have no way to store their nuclear arsenal which will have to be removed immediately according to Nicola Sturgeon. A nuclear power disarmed overnight and another border that blocks NI access to England. Work that one out.

To be fair, moving a nuclear arsenal (difficult and all as that may be) is a manageable exercise given enough time. And Scottish independence (if it were to happen) would take a great deal of time. Welsh devolution took eight years and that was a small enough move in comparison. But the problems with the NI border will happen overnight, will have no lead in time, have no 'transition period' or any other sort of prep time. It will be one day in the same system as Ireland and the next it won't.

allthedoyles

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Most traffic from NI to England goes through Dublin already.

Many NI truckers are now using Larne-Birkenhead

nc6000

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Most traffic from NI to England goes through Dublin already.

Except for Sammy Wilson, he takes his motorbike on the ferry to Scotland then makes his way over 600KMs down to London.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/dup-s-wilson-happy-to-vote-down-may-s-brexit-deal-1.3757338

Forty Seven

listermint wrote: »

Aye Corbyns lost his momentum when this week alone he got a front page love in cover from the financial times of all places.

I see your still running off 'feelings' and not facts against the EU.

And you voted remain .. aye

I'm running off years of living here and what real people really think. If you are basing your opinions on headlines and newspaper photos then I would refer you to the chances trump had of winning the election.



And yes. I voted remain but we are leaving so I would rather they get on with it. I don't want to spend 2020 going through anymore of this nonsense. Let the cards fall where they may.

Jim2007

jm08 wrote: »

If the UK wants a security agreement with the EU, the UK will need to have signed up to the ECHR. Countries who have signed up to the ECHR won't extradite people to a country that isn't signed up to the conveeention. If the UK wants to extradite any paramilitiries from the ROI to NI/UK, it can't do it.

The UK is signed up to the ECHR and there is no suggest that intend to leave it.

El Weirdo

Hold on, what has the ECtHR got to do with the EU? I thought they were separate institutions.

is_that_so

Mike Pence offered Boris a really tiny fig leaf! All porkies of course.

I spoke to President Trump this morning, your friend, and he sent his very best greetings and to assure you that the United States supports the UK’s decision to leave the European Union.

But he also wanted me to convey that the United States is ready, willing and able to immediately negotiate a free trade agreement with the UK.

El Weirdo

Forty Seven wrote: »

And yes. I voted remain but we are leaving so I would rather they get on with it. I don't want to spend 2020 going through anymore of this nonsense. Let the cards fall where they may.

I'm sorry, but if you think this won't be news for the next decade at least (whatever happens), then you have another think coming.

Bit cynical

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

If ''No Deal Brexit'' passes into law, is it there for good? Even with a new PM in place. Does it confirm once and for all that there can never be a 'No Deal Brexit''

Seth Brundle wrote: »

No deal is the default exit regardless of any votes held in Westminster. This is what the UK are currently sailing towards and *will* happen (despite the recent WM vote) unless they either revoke Art 50, accept the WA or ask and receive an extension.

It is really the ask for an extension law. When it passes it forces Johnson to ask for an extension from the EU until 31st January 2020. So it postpones a possible no deal Brexit (or clean break exit) until that date.

I think we can expect an election during that time. If the Tories gain a clear majority then Johnson has probably enough support to exit at the end of January. If the Tories lose, then Labour will probably try to enter into fresh negotiations with the EU. If the Tories only gain a narrow majority then we'll get something like the repeat of what is happening now with another law to force a request for an extension.

Shelga

Is Boris Johnson winning a majority in a GE now the only route to a no-deal Brexit?

A GE which results in a similar parliament makeup as today solves nothing.

A second referendum seems to be politically impossible.

Are the EU going to keep granting extensions just because parliament don’t want to leave without a deal, if they fail to agree an alternative?

I can see Labour putting in their manifesto that they will enter fabulous new negotiations that will result in a brilliant, unicorny socialist utopia Brexit- the EU need to be very clear ahead of any general election that May’s deal is the only one available. We’re all so fed up of this rubbish.

listermint

Forty Seven wrote: »

I'm running off years of living here and what real people really think. If you are basing your opinions on headlines and newspaper photos then I would refer you to the chances trump had of winning the election.



And yes. I voted remain but we are leaving so I would rather they get on with it. I don't want to spend 2020 going through anymore of this nonsense. Let the cards fall where they may.

Brexit will roll on for the next ten years.


I'm not sure you've thought this true. Frankly cards falling or not.

El Weirdo

VinLieger wrote: »

They are but your average brexiteers arent that smart

So Forty Seven's main problem with the EU is with a completely different institution?

Got it.

robinph

El Weirdo wrote: »

Hold on, what has the ECtHR got to do with the EU? I thought they were separate institutions.

If it has an E in the acronym then apparently it was voted on that the UK leaves.

lawred2

El Weirdo wrote: »

So Forty Seven's main problem with the EU is with a completely different institution?

Got it.

Brexiteer's problems are with Europe.

Plain and simple.

Bit cynical

Shelga wrote: »

I can see Labour putting in their manifesto that they will enter fabulous new negotiations that will result in a brilliant, unicorny socialist utopia Brexit- the EU need to be very clear ahead of any general election that May’s deal is the only one available. We’re all so fed up of this rubbish.

I think what Labour want is a sort of CU/SM with significant say over the rules (unlike Norway / Iceland) and in addition some form of control over migration. I don't think there's a problem with the CU/SM but I could see a lot of discussion over how much say the UK would have and what level of control they would have over immigration from EU countries. Definitely better from the Irish perspective than no deal.

Although Corbyn has said that he would not rule out a second referendum, I don't think he himself is in favour of one.

CelticRambler

Forty Seven wrote: »

I voted remain but we are leaving so I would rather they get on with it. I don't want to spend 2020 going through anymore of this nonsense. Let the cards fall where they may.

You do realise that "getting on with it" means you'll spend all of the "20s" going through this nonsense - especially if the UK leaves without a deal.

jm08

Forty Seven wrote: »

The Dutch refused to extradite a major drug dealer as his cell in Liverpool wasn't up to scratch.

Not the point but being in the ECHR didn't make a difference then. I'm sure a country like the UK could come to some arrangement regarding extradition. It does work both ways.

From reading this article, all the British authorities had to do was assure the Dutch Court that he would not be sent to 3 named prisons because the conditions were some of the 'worst conditions inspectors have seen'.

By the way, it is assumed that people are innocent until proven guilty in most jurisdictions.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/10/dutch-court-blocks-extradition-of-man-to-inhumane-uk-prisons

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/19/liverpool-prison-worst-conditions-inspectors-report

ancapailldorcha

Below standard posts deleted. Serious comments only please.

Zubeneschamali

Shelga wrote: »

A second referendum seems to be politically impossible.

Are the EU going to keep granting extensions just because parliament don’t want to leave without a deal, if they fail to agree an alternative?

I think a 2nd referendum is now more than likely. Anything bar a Conservative majority in the upcoming election will lead to a referendum.

Yes, the EU will keep granting extensions forever, costs very little compared to No Deal disruption, as long as the possibility exists that the UK will someday cop on and agree a deal or bin Brexit. The EU has been known to keep kicking the can down the roads for 25 years when it suits them, like Norway and Switzerland joining, or Sweden adopting the Euro.

jm08

CelticRambler wrote: »

You do realise that "getting on with it" means you'll spend all of the "20s" going through this nonsense - especially if the UK leaves without a deal.

And it looks like Phil Hogan is going to be the next EU Trade Commissioner. Good luck to any British (or US) trade negotiators facing a team of Hogan and Sabine! They won't take any old nonsense.