Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

FrancieBrady

I told ya wrote: »

Are you not contradicting yourself?

I posted: Serious question: do you seriously think that we can come to an accommodation with a large proportion of the NI people? This was in clear reference to a UI from my earlier earlier posts.


You replied: We've already come to that accommodation. It's the GFA.


I replied: I accept it's an accommodation, but only within the ballpark of the GFA. I would not be of the view that one equals the other ie acceptance of the GFA equals acceptance of a UI. Not by a long shot is the GFA 'that accommodation'.

Back then people voted against the GFA. I don't know what % of the NI vote would be required to make it work. I would argue it would need to be very high.

A UI is a totally different ballpark.


You further replied: No one has ever stated that acceptance of the GFA is an acceptance of a UI.


Seems like a contradiction to me.

Both communities, backed up by the acceptance of the agreement here, have accepted the principle that the decision on constitutional change shall be decided by the 'majority'.
Currently the majority wishes to remain in the UK, if that would change then the same respect for the 'decision of the majority' is expected.

I told ya

listermint wrote: »

As I said, money talks.thats it. You know it. I know it. And the majority in the north know it. You keep using the term large portion but I think you'll find the largest and overall portion don't want to return to the time before and only really care about peaceful economically stable life.

I prefer the quiet life myself.

But, IIRC, just under 30% of the NI vote was against the GFA. It's a big jump from the GFA to a UI.

Look, it's all about people's opinions atm. A successful UI and a UI are two different outcomes, IMO anyway.

As the fella says, we all have opinions.................

Leroy42

mick087 wrote: »

Not sure what you mean with your question.
Are you saying that you believe the EU organization did make a mistake over article 16?
And that you would like to know what i think should happen because of the EU organization did in fact make a mistake?

Do you believe the EU organization did make a mistake triggering article 16?

The EU did not trigger Art 16.

It did nothing more than Johsnon did two weeks ago in the HoC when he stated he would have no hesitation in triggering it. What do you think at the time should have happened to Johnson and the UK?

A error was made, corrected, but nonetheless it was a mistake, an error, a misjudgment, a cock up. Call it whatever you want. But it was rectified before formal action was taken.

There is of course the diplomatic fall out, as evidenced by Gove no using it as a pretence to cover the acceptance that the deal is causing all sorts of problems.

But those problems exist whether EU made the mistake or not, it does not the UK political job easier as they can paint themselves as looking for reassurance rather than trying to correct their own errrors

Seth Brundle

mick087 wrote: »

Not sure what you mean with your question.
Are you saying that you believe the EU organization did make a mistake over article 16?
And that you would like to know what i think should happen because of the EU organization did in fact make a mistake?

Do you believe the EU organization did make a mistake triggering article 16?

They.
Did.
Not.
Trigger.
Art 16

Hurrache

mick087 wrote: »

Do you believe the EU organization did make a mistake triggering article 16?

Like the guys said
https://twitter.com/remkorteweg/status/1356883902405750784

Leroy42

Exactly. Why are the UK looking to the EU to solve these problems?

Let them invest in system, infrastructure, employees, education etc to deal with the reality of what they agreed to.

But as usual the UK wants to blame others, and expect others to fix the mess for them.

BonnieSituation

I told ya wrote: »

Are you not contradicting yourself?

I posted: Serious question: do you seriously think that we can come to an accommodation with a large proportion of the NI people? This was in clear reference to a UI from my earlier earlier posts.


You replied: We've already come to that accommodation. It's the GFA.


I replied: I accept it's an accommodation, but only within the ballpark of the GFA. I would not be of the view that one equals the other ie acceptance of the GFA equals acceptance of a UI. Not by a long shot is the GFA 'that accommodation'.

Back then people voted against the GFA. I don't know what % of the NI vote would be required to make it work. I would argue it would need to be very high.

A UI is a totally different ballpark.


You further replied: No one has ever stated that acceptance of the GFA is an acceptance of a UI.


Seems like a contradiction to me.

Well, that was a long winded way for you to say you didn't understand what was written.

There's an implicit acceptance of consent, which was the guiding principle of the GFA, whether that is to keep the status quo or to have a UI.

The fact that Unionism for the most part has accepted the GFA, does not mean they will accept a UI.

It's plain as day that this is the case.

Unionism's entire raison d'être is about moving the goalposts.

