Telegraph reporting today on a poll for them. 66% disapprove on governments handling of negotiations. That's the Telegraph to repeat.
With this and the Sun starting to run more critical articles is this the start of the right wing press getting their excuses lined up in case/for when it all hits the fan?
Was anyone told then that we would be unable to leave unless we had a NI/ROI border solution ?
I think not - but (as always) am open to correction.
How would anybody be told in 1972, that the Good Friday Agreement signed over 25 years later would have an impact on our relationship with the EU?
And how does 2 treaties that our sovereign parliament freely entered into, but are incompatible under the new circumstances equate to a loss of sovereignty in any way shape or form, unless you're starting from a position of "we've lost sovereignty, I now need to find someway to explain that whilst making it the EUs fault".
So, you are saying that things and circumstances change over time ? Yes, I agree.
After Brexit, things will change again and we will have to adapt. One of these things will be how the NI/ROI border is run. It will change, and we will have to adapt.
If the EU or the rest of the world wants to hold us to ransom over trade, then yes, there could be hardship. We will have to adapt.
If there is dissident terrorism activity as a result of the changes (not good), we will have to deal with it - in the same way we already live with terrorism everyday in everything we do.
IMO, the UK shouldn't be reluctant to implement any border law/rule changes in case it incites terrorism activity, or continue to allow uncontrolled immigration into an already overcrowded UK. The puzzle of the NI/ROI border is how to reconcile these two things. If expert opinion is that they cannot be reconciled, then one of these two things has to be modified to suit. The EU says it cannot bend from the four freedoms of the EU (understandable), so that only leaves the way the border is operated.
Was anyone told then that we would be unable to leave unless we had a NI/ROI border solution ?
I think not - but (as always) am open to correction.
How would anybody be told in 1972, that the Good Friday Agreement signed over 25 years later would have an impact on our relationship with the EU?
And how does 2 treaties that our sovereign parliament freely entered into, but are incompatible under the new circumstances equate to a loss of sovereignty in any way shape or form, unless you're starting from a position of "we've lost sovereignty, I now need to find someway to explain that whilst making it the EUs fault".
So, you are saying that things and circumstances change over time ? Yes, I agree.
After Brexit, things will change again and we will have to adapt. One of these things will be how the NI/ROI border is run. It will change, and we will have to adapt.
If the EU or the rest of the world wants to hold us to ransom over trade, then yes, there could be hardship. We will have to adapt.
If there is dissident terrorism activity as a result of the changes (not good), we will have to deal with it - in the same way we already live with terrorism everyday in everything we do.
IMO, the UK shouldn't be reluctant to implement any border law/rule changes in case it incites terrorism activity, or continue to allow uncontrolled immigration into an already overcrowded UK. The puzzle of the NI/ROI border is how to reconcile these two things. If expert opinion is that they cannot be reconciled, then one of these two things has to be modified to suit. The EU says it cannot bend from the four freedoms of the EU (understandable), so that only leaves the way the border is operated.
Over to you guys..............
But when we respond with answers to questions you have no comeback to, you ignore the response. So there's no point is there?
I agree with you and of course it was Boris Jo who made the claim on behalf of Vote Leave rather than the government making the claim.
If or when it happens or not is when the Vote Leave politicians need to be held to account or congratulated. Just like when the economy booms or otherwise, we take back control or otherwise, we have brilliant and quickly set up trade deals with the rest of the world or otherwise.
Of course Simon Stevens sees the opportunity with a weak government to press for funding. Johnson is becoming such a mill stone around the governments neck, they can't sack him as he would launch a leadership challenge and probably let in a third party, therefore he has become a bruise that opponents can keep punching.
Was anyone told then that we would be unable to leave unless we had a NI/ROI border solution ?
I think not - but (as always) am open to correction.
How would anybody be told in 1972, that the Good Friday Agreement signed over 25 years later would have an impact on our relationship with the EU?
And how does 2 treaties that our sovereign parliament freely entered into, but are incompatible under the new circumstances equate to a loss of sovereignty in any way shape or form, unless you're starting from a position of "we've lost sovereignty, I now need to find someway to explain that whilst making it the EUs fault".
So, you are saying that things and circumstances change over time ? Yes, I agree.
After Brexit, things will change again and we will have to adapt. One of these things will be how the NI/ROI border is run. It will change, and we will have to adapt.
If the EU or the rest of the world wants to hold us to ransom over trade, then yes, there could be hardship. We will have to adapt.
If there is dissident terrorism activity as a result of the changes (not good), we will have to deal with it - in the same way we already live with terrorism everyday in everything we do.
IMO, the UK shouldn't be reluctant to implement any border law/rule changes in case it incites terrorism activity, or continue to allow uncontrolled immigration into an already overcrowded UK. The puzzle of the NI/ROI border is how to reconcile these two things. If expert opinion is that they cannot be reconciled, then one of these two things has to be modified to suit. The EU says it cannot bend from the four freedoms of the EU (understandable), so that only leaves the way the border is operated.
Over to you guys..............
I believe that the prospectus that was offered to the public by many leading lights of the Leave campaign(s) in advance of the Referendum, promising that there would effectively be no downside to Brexit, was based on either a wide-eyed naivety or a cynical desire to deliberately dissemble and obfuscate (I have wanted to use both those words of late) in order to persuade people to vote against their own best interests.
