|
Re: Boris
Originally Posted by Miss Ann Thrope
(Post 12720217)
Well the GFA requies any change to the border to be by consent of the communities on both sides. As the people of NI did not consent to Brexit, then any Brexit-related new border would be the basis for triggering a so-called "border poll", which is essentially a referendum on the status of NI by the people of NI.
In the last couple of elections in NI, political unionism has lost its majority for the first time in the history of the statelet. Given the shock of Brexit, especially the disaster of no deal, it is quite conceivable that there would now be a majority for joining the Republic and thus staying in the EU. While that is definitely not a given, it is more plausible than ever before. What is assumed in all this talk is that the people of the Republic would consent. Given the growing disparity in wealth, crumbling NI infrastructure and dysfunctional political institutions, not to mention the challenge of successfully accommodating close to a million bolshy presbyterians used to having things their own way, in an outward-looking relatively newly secular liberal country of 5 million, that may not be such a certainty. In the end I guess romantic nationalism would prevail over hard-headed calculations, but the analogy of West Germany absorbing East Germany is difficult to resist. |
Re: Boris
Originally Posted by Miss Ann Thrope
(Post 12720217)
Well the GFA requies any change to the border to be by consent of the communities on both sides. As the people of NI did not consent to Brexit, then any Brexit-related new border would be the basis for triggering a so-called "border poll", which is essentially a referendum on the status of NI by the people of NI.
In the last couple of elections in NI, political unionism has lost its majority for the first time in the history of the statelet. Given the shock of Brexit, especially the disaster of no deal, it is quite conceivable that there would now be a majority for joining the Republic and thus staying in the EU. While that is definitely not a given, it is more plausible than ever before. What is assumed in all this talk is that the people of the Republic would consent. Given the growing disparity in wealth, crumbling NI infrastructure and dysfunctional political institutions, not to mention the challenge of successfully accommodating close to a million bolshy presbyterians used to having things their own way, in an outward-looking relatively newly secular liberal country of 5 million, that may not be such a certainty. In the end I guess romantic nationalism would prevail over hard-headed calculations, but the analogy of West Germany absorbing East Germany is difficult to resist. |
Re: Boris
Invasion ? Like they did in Afghanistan ? Remind me who won in that conflict. And in Iraq, And in Libya. Those who shout loudest about invasion should be the first to volunteer !
|
Re: Boris
I just read today that there are only around 25 or so countries that have never been invaded by the Brits.
Boris - do your duty. |
Re: Boris
Originally Posted by Millhouse
(Post 12720261)
it will not be the British putting up the border. What you have described seems EUs issue to resolve. The border is an issue for both the EU and the UK to resolve but only one side seems interested in resolving it. Meanwhile, bonfires in Belfast last night like it was 1979 and it's all a big laugh to the English commentariat (not least the britishexpats subset thereof). I didn't think Brexit would result in a resumption of violence in NI but now I'm not so sure. Things have already been allowed to slide too far due to the complete lack of attention of the UK government on resolving the suspension of the assembly in NI because of the focus on Brexit and the paralysing power of the DUP in parliament. Thanks to the stupid FFP system, 36% of the vote gets the DUP 55% of the seats and a veto to overturn the NI referendum vote. Meanwhile the 7 Sinn Fein MPs continue to refuse to take their seats though if that now archaic "principle" was put aside, the current parliamentary arithmetic would change dramatically. Though an interesting proposal, to have the SF MPs stand down under a deal among the anti-DUP opposition and trigger a series of by-elections, could overcome that. Unfortunately time is running out and it isn't gaining any traction having been completely ignored - as usual - in mainstream UK media. NI is, after all, an intrinsic part of the UK as the Conservative and Unionist Party grandees never cease to remind us, not least most recently Alex Johnson (or Boris as he is known to those who don't actually know him personally). So why is the UK government playing so fast and loose with the welfare of this part of the UK, which will be by far the worst hit anywhere by a no-deal Brexit? Subsidising NI post-no deal will be one more huge draw on the exchequer along with Nissan and farmers and ports and fishermen and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all who have been promised post-Brexit funding. Gosh, maybe there won't actually be quite £250m a week available to be spent on the NHS after all? Well it's not like the collapse of sterling and WTO-mandated imposition of tariffs will cause significant inflation so no need to worry, we can afford the extra taxes... |
Re: Boris
Originally Posted by Miss Ann Thrope
(Post 12720756)
The UK leaving the EU is changing the status of the border. Don't buy that rather obvious schoolboy con-trick from the tories that "we won't be putting up any border checks so we are not changing it".
I'd suggest that you don't buy the rather obvious schoolboy con-trick of the EU that "the UK are forcing us to put up a border" |
Re: Boris
Originally Posted by Millhouse
(Post 12720764)
Why not? A border in the North Sea and allow free movement within the island is the most likely solution from the UK's side. If the EU machine wants to build infrastructure to make a border as they are worried about the summugling of butter then that would be their decision.