Igotadose

Gove asking EU for the current 'grace period' extended till 2023: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-nireland-gove/uk-asks-eu-for-brexit-grace-period-extension-to-2023-bbc-reports-idUSKBN2A312N

Hurrache

Igotadose wrote: »

Gove asking EU for the current 'grace period' extended till 2023: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-nireland-gove/uk-asks-eu-for-brexit-grace-period-extension-to-2023-bbc-reports-idUSKBN2A312N

He must be absolutely raging with the people who signed off on Brexit and the NI protocol given he's trying to clean up their mess.

And all the unionist parties voted against a motion laid down by the SDLP to extend the grace period.

It's an astonishing display of ineptitude and hypocrisy.

Igotadose

Igotadose wrote: »

Gove asking EU for the current 'grace period' extended till 2023: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-nireland-gove/uk-asks-eu-for-brexit-grace-period-extension-to-2023-bbc-reports-idUSKBN2A312N

The UK spin machine is in full force - the EU’s gaff has allowed the British to muddy the waters somewhat (deliberately and cynically) over article 16.

The EU really need to stand firm on this one and make it abundantly clear to everyone that responsibility for article 16 rests solely with the British - it was something they negotiated for and agreed to.

It’ll be tough dealing with brass necks on the issue like Gove and Foster but they really must not bend on this.

Hurrache

Batrachotox wrote: »

It’ll be tough dealing with brass necks on the issue like Gove and Foster but they really must not bend on this.

I don't think so given the rings that were ran around them for 4 years. If anything they may have been clattered in the head by the reality of Brexit and their brass necks will have melted away.

yagan

Igotadose wrote: »

Gove asking EU for the current 'grace period' extended till 2023: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-nireland-gove/uk-asks-eu-for-brexit-grace-period-extension-to-2023-bbc-reports-idUSKBN2A312N

The DUP want their sectarian state back, not London grovelling to the EU.

looksee

So they are effectively saying - leave us away with altering our standards in anything we choose, but let us continue to move foodstuffs for two years with no checks - does this mean that goods going to NI will then be checked between NI and the EU? But no, no hard border (ie checks). So they are asking for a hole in the system for two years? Or would there be someway only strictly supermarket supplies going into the North? But that would require checks. Am I missing something here?

mick087

Seth Brundle wrote: »

They.
Did not trigger art 16

Attempting to or triggering Article 16 is was a mistake.

FrancieBrady

mick087 wrote: »

Attempting to or triggering Article 16 is was a mistake.

So, a mistake was made. Many have and many will be made.

What now?

Hurrache

mick087 wrote: »

Attempting to or triggering Article 16 is was a mistake.

A mistake they admittted to.

But are you ignoring the same mistake that the UK had already made weeks ago, and have yet to acknowledge they both made the threat, and that it was a mistake?

Nope, not at all. But the revisionists are having a major hissy fit when someone else does it, albeit pretty much immediately withdraw the thread.

Leroy42

I do have some sympathy for NI, it really is an intolerable situation that they have found themselves in. They have essentially been thrown under the bus to save the allow the rest of the UK the Brexit that the tories wanted.

Of course, the DUP played a significant role in that, but for the people on the ground, it really is a tough situation. They are entirely correct that nowhere else in the world is facing such a situation, and certain parts of the GB itself would not accept to be in the same situation.

but, and its a big but, what is the alternative? The DUP are perfectly right to complain about it but there must be a workable alternative. After 4 years of negotiation, this was the alternative that both the UK and the EU agreed upon.

I just watch a clip of a JHB interviewing Ian Paisley and even she admits that she was on board with the deal, the deal that Paisley is now saying is a betrayal of NI. But at no point does he asks her why the hell she agreed with it, why she felt NI was to be sacrificed.

They are asking the right questions but asking the wrong people. Its not the EU they should be looking to, its the UK.

Hurrache

Leroy42 wrote: »

but, and its a big but, what is the alternative? The DUP are perfectly right to complain about it but there must be a workable alternative. After 4 years of negotiation, this was the alternative that both the UK and the EU agreed upon.

Based on what the DUP are looking for now, they were offered just that as part of May's deal.

Leroy42

mick087 wrote: »

Attempting to or triggering Article 16 is was a mistake.

Which was it. You cant throw them both around as if they are equal.

You originally stated they had triggered it,not it was attempting to.

Keeo going and you will actually get to the reality that it was never attempted, it was stated they had an intention.

Again, how is this different that Johnson stating that he had no hesitation in triggering Art 16 if he felt he needed to?

Hurrache

Hurrache wrote: »

I don't think so given the rings that were ran around them for 4 years. If anything they may have been clattered in the head by the reality of Brexit and their brass necks will have melted away.