However, this prospectus indicated that the UK would continue to benefit fully from free access to the Single Market, which is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve without membership of the Single Market. Almost no consideration was given to the practicalities of what leaving the Single Market and/or Customs Union (in trade terms alone) would mean for all the UK's border entry points. It's not just the Northern Ireland question that was not really considered.
The choice on the nature of the trade borders (frictionless, soft or hard) lies with the UK Government. There is no bespoke deal that will provide what Theresa May says she wants. The options that the EU will negotiate (in decreasing order of integration and ease of access) are either Single Market, Customs Union or Free Trade Agreement. The first two have been rejected out of hand by Mrs May & Co. The last of the three will not be negotiated and ratified, if at all, in less than the next three and a half years (even if it is to use an existing deal, like CETA, as a template).
Every country with which the UK will seek to negotiate a Free Trade Agreement will, effectively, seek to maximise their advantage in the process (or, indeed, hold the UK to ransom), just as the UK will seek to do in reverse. The comments of Wilbur Ross to the CBI on Monday, just as any sensible person would have inferred from Donald Trump's statements regarding trade, make it clear that the USA would require the UK to accept its demands in order to agree a deal. However, as a member of the EU, the UK is in a stronger position to potentially dictate the terms of negotiation than it will be alone.
For what it's worth, and no matter how much I would wish things to be otherwise, I can see no option other than a hard customs border being established, unless the UK Government is to change its stance regarding the Single Market and the Customs Union. In which case the economic impact on Northern Ireland will be almost as painful as being forced to watch Mrs Brown's Boys on a constant loop.
It is worth pointing out that the UK Government position is that it will not seek to curb population movement across the border in Ireland, which does make one wonder whether immigration being controlled is anything other than the electioneering stunt that it has been over the past 7 years or so (let's face it, under a certain T May, the Home Office was not a beacon for managed immigration). I will admit that I had believed that the Common Trvel Area would have been a casualty of Brexit (and, if there is no deal, it may yet be), but both sides seem willing to protect it.
Regarding terrorism, it is a different thing to not change rules or policies in defiance of a terrorist threat than it is to make such changes in the full knowledge that they will actually increase the threat that is being faced (particularly in an environment where the resources that had been utilised to counter it in previous years have been pared to the bone). One is (politicans would like to hope) an example of steely determination, the other, to quote Lady Bracknell, looks like carelessness....
Was anyone told then that we would be unable to leave unless we had a NI/ROI border solution ?
I think not - but (as always) am open to correction.
How would anybody be told in 1972, that the Good Friday Agreement signed over 25 years later would have an impact on our relationship with the EU?
And how does 2 treaties that our sovereign parliament freely entered into, but are incompatible under the new circumstances equate to a loss of sovereignty in any way shape or form, unless you're starting from a position of "we've lost sovereignty, I now need to find someway to explain that whilst making it the EUs fault".
So, you are saying that things and circumstances change over time ? Yes, I agree.
After Brexit, things will change again and we will have to adapt. One of these things will be how the NI/ROI border is run. It will change, and we will have to adapt.
If the EU or the rest of the world wants to hold us to ransom over trade, then yes, there could be hardship. We will have to adapt.
If there is dissident terrorism activity as a result of the changes (not good), we will have to deal with it - in the same way we already live with terrorism everyday in everything we do.
IMO, the UK shouldn't be reluctant to implement any border law/rule changes in case it incites terrorism activity, or continue to allow uncontrolled immigration into an already overcrowded UK. The puzzle of the NI/ROI border is how to reconcile these two things. If expert opinion is that they cannot be reconciled, then one of these two things has to be modified to suit. The EU says it cannot bend from the four freedoms of the EU (understandable), so that only leaves the way the border is operated.
Over to you guys..............
This is an interesting post and seems to suggest a hard heavily controlled border similar to the one that used to exist between East and West Germany. I get that, because I can't see many other ways a controlled border will work in Ireland. It will usher in a fresh era of violence and terrorism in my view, and with 400km to control it will easily absorb the money previously paid in to the EU (as well as leak like a sieve). We are told that leavers knew full well what they voted for, and that Brexit means brexit, the danger is that Brexit means death for some innocent people.
Was anyone told then that we would be unable to leave unless we had a NI/ROI border solution ?
I think not - but (as always) am open to correction.
How would anybody be told in 1972, that the Good Friday Agreement signed over 25 years later would have an impact on our relationship with the EU?
And how does 2 treaties that our sovereign parliament freely entered into, but are incompatible under the new circumstances equate to a loss of sovereignty in any way shape or form, unless you're starting from a position of "we've lost sovereignty, I now need to find someway to explain that whilst making it the EUs fault".
So, you are saying that things and circumstances change over time ? Yes, I agree.
After Brexit, things will change again and we will have to adapt. One of these things will be how the NI/ROI border is run. It will change, and we will have to adapt.
If the EU or the rest of the world wants to hold us to ransom over trade, then yes, there could be hardship. We will have to adapt.
If there is dissident terrorism activity as a result of the changes (not good), we will have to deal with it - in the same way we already live with terrorism everyday in everything we do.