I'd suggest that you don't buy the rather obvious schoolboy con-trick of the EU that "the UK are forcing us to put up a border" And, having seen this, what respectable government anywhere will want to negotiate anything with the UK, other than to take advantage of a country so visibly humiliated and on its knees? |
Re: Boris
Originally Posted by Miss Ann Thrope
(Post 12721074)
I realise the futility of this argument, but there is a clear legal fact: the change in status is due to the UK leaving the EU. Nothing else. This is being done without consent of people on both sides of the border, and in the case of a no-deal Brexit, without any other negotiated solution, whether temporary or permanent. So the UK will be unilaterally abrogating the GFA. What the current tory government is doing is making ignorant infantile statements equivalent to standing with their faces to the corner, hands stuck in their ears shouting "it's your fault, it;s your fault!!!" Even the NI Unionists are aghast at the complete ineptness and ignorance of the new government, albeit the DUP will seek to take advantage.
And, having seen this, what respectable government anywhere will want to negotiate anything with the UK, other than to take advantage of a country so visibly humiliated and on its knees? Oh and every government would continue to negotiate with us, even if we defaulted on the EU payments. I’m not saying this from a place of British arrogance, it’s coming from a place of understanding human behaviour. Look at all the countries that issue sovereign bonds after default; people still buy them. |
Re: Boris
Originally Posted by Millhouse
(Post 12720261)
it will not be the British putting up the border. What you have described seems EUs issue to resolve. It is not for the EU to work out.. Westminster wants to leave, it is therefore up to WM to address the ramifications of that action.. The fact that it was an Englishman who wrote the 'rules' to invoking Article 50 seems lost to most.. |
Re: Boris
Originally Posted by scot47
(Post 12720700)
Invasion ? Like they did in Afghanistan ? Remind me who won in that conflict. And in Iraq, And in Libya. Those who shout loudest about invasion should be the first to volunteer !
Originally Posted by TGFKASE
(Post 12722073)
And this thinking is the problem...
It is not for the EU to work out.. Westminster wants to leave, it is therefore up to WM to address the ramifications of that action.. The fact that it was an Englishman who wrote the 'rules' to invoking Article 50 seems lost to most.. "Article 50, which allows a member state to withdraw, was originally drafted by Scottish cross-bench peer and former diplomat Lord Kerr of Kinlochard" |
Re: Boris
Originally Posted by Scamp
(Post 12722840)
Booze in the forces is cheap, have you signed up yet?
Why such anti-English and why such wrong? "Article 50, which allows a member state to withdraw, was originally drafted by Scottish cross-bench peer and former diplomat Lord Kerr of Kinlochard" was it it pointing out that WM, Engurrlands Parliament, as BJ would say, is st fault, and is required to fix the issue, not the EU? The EU are not signatories of the Good Friday Agreement. It was only due to the UK being in the EU that allowed the GFA to be put in place. If the UK removes itself from the EU, it wrecks the GFA(something their NI friends the DUP never wanted), unless WM can come up with a solution. The EU look at the issue purely from a customs border problem. The UK HAS to look st it from both a customs border AND an integral part of the GFA. The Tories may as well remove the words Unionist from their paperwork, as everything they are doing will leave the current barely status-quo in tatters. |
Re: Boris
Originally Posted by TGFKASE
(Post 12722940)
I’ll admit to being wrong on the author, but I fail to see how that was anti-English.. was it it pointing out that WM, Engurrlands Parliament, as BJ would say, is st fault, and is required to fix the issue, not the EU? The EU are not signatories of the Good Friday Agreement. It was only due to the UK being in the EU that allowed the GFA to be put in place. If the UK removes itself from the EU, it wrecks the GFA(something their NI friends the DUP never wanted), unless WM can come up with a solution. The EU look at the issue purely from a customs border problem. The UK HAS to look st it from both a customs border AND an integral part of the GFA. The Tories may as well remove the words Unionist from their paperwork, as everything they are doing will leave the current barely status-quo in tatters. Anyway. Is the GFA replaceable? Is it still relevant to every point? Could it be upgraded and made new to serve better in this position moving forwards? Could it be adjusted to fit? I'm sure there are enough people in Ireland and Northern Ireland who want to remain peaceful that solutions can be found? Being honest, unlike lots of people I don't know enough about it, nor will I pretend to like many folks on the internet.... |
Re: Boris
Originally Posted by Millhouse
(Post 12721399)
it will be the EU made to look like the aggressor when their contractors roll up to fit the border infrastructure. The building of border infrastructure is not a choice by the EU, or the UK. It's a requirement under WTO rules to enforce that border. Both sides have to do this, even if it is the UK that is effectively seeking to change the current border regime. If there is no border infrastructure, then effectively the EU can export goods into the UK, effectively without tariffs or regulation, and vice versa. Under such a scenario, both sides would be obliged under WTO rules to apply the same regime to ALL other countries. Again, if it does turn out it's the EU applying border infrastructure, and the UK doesn't, very soon the UK will find itself hauled in front of the WTO (unless it basically drops all borders for everything else too, which seems unlikely). It might shatter the brexit voters delusion of independence to find even after leaving the EU, there are still rules that bind the UK and adjudications made outside the UK which it simply has to accept.