I think that’s very optimistic! I reckon the likes of Gove and Foster will attempt to brazen it out and point blame at anywhere but themselves to the end of days.

BonnieSituation

I told ya wrote: »

I prefer the quiet life myself.

But, IIRC, just under 30% of the NI vote was against the GFA. It's a big jump from the GFA to a UI.

Look, it's all about people's opinions atm. A successful UI and a UI are two different outcomes, IMO anyway.

As the fella says, we all have opinions.................

In what way are you extrapolating those figures, cos that's fundamentally bad maths.

FrancieBrady

It used to be Perfidious Albion, now it is perfidious DUP. Running with the hare and hunting with the hounds.

https://twitter.com/brendanhughes64/status/1352555381889904640

mick087

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, a mistake was made.

So, a mistake was made. Many have and many will be made.

Who should they be accountable to for these mistakes?

What now?
My guess is the EU comission will decide.

fash

Batrachotox wrote: »

The UK spin machine is in full force - the EU’s gaff has allowed the British to muddy the waters somewhat (deliberately and cynically) over article 16.

The EU really need to stand firm on this one and make it abundantly clear to everyone that responsibility for article 16 rests solely with the British - it was something they negotiated for and agreed to.

It’ll be tough dealing with brass necks on the issue like Gove and Foster but they really must not bend on this.

The best response would be "we can certainly look at that if you can give us firm guarantees that the UK will not diverge in that time".

One thing I would note: part of the WA is that NI get to keep/dump the current arrangements in 2024. I imagine that the EU/Ireland wants the "status quo" to be well bedded down by that stage to give those who prefer the current arrangements to the alternative a "status quo" advantage in any decision on that.

mick087

Hurrache wrote: »

A mistake they admittted to.

But are you ignoring the same mistake that the UK had already made weeks ago, and have yet to acknowledge they both made the threat, and that it was a mistake?

Nope, not at all. But the revisionists are having a major hissy fit when someone else does it, albeit pretty much immediately withdraw the thread.

A mistake they admittted to.
Who will they be accountable to for this mistake?

But are you ignoring the same mistake that the UK had already made weeks ago, and have yet to acknowledge they both made the threat, and that it was a mistake?
The UK will be held to account to the uk by its citizens in elections.

Nope, not at all. But the revisionists are having a major hissy fit when someone else does it, albeit pretty much immediately withdraw the thread.
Any political party or political organization that has such powers that for example EU commiosion have' should be held accountable to its citizens through a democratic election process.

Doing this they will then be able to prove to its citizens they they are serving its citizens interest.

listermint

mick087 wrote: »

So, a mistake was made. Many have and many will be made.

Who should they be accountable to for these mistakes?

What now?
My guess is the EU comission will decide.

Are you going to beat the accountability drum until the end of time and ignore Boriss same threat on article 16 over a period of weeks last month ?

Direct question.

I told ya

BonnieSituation wrote: »

In what way are you extrapolating those figures, cos that's fundamentally bad maths.

Talking of extrapolating, you're trying to make the claim that the GFA BP will automatically give a UI.

I'm not extrapolating anything. I'm pointing out that a sizeable minority in NI voted against the GFA.

I'm of the opinion that there's a difference between a UI and a successful UI.

You're entitled to your opinion so why not enjoy it.

Hurrache

mick087 wrote: »

A mistake they admittted to.
Who will they be accountable to for this mistake?

If you follow the story correctly, she's being held accountable by the EU.

And you're joking that you think the Tory government will be held accountable by anyone. Lying is part of how they work, they've been doing it for years and brazen it out by lying even further about what they lied about before.

murphaph

mick087 wrote: »

Attempting to or triggering Article 16 is was a mistake.

So you've said. Repeatedly. Everyone agrees it was a a mistake. Can we move on now?

Widdensushi

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

The biggest losers are the Brits, they have difficulty selling their catch now which means more money for Irish fishermen

They also handed over mostly same quota, other sovereign nations like Canada or Japan didn’t sign over an ounce of fish for a trade deal.

The alternative to this would have been no fish btw, don’t forget Brexit was the Brits idea too. EU went way out of the way for us in Ireland, fishermen here be completely screwed now without such brilliant negotiations

I was not addressing the deal that was made on fishing with brexit between the eu and UK with my post. I was pointing out that within the eu Ireland had to give a far more than the bigger countries, many of whom do most of their fishing in UK and Irish waters. Ireland gave away our fish because we have no say at the table, whereas France for example who gained the most gave little or nothing away.