IMO, the UK shouldn't be reluctant to implement any border law/rule changes in case it incites terrorism activity, or continue to allow uncontrolled immigration into an already overcrowded UK. The puzzle of the NI/ROI border is how to reconcile these two things. If expert opinion is that they cannot be reconciled, then one of these two things has to be modified to suit. The EU says it cannot bend from the four freedoms of the EU (understandable), so that only leaves the way the border is operated.
Over to you guys..............
Seems to be popular so I’ll get in on the act. History is your friend.
Partition has never worked out well. In every instance it has been used to solve a problem it has invariably created an even worse one. It is always rejected by those that endure an artificial border most often with violence and breeds a deep and angry resentment. If anyone can offer me evidence to the contrary I will be amazed.
The border in Ireland since its inception has proved to be a costly in both monetary and in life. The relaxation of the existing border brought about by the Good Friday Agreement and joint membership of the EU has thankfully eased the tensions and allowed for what are now years of relatively trouble free times.
Any return to a regulated border will without question result in it being a gift to the men of violence and will cost hundreds of millions to maintain.
Glibly saying people will have to adapt is tantamount to washing your hands of the inevitable violence and chaos.
The border between the ROI and NI is a huge obstacle for successful Brexit negotiations to overcome. 18 months post referendum I am still yet to see an inch of movement in finding an acceptable solution.
Must have been out that day when my vote came in to join this freely entered treaty. How democratic of the british government and paradise island EU to give me that choice... They did didn't they.
That's amazing, the UK government has run every other international treaty and deal past you, yet some how, in this one unique, never to be repeated instance, they didn't ask you personally if it was ok.
Because that's how it works, right? We get a direct vote on every single individual decision the government make.
Oh wait, it's not and you're talking absolute bollocks, Presumably when you voted leave to "return sovereignty to parliament" you didn't have a fucking clue what any of that actually meant.
I've tried really really hard to be polite and civil in all my responses in political threads, but you're making it so hard to maintain that record.
Don't, be free no-one else has... Got called a little englander racist over the weekend by someone who previously had handshook never to reply to my comments... Just shows how honourable some people are here... I wont kiss their backsides, if you wantr to o carry on.
The EU when it suirts you lort sends out a load of fantsdtic directives, they could also on this one. Maybe they were concentrating chasing their lost billions in the isle of man.
Swearing... So demeaning
If you are referring to me you are wrong. I have never referred to you directly as a little Englander racist. This is what i wrote:
For the record my grandfather fought for the British (isles) with the Royal Munster Fusiliers in the Sudan and WW1, he was on the Somme. He was a professional soldier and a very proud Irishman who was subsequently caught up in the early conflicts during the oppressive black and tan era and the start of the Irish Free State, before retiring to very rural chicken farming and drinking. His story is not uncommon from an era when the reach of Westminster was across the British Isles. The distain shown towards the Irish by some British people from closer to London than Dublin is contemptible in my view. Whenever I hear those age old prejudices emerge I understand again why many in Ireland feel so alienated from many in (mainly) England. There are many issues with Irishness, and Irish nationalism in particular, in addition to the previous iron grip of the Catholic Church and the general guilt industry in the land. However there are many more positives that flow from Ireland, not least because population dispersal has created an Irish rooted tribe who are much more internationalist than most. I make no apologies for going on about the border and Brexit, and though I was born in Kent I hold my Irish passport with considerable pride. If some little Englander racists have a problem with that, it can contaminate their lives not mine.
However if you wish to bring up the concept of honour this is something you wrote:
As i said before... Many bloody times... Cant recall anybody from ireland ever voting in my favour or asking me. Just recall dodging bombs for 20 years. So ireland never has or never will be of any interest to me.
Just for the record as i have also said before... I have an irish passport nailed to my own notice board at work as sadly my viscous barstard grandfather came from dublin.
As an honourable brexiter to say that the part of your country, Northern Ireland, was of no interest to you when you voted your country out of the EU does not appear to be in any way honourable to me.
Pull the other one, it was in reply to my post and was clearly aimed at me, why mention it then. Up to that moment you were only one of two people here i genuinely liked, the other surprisingly is prague.
??!!??****?
Charlton Life, eh?
Next up, @i_b_b_o_r_g invites me for dinner at his local brasserie to get advice on his French citizenship application
:-)
Just shows how popular you are... I forgot to say i like all the brexiters of course.
Was anyone told then that we would be unable to leave unless we had a NI/ROI border solution ?
I think not - but (as always) am open to correction.
How would anybody be told in 1972, that the Good Friday Agreement signed over 25 years later would have an impact on our relationship with the EU?
And how does 2 treaties that our sovereign parliament freely entered into, but are incompatible under the new circumstances equate to a loss of sovereignty in any way shape or form, unless you're starting from a position of "we've lost sovereignty, I now need to find someway to explain that whilst making it the EUs fault".
So, you are saying that things and circumstances change over time ? Yes, I agree.
After Brexit, things will change again and we will have to adapt. One of these things will be how the NI/ROI border is run. It will change, and we will have to adapt.
If the EU or the rest of the world wants to hold us to ransom over trade, then yes, there could be hardship. We will have to adapt.
If there is dissident terrorism activity as a result of the changes (not good), we will have to deal with it - in the same way we already live with terrorism everyday in everything we do.