Originally Posted by Millhouse
(Post 12721399)
Oh and every government would continue to negotiate with us, even if we defaulted on the EU payments. I’m not saying this from a place of British arrogance, it’s coming from a place of understanding human behaviour. Look at all the countries that issue sovereign bonds after default; people still buy them.
The US will, enthusiastically. However, congress has made clear it will veto any deal that does not respect the Good Friday Agreement. And basically just leaving the EU without a deal and then doing nothing about the border and ignoring the WTO rules thereby effectively making the EU put up the hardware is not going to cut it with the US congress, I imagine. And even if other countries do talk to the UK, they're going to be negotiating hard. The UK will have lost the best possible trade deal for half it's trade, and faces no prospect of a US deal, which would be its largest single trading partner. Every other country that will negotiate will do so in the knowledge of the UK's desperate political and economic need, as well as its apparent willingness to shaft partners when it suits them, and ignore WTO rules. This is not going to be an approach that is likely to achieve much leverage for a good deal for the UK. You know things are bad when the pound has plunged to its lowest ever levels against the Euro, and then it gets a boost from the prospect that Jeremy Corbyn might seize control. |
Re: Boris
Originally Posted by captainflack
(Post 12723312)
The building of border infrastructure is not a choice by the EU, or the UK. It's a requirement under WTO rules to enforce that border. Both sides have to do this, even if it is the UK that is effectively seeking to change the current border regime.
If there is no border infrastructure, then effectively the EU can export goods into the UK, effectively without tariffs or regulation, and vice versa. Under such a scenario, both sides would be obliged under WTO rules to apply the same regime to ALL other countries. Again, if it does turn out it's the EU applying border infrastructure, and the UK doesn't, very soon the UK will find itself hauled in front of the WTO (unless it basically drops all borders for everything else too, which seems unlikely). It might shatter the brexit voters delusion of independence to find even after leaving the EU, there are still rules that bind the UK and adjudications made outside the UK which it simply has to accept. The EU probably won't, certainly not in terms of making any meaningful deal. That's 50% of UK trade. The US will, enthusiastically. However, congress has made clear it will veto any deal that does not respect the Good Friday Agreement. And basically just leaving the EU without a deal and then doing nothing about the border and ignoring the WTO rules thereby effectively making the EU put up the hardware is not going to cut it with the US congress, I imagine. And even if other countries do talk to the UK, they're going to be negotiating hard. The UK will have lost the best possible trade deal for half it's trade, and faces no prospect of a US deal, which would be its largest single trading partner. Every other country that will negotiate will do so in the knowledge of the UK's desperate political and economic need, as well as its apparent willingness to shaft partners when it suits them, and ignore WTO rules. This is not going to be an approach that is likely to achieve much leverage for a good deal for the UK. You know things are bad when the pound has plunged to its lowest ever levels against the Euro, and then it gets a boost from the prospect that Jeremy Corbyn might seize control. There's a lot of what ifs in your posts. The US congress is a good example. Those figures speaking against a trade deal may be singing a different tune after a hard brexit. Or voted out of office. As far as I can tell, your post is parroting the same whinges and fears parroted all over the place by the usual suspects. I'm nearly 40 and one of the advantages of being nearly 40 is realising things are never permanent. They change all the time. Geopolitics change all the time. Politics change all the time. Technology change all the time. Demographics certainly have greatly changed in my lifetime. Ideas and views and beliefs and sacrosanct concepts change all the time. Borders have changed. The EU has changed enormously in my lifetime. If I am sceptical about the backstop and the Irish border it is the nature that it cannot change, which is utterly ridiculous in the greater scheme of things. And as far as I can tell, the Irish border is being used by people who couldn't care less about the border or Northern Ireland as a divisive wedge to try to either stop Brexit (remainers) or to divide and conquer the British and trap them in a phenomenally bad dead (the EU). None of these people genuinely care about the border or the particular politics around it. Because if they did, they would be serious about looking at alternative arrangements or compromises. Refusing to put up a few security cameras or checkpoints solely for commercial goods in fears of a bunch of white trash Irish terrorist thugs who still live in the stone age is not meaningful in any sense. |
Re: Boris
I can tell that DXB really loves our Irish cousins. Just look at the words he uses.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 8:30 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.