IMO, the UK shouldn't be reluctant to implement any border law/rule changes in case it incites terrorism activity, or continue to allow uncontrolled immigration into an already overcrowded UK. The puzzle of the NI/ROI border is how to reconcile these two things. If expert opinion is that they cannot be reconciled, then one of these two things has to be modified to suit. The EU says it cannot bend from the four freedoms of the EU (understandable), so that only leaves the way the border is operated.
Over to you guys..............
Seems to be popular so I’ll get in on the act. History is your friend.
Partition has never worked out well. In every instance it has been used to solve a problem it has invariably created an even worse one. It is always rejected by those that endure an artificial border most often with violence and breeds a deep and angry resentment. If anyone can offer me evidence to the contrary I will be amazed.
The border in Ireland since its inception has proved to be a costly in both monetary and in life. The relaxation of the existing border brought about by the Good Friday Agreement and joint membership of the EU has thankfully eased the tensions and allowed for what are now years of relatively trouble free times.
Any return to a regulated border will without question result in it being a gift to the men of violence and will cost hundreds of millions to maintain.
Glibly saying people will have to adapt is tantamount to washing your hands of the inevitable violence and chaos.
The border between the ROI and NI is a huge obstacle for successful Brexit negotiations to overcome. 18 months post referendum I am still yet to see an inch of movement in finding an acceptable solution.
OK - so we should cancel Brexit because we can't find a (peaceful) border solution. Hence we are in the EU forever, I guess.
I wonder how long after we cancel Brexit till the EU start upping our contribution ? Why not ? After all, we have put ourselves in a position where we can never leave so the EU might as well make hay while the sun is guaranteed to shine - pretty much forever.
Could be why Cameron came back empty(ish) handed from his pre-referendum visit. The EU fellas know we can't leave without creating a host of other insurmountable problems - so they have us right where they would like us.
Good old UK - damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
Was anyone told then that we would be unable to leave unless we had a NI/ROI border solution ?
I think not - but (as always) am open to correction.
How would anybody be told in 1972, that the Good Friday Agreement signed over 25 years later would have an impact on our relationship with the EU?
And how does 2 treaties that our sovereign parliament freely entered into, but are incompatible under the new circumstances equate to a loss of sovereignty in any way shape or form, unless you're starting from a position of "we've lost sovereignty, I now need to find someway to explain that whilst making it the EUs fault".
So, you are saying that things and circumstances change over time ? Yes, I agree.
After Brexit, things will change again and we will have to adapt. One of these things will be how the NI/ROI border is run. It will change, and we will have to adapt.
If the EU or the rest of the world wants to hold us to ransom over trade, then yes, there could be hardship. We will have to adapt.
If there is dissident terrorism activity as a result of the changes (not good), we will have to deal with it - in the same way we already live with terrorism everyday in everything we do.
IMO, the UK shouldn't be reluctant to implement any border law/rule changes in case it incites terrorism activity, or continue to allow uncontrolled immigration into an already overcrowded UK. The puzzle of the NI/ROI border is how to reconcile these two things. If expert opinion is that they cannot be reconciled, then one of these two things has to be modified to suit. The EU says it cannot bend from the four freedoms of the EU (understandable), so that only leaves the way the border is operated.
Over to you guys..............
Seems to be popular so I’ll get in on the act. History is your friend.
Partition has never worked out well. In every instance it has been used to solve a problem it has invariably created an even worse one. It is always rejected by those that endure an artificial border most often with violence and breeds a deep and angry resentment. If anyone can offer me evidence to the contrary I will be amazed.
The border in Ireland since its inception has proved to be a costly in both monetary and in life. The relaxation of the existing border brought about by the Good Friday Agreement and joint membership of the EU has thankfully eased the tensions and allowed for what are now years of relatively trouble free times.
Any return to a regulated border will without question result in it being a gift to the men of violence and will cost hundreds of millions to maintain.
Glibly saying people will have to adapt is tantamount to washing your hands of the inevitable violence and chaos.
The border between the ROI and NI is a huge obstacle for successful Brexit negotiations to overcome. 18 months post referendum I am still yet to see an inch of movement in finding an acceptable solution.
Quoting myself here because this post attracted an LOL.
Can anyone explain to me what part of my post is remotely funny or risible?
Except for the fact that his suggested use of the "emergency brake" would be a wilful misuse of the EEA Agreement (and the only occasion when it was allowed was for Liechstenstein, and the proprtion of immigrants compared to citizens/subjects was far in excess of what the UK has or is likely to experience in peacetime), and would require the agreement of the other members (including the EU countries) to avoid punitive reaction.
But he has based it on the works of Richard North (I know you like his viewpoint), who has the single major flaw of assuming that the UK can decide its own interpretation of the rules for operating in multinational bodies without disagreement. The other member states of the EU, EFTA or EEA would not sit by passively while the UK tore up the rulebook.
Was anyone told then that we would be unable to leave unless we had a NI/ROI border solution ?
I think not - but (as always) am open to correction.
How would anybody be told in 1972, that the Good Friday Agreement signed over 25 years later would have an impact on our relationship with the EU?
And how does 2 treaties that our sovereign parliament freely entered into, but are incompatible under the new circumstances equate to a loss of sovereignty in any way shape or form, unless you're starting from a position of "we've lost sovereignty, I now need to find someway to explain that whilst making it the EUs fault".
So, you are saying that things and circumstances change over time ? Yes, I agree.
After Brexit, things will change again and we will have to adapt. One of these things will be how the NI/ROI border is run. It will change, and we will have to adapt.
If the EU or the rest of the world wants to hold us to ransom over trade, then yes, there could be hardship. We will have to adapt.
If there is dissident terrorism activity as a result of the changes (not good), we will have to deal with it - in the same way we already live with terrorism everyday in everything we do.
IMO, the UK shouldn't be reluctant to implement any border law/rule changes in case it incites terrorism activity, or continue to allow uncontrolled immigration into an already overcrowded UK. The puzzle of the NI/ROI border is how to reconcile these two things. If expert opinion is that they cannot be reconciled, then one of these two things has to be modified to suit. The EU says it cannot bend from the four freedoms of the EU (understandable), so that only leaves the way the border is operated.
Over to you guys..............
Seems to be popular so I’ll get in on the act. History is your friend.
Partition has never worked out well. In every instance it has been used to solve a problem it has invariably created an even worse one. It is always rejected by those that endure an artificial border most often with violence and breeds a deep and angry resentment. If anyone can offer me evidence to the contrary I will be amazed.
The border in Ireland since its inception has proved to be a costly in both monetary and in life. The relaxation of the existing border brought about by the Good Friday Agreement and joint membership of the EU has thankfully eased the tensions and allowed for what are now years of relatively trouble free times.
Any return to a regulated border will without question result in it being a gift to the men of violence and will cost hundreds of millions to maintain.
Glibly saying people will have to adapt is tantamount to washing your hands of the inevitable violence and chaos.
The border between the ROI and NI is a huge obstacle for successful Brexit negotiations to overcome. 18 months post referendum I am still yet to see an inch of movement in finding an acceptable solution.
OK - so we should cancel Brexit because we can't find a (peaceful) border solution. Hence we are in the EU forever, I guess.
I wonder how long after we cancel Brexit till the EU start upping our contribution ? Why not ? After all, we have put ourselves in a position where we can never leave so the EU might as well make hay while the sun is guaranteed to shine - pretty much forever.
Could be why Cameron came back empty(ish) handed from his pre-referendum visit. The EU fellas know we can't leave without creating a host of other insurmountable problems - so they have us right where they would like us.
Good old UK - damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
Until brexit happens we are in the EU. And certainly before the vote the 'EU fellas' was us as much as anything.
Was anyone told then that we would be unable to leave unless we had a NI/ROI border solution ?
I think not - but (as always) am open to correction.
How would anybody be told in 1972, that the Good Friday Agreement signed over 25 years later would have an impact on our relationship with the EU?
And how does 2 treaties that our sovereign parliament freely entered into, but are incompatible under the new circumstances equate to a loss of sovereignty in any way shape or form, unless you're starting from a position of "we've lost sovereignty, I now need to find someway to explain that whilst making it the EUs fault".
So, you are saying that things and circumstances change over time ? Yes, I agree.
After Brexit, things will change again and we will have to adapt. One of these things will be how the NI/ROI border is run. It will change, and we will have to adapt.
If the EU or the rest of the world wants to hold us to ransom over trade, then yes, there could be hardship. We will have to adapt.
If there is dissident terrorism activity as a result of the changes (not good), we will have to deal with it - in the same way we already live with terrorism everyday in everything we do.
IMO, the UK shouldn't be reluctant to implement any border law/rule changes in case it incites terrorism activity, or continue to allow uncontrolled immigration into an already overcrowded UK. The puzzle of the NI/ROI border is how to reconcile these two things. If expert opinion is that they cannot be reconciled, then one of these two things has to be modified to suit. The EU says it cannot bend from the four freedoms of the EU (understandable), so that only leaves the way the border is operated.
Over to you guys..............
Seems to be popular so I’ll get in on the act. History is your friend.
Partition has never worked out well. In every instance it has been used to solve a problem it has invariably created an even worse one. It is always rejected by those that endure an artificial border most often with violence and breeds a deep and angry resentment. If anyone can offer me evidence to the contrary I will be amazed.
The border in Ireland since its inception has proved to be a costly in both monetary and in life. The relaxation of the existing border brought about by the Good Friday Agreement and joint membership of the EU has thankfully eased the tensions and allowed for what are now years of relatively trouble free times.
Any return to a regulated border will without question result in it being a gift to the men of violence and will cost hundreds of millions to maintain.
Glibly saying people will have to adapt is tantamount to washing your hands of the inevitable violence and chaos.
The border between the ROI and NI is a huge obstacle for successful Brexit negotiations to overcome. 18 months post referendum I am still yet to see an inch of movement in finding an acceptable solution.
OK - so we should cancel Brexit because we can't find a (peaceful) border solution. Hence we are in the EU forever, I guess.
I wonder how long after we cancel Brexit till the EU start upping our contribution ? Why not ? After all, we have put ourselves in a position where we can never leave so the EU might as well make hay while the sun is guaranteed to shine - pretty much forever.
Could be why Cameron came back empty(ish) handed from his pre-referendum visit. The EU fellas know we can't leave without creating a host of other insurmountable problems - so they have us right where they would like us.
Good old UK - damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
Well we could stay in the Single Market but leave the EU.
Was anyone told then that we would be unable to leave unless we had a NI/ROI border solution ?
I think not - but (as always) am open to correction.
How would anybody be told in 1972, that the Good Friday Agreement signed over 25 years later would have an impact on our relationship with the EU?
And how does 2 treaties that our sovereign parliament freely entered into, but are incompatible under the new circumstances equate to a loss of sovereignty in any way shape or form, unless you're starting from a position of "we've lost sovereignty, I now need to find someway to explain that whilst making it the EUs fault".
So, you are saying that things and circumstances change over time ? Yes, I agree.
After Brexit, things will change again and we will have to adapt. One of these things will be how the NI/ROI border is run. It will change, and we will have to adapt.
If the EU or the rest of the world wants to hold us to ransom over trade, then yes, there could be hardship. We will have to adapt.
If there is dissident terrorism activity as a result of the changes (not good), we will have to deal with it - in the same way we already live with terrorism everyday in everything we do.
IMO, the UK shouldn't be reluctant to implement any border law/rule changes in case it incites terrorism activity, or continue to allow uncontrolled immigration into an already overcrowded UK. The puzzle of the NI/ROI border is how to reconcile these two things. If expert opinion is that they cannot be reconciled, then one of these two things has to be modified to suit. The EU says it cannot bend from the four freedoms of the EU (understandable), so that only leaves the way the border is operated.
Over to you guys..............
Seems to be popular so I’ll get in on the act. History is your friend.
Partition has never worked out well. In every instance it has been used to solve a problem it has invariably created an even worse one. It is always rejected by those that endure an artificial border most often with violence and breeds a deep and angry resentment. If anyone can offer me evidence to the contrary I will be amazed.
The border in Ireland since its inception has proved to be a costly in both monetary and in life. The relaxation of the existing border brought about by the Good Friday Agreement and joint membership of the EU has thankfully eased the tensions and allowed for what are now years of relatively trouble free times.
Any return to a regulated border will without question result in it being a gift to the men of violence and will cost hundreds of millions to maintain.
Glibly saying people will have to adapt is tantamount to washing your hands of the inevitable violence and chaos.
The border between the ROI and NI is a huge obstacle for successful Brexit negotiations to overcome. 18 months post referendum I am still yet to see an inch of movement in finding an acceptable solution.
Quoting myself here because this post attracted an LOL.
Can anyone explain to me what part of my post is remotely funny or risible?
I'm a little shocked at the ability of some on here to dismiss the almost certainty now that innocent men, women and children will die as a result of the implementation of their wishes, for little reason than political dogma. To be clear I know they don't want it any more than I do but it is a real risk which is being overlooked or downplayed imo.
The only foreseeable outcome at the moment, given our government's decision to reject continuing membership status that facilitates no border controls, is a hard border. A hard border means the collapse of the GFA and inevitably the renewal of extremist movements and views on both sides, which is only going to reignite the sectarian violence.
I genuinely don't believe that is being overly dramatic. There is a real risk to life if we end up reintroducing a border.
So you still thank that is going to happen when we do then, BBW?
What do you mean by 'still'?
Adverb: Up to and including the present or the time mentioned; even now (or then) as formerly.
The dictionary is your friend...
Your inference was that I, at some stage, believed the £350M figure to be true.
Kindly cite the post of mine whereby I make that claim.
Lies are bad....
Sorry - I assumed (bad of me) that you voted leave.
You still do not get it. I and others would have voted Leave even if the Leave campaign had said we would all be a bit worse off as a result.
oh sure there are "others". Whether they are the majority of the 52% is more doubtful, because within that group you have:
- a large number who voted because they thought they were giving a 'slap in the face' to the LME. Example, my brother. Indeed, his words to me. They have no real idea of how or why they might be worse off.
- a large number who thought (or rather were persuaded by the Mail) that everything shit in the UK was down to "them" in Brussels, who decide everything and we can't stop them. Example, my late mother. Her words to me. They too have no real idea of how or why they might be worse off.
- a smaller but very influential group who won't be worse off, because they know how to profit from the chaos. We may call this the Banks-Farage-Redwood-Johnson coterie.
Assuming that's aimed at me I'm neither panicking nor predicting imminent gun battles but if you think that there are not individuals and groups out there waiting for an excuse to kick it all off again you're being a little naive in my view.
We've had relative peace there now since the mid-90's(?) so 20+ years. You're what, mid/late 20's? Maybe you'd have a different view on this issue if you'd grown up watching the results and futulity of sectarian violence. I've been working from home today listening to reports marking 30 years since the Enniskellen bombing so maybe it has focussed my mind on this particular aspect (and yeah made me angrier about risking it all over again) today more than before.
Here's the thing, though, @A-R-T-H-U-R's (as always) witty intervention may not be too far off the truth.
I fear that we are all going to come to understand that Osborne's omnishmables of a few years ago was, in Biblical parlance, merely the voice crying out in the wilderness....
Does anyone genuinely believe that this governing Conservative Party, at this moment in time, have their focus entirely fixed on the most important negotiations that the country has entered into in decades?
Does it look like the "sufficient progress" on the first stage of the Article 50 will be achieved by next month, or even March, to allow for consideration of the outline of any future relationship with the EU?
We are looking at a period of either ten or seven months to agree enough of a deal to be put before the EU Parliament for ratification. Without abject surrender by one of the parties, even achieving an outline agreement sufficient to warrant an agreed transitional agreement would be a Herculean task.
The last thing that the UK needs (whatever outcome you want) is a Brexit process allegedly overseen by such an obviously undisciplined and factional Government (there was more unity in the Coalition).
I hate Brexit, and all its works, with a passion - but if it is to happen, the best possible deal needs to be agreed with the EU, because that is in all of our best interests.
I have no faith that the current administration in Westminster can achieve this, and I'm not entirely convinced that they have persuaded themselves of the need to do so.
Here's the thing, though, @A-R-T-H-U-R's (as always) witty intervention may not be too far off the truth.
I fear that we are all going to come to understand that Osborne's omnishmables of a few years ago was, in Biblical parlance, merely the voice crying out in the wilderness....
Does anyone genuinely believe that this governing Conservative Party, at this moment in time, have their focus entirely fixed on the most important negotiations that the country has entered into in decades?
Does it look like the "sufficient progress" on the first stage of the Article 50 will be achieved by next month, or even March, to allow for consideration of the outline of any future relationship with the EU?
We are looking at a period of either ten or seven months to agree enough of a deal to be put before the EU Parliament for ratification. Without abject surrender by one of the parties, even achieving an outline agreement sufficient to warrant an agreed transitional agreement would be a Herculean task.
The last thing that the UK needs (whatever outcome you want) is a Brexit process allegedly overseen by such an obviously undisciplined and factional Government (there was more unity in the Coalition).
I hate Brexit, and all its works, with a passion - but if it is to happen, the best possible deal needs to be agreed with the EU, because that is in all of our best interests.
I have no faith that the current administration in Westminster can achieve this, and I'm not entirely convinced that they have persuaded themselves of the need to do so.
Comments
With this and the Sun starting to run more critical articles is this the start of the right wing press getting their excuses lined up in case/for when it all hits the fan?
Yes, I agree.
After Brexit, things will change again and we will have to adapt. One of these things will be how the NI/ROI border is run. It will change, and we will have to adapt.
If the EU or the rest of the world wants to hold us to ransom over trade, then yes, there could be hardship.
We will have to adapt.
If there is dissident terrorism activity as a result of the changes (not good), we will have to deal with it - in the same way we already live with terrorism everyday in everything we do.
IMO, the UK shouldn't be reluctant to implement any border law/rule changes in case it incites terrorism activity, or continue to allow uncontrolled immigration into an already overcrowded UK.
The puzzle of the NI/ROI border is how to reconcile these two things. If expert opinion is that they cannot be reconciled, then one of these two things has to be modified to suit.
The EU says it cannot bend from the four freedoms of the EU (understandable), so that only leaves the way the border is operated.
Over to you guys..............
The dictionary is your friend...
If or when it happens or not is when the Vote Leave politicians need to be held to account or congratulated. Just like when the economy booms or otherwise, we take back control or otherwise, we have brilliant and quickly set up trade deals with the rest of the world or otherwise.
Of course Simon Stevens sees the opportunity with a weak government to press for funding. Johnson is becoming such a mill stone around the governments neck, they can't sack him as he would launch a leadership challenge and probably let in a third party, therefore he has become a bruise that opponents can keep punching.
Kindly cite the post of mine whereby I make that claim.
Lies are bad....
However, this prospectus indicated that the UK would continue to benefit fully from free access to the Single Market, which is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve without membership of the Single Market. Almost no consideration was given to the practicalities of what leaving the Single Market and/or Customs Union (in trade terms alone) would mean for all the UK's border entry points. It's not just the Northern Ireland question that was not really considered.
The choice on the nature of the trade borders (frictionless, soft or hard) lies with the UK Government. There is no bespoke deal that will provide what Theresa May says she wants. The options that the EU will negotiate (in decreasing order of integration and ease of access) are either Single Market, Customs Union or Free Trade Agreement. The first two have been rejected out of hand by Mrs May & Co. The last of the three will not be negotiated and ratified, if at all, in less than the next three and a half years (even if it is to use an existing deal, like CETA, as a template).
Every country with which the UK will seek to negotiate a Free Trade Agreement will, effectively, seek to maximise their advantage in the process (or, indeed, hold the UK to ransom), just as the UK will seek to do in reverse. The comments of Wilbur Ross to the CBI on Monday, just as any sensible person would have inferred from Donald Trump's statements regarding trade, make it clear that the USA would require the UK to accept its demands in order to agree a deal. However, as a member of the EU, the UK is in a stronger position to potentially dictate the terms of negotiation than it will be alone.
For what it's worth, and no matter how much I would wish things to be otherwise, I can see no option other than a hard customs border being established, unless the UK Government is to change its stance regarding the Single Market and the Customs Union. In which case the economic impact on Northern Ireland will be almost as painful as being forced to watch Mrs Brown's Boys on a constant loop.
It is worth pointing out that the UK Government position is that it will not seek to curb population movement across the border in Ireland, which does make one wonder whether immigration being controlled is anything other than the electioneering stunt that it has been over the past 7 years or so (let's face it, under a certain T May, the Home Office was not a beacon for managed immigration). I will admit that I had believed that the Common Trvel Area would have been a casualty of Brexit (and, if there is no deal, it may yet be), but both sides seem willing to protect it.
Regarding terrorism, it is a different thing to not change rules or policies in defiance of a terrorist threat than it is to make such changes in the full knowledge that they will actually increase the threat that is being faced (particularly in an environment where the resources that had been utilised to counter it in previous years have been pared to the bone). One is (politicans would like to hope) an example of steely determination, the other, to quote Lady Bracknell, looks like carelessness....
I get that, because I can't see many other ways a controlled border will work in Ireland.
It will usher in a fresh era of violence and terrorism in my view, and with 400km to control it will easily absorb the money previously paid in to the EU (as well as leak like a sieve).
We are told that leavers knew full well what they voted for, and that Brexit means brexit, the danger is that Brexit means death for some innocent people.
Partition has never worked out well. In every instance it has been used to solve a problem it has invariably created an even worse one. It is always rejected by those that endure an artificial border most often with violence and breeds a deep and angry resentment. If anyone can offer me evidence to the contrary I will be amazed.
The border in Ireland since its inception has proved to be a costly in both monetary and in life. The relaxation of the existing border brought about by the Good Friday Agreement and joint membership of the EU has thankfully eased the tensions and allowed for what are now years of relatively trouble free times.
Any return to a regulated border will without question result in it being a gift to the men of violence and will cost hundreds of millions to maintain.
Glibly saying people will have to adapt is tantamount to washing your hands of the inevitable violence and chaos.
The border between the ROI and NI is a huge obstacle for successful Brexit negotiations to overcome. 18 months post referendum I am still yet to see an inch of movement in finding an acceptable solution.
Hence we are in the EU forever, I guess.
I wonder how long after we cancel Brexit till the EU start upping our contribution ?
Why not ? After all, we have put ourselves in a position where we can never leave so the EU might as well make hay while the sun is guaranteed to shine - pretty much forever.
Could be why Cameron came back empty(ish) handed from his pre-referendum visit. The EU fellas know we can't leave without creating a host of other insurmountable problems - so they have us right where they would like us.
Good old UK - damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
https://labourlist.org/2017/08/stephen-kinnock-we-can-have-single-market-access-and-progressive-reforms-to-free-movement/
and in the recent debate:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-11-06/debates/FEEE4AD5-7465-47A4-97CA-A9B41B9DCAD9/EuropeanEconomicAreaUKMembership
I heard this morning on the Parliament segment that they are still being "collated" . WTF?
Can anyone explain to me what part of my post is remotely funny or risible?
But he has based it on the works of Richard North (I know you like his viewpoint), who has the single major flaw of assuming that the UK can decide its own interpretation of the rules for operating in multinational bodies without disagreement. The other member states of the EU, EFTA or EEA would not sit by passively while the UK tore up the rulebook.
The only foreseeable outcome at the moment, given our government's decision to reject continuing membership status that facilitates no border controls, is a hard border. A hard border means the collapse of the GFA and inevitably the renewal of extremist movements and views on both sides, which is only going to reignite the sectarian violence.
I genuinely don't believe that is being overly dramatic. There is a real risk to life if we end up reintroducing a border.
- a large number who voted because they thought they were giving a 'slap in the face' to the LME. Example, my brother. Indeed, his words to me. They have no real idea of how or why they might be worse off.
- a large number who thought (or rather were persuaded by the Mail) that everything shit in the UK was down to "them" in Brussels, who decide everything and we can't stop them. Example, my late mother. Her words to me. They too have no real idea of how or why they might be worse off.
- a smaller but very influential group who won't be worse off, because they know how to profit from the chaos. We may call this the Banks-Farage-Redwood-Johnson coterie.
We've had relative peace there now since the mid-90's(?) so 20+ years. You're what, mid/late 20's? Maybe you'd have a different view on this issue if you'd grown up watching the results and futulity of sectarian violence. I've been working from home today listening to reports marking 30 years since the Enniskellen bombing so maybe it has focussed my mind on this particular aspect (and yeah made me angrier about risking it all over again) today more than before.
I fear that we are all going to come to understand that Osborne's omnishmables of a few years ago was, in Biblical parlance, merely the voice crying out in the wilderness....
Does anyone genuinely believe that this governing Conservative Party, at this moment in time, have their focus entirely fixed on the most important negotiations that the country has entered into in decades?
Does it look like the "sufficient progress" on the first stage of the Article 50 will be achieved by next month, or even March, to allow for consideration of the outline of any future relationship with the EU?
We are looking at a period of either ten or seven months to agree enough of a deal to be put before the EU Parliament for ratification. Without abject surrender by one of the parties, even achieving an outline agreement sufficient to warrant an agreed transitional agreement would be a Herculean task.
The last thing that the UK needs (whatever outcome you want) is a Brexit process allegedly overseen by such an obviously undisciplined and factional Government (there was more unity in the Coalition).
I hate Brexit, and all its works, with a passion - but if it is to happen, the best possible deal needs to be agreed with the EU, because that is in all of our best interests.
I have no faith that the current administration in Westminster can achieve this, and I'm not entirely convinced that they have persuaded themselves of the need to do so.