Brexit

The talks and negotiations.

For discussion of politics, and what's going on in the world today.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Brexit

#3321  Postby Teague » Oct 11, 2018 11:37 am

GrahamH wrote:
Teague wrote:
GrahamH wrote:Barnier is saying a deal could be agreed by next Wednesday, but nothing seems to have changed. It's the same irreconcilable red lines that don't fit together. May can't agree to stay in the Customs Union and all other options are no-go.

I see no mention of no hard border out of the CU there.

What have I missed?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ys-barnier


From that article;

The prime minister’s plan for a common rulebook on goods and a customs arrangement that meant the UK could avoid border checks, while allowing the country to sign its own bespoke trade deals, would give British companies “a huge competitive edge” and be “counter to our very foundations”, Barnier said.


Yes, let's have a UK with 17% corporation tax alongside loopholes and we'll raise taxes on the people to cover those costs then we can keep our financial power, trade with the rest of europe but offer the best taxation for corporations and the British people can pay for it all.


But that's not new, it's Checkers, which can't be what Barnier has in mind when he says a deal could be cone next week.


Didn't you read the article?

I'm pulling out the idiot deal the May wants to try and do that Barnier will refuse because it's as stupid as I just pointed out, above. I was making a sarcastic prediction I suppose - it wasn't that serious though part of me thinks it might actually be more accurate than I think it is.

So that's out the window and what's in is a deal where we're in the CU and can't make a deal with the US or China.

A really good deal would be the following btw

We decide who comes into the country
we have the power of veto in the UE
We have access to the biggest market in the world.
We have frictionless borders for travel
We make our own laws

That's the deal we already have btw.
User avatar
Teague
 
Posts: 10041

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Brexit

#3322  Postby Scot Dutchy » Oct 11, 2018 11:43 am

Image
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 40861
Age: 69
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#3323  Postby Thommo » Oct 11, 2018 11:49 am

Scot Dutchy wrote:
Thommo wrote:Yeah, that's fair enough. That was more me getting fed up with the continued dramatics of Scot Dutchy than anything else.


I am fed up of your interpretations without facts which you have done once again.


You're fed up with being called out on your bullshit. You're replying to a post which contained more references and more facts than your entire ridiculous tantrum throughout this exchange, which incidentally you only started because you're pissed off about all the people calling you out for similar refusal to admit you were wrong in the paedophilia thread.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Your complete lack of understanding and comprehension of the Irish situation is abysmal. A couple of decades? Which planet are you living on?


As I've commented before, given your woeful track record on these boards, I take that as a compliment and a good indication I'm on the right track.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Unification will happen and it wont take two decades. Once the DUP is removed from equation it will happen very quickly. Any suggestion of returning to the troubles is Ireland's worst nightmare. You never lived through them.


What do you mean, that I did not live in Northern Ireland in the troubles? That's true. Is this a contrast with you? Are you claiming to be any different?

And what do you even think "removing the DUP from the equation" is? They're a political party, with a large number of voters. You can't just ignore them.

It might also be well worth raising the question how "less than two decades" (which incidently is a timeframe that although attributed to me did not appear in my post) is a timeframe that's remotely going to help resolve the Brexit situation?

Scot Dutchy wrote:The Good Friday Agreement is an international ratified treaty. Any tampering of it will see the UK in the International Court here in the Hague. You cant just discard it. This whole situation is far more important than a political party.


:lol:

You complain about people not reading. Where the fuck did I suggest tampering with the Good Friday Agreement? What point do you even think you're making?

Scot Dutchy wrote:I agree with Oliver an economic unification is probably the temporary fix that will take place just now but permanent unification will follow. More than 80% of the Republic want it.


And what significance do you think that makes? They have no more say in the matter than the British.

This is what I mean when I talk about ignorance. You attach significance where there is none, just as above you attach no significance to significant facts like the existence of incredibly strongly felt Unionist support among DUP voters.
Last edited by Thommo on Oct 11, 2018 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 24727

Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#3324  Postby Scot Dutchy » Oct 11, 2018 11:55 am

Thank you once again for your total inane bull shit. No understanding or comprehension as always.
Return to your tea with the vicar that will be a hard enough conversation to follow.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 40861
Age: 69
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#3325  Postby zulumoose » Oct 11, 2018 11:58 am


You attach significance where there is none, just as above you attach no significance to significant facts like the existence of incredibly strongly felt Unionist support among DUP voters.


I did live in N. Ireland during part of the troubles, for what it's worth, and I can say with some conviction that even now there must be a large population for whom unification would be regarded as equivalent to unification between Israel and Palestine.
There are many seriously fanatical people over there, and no matter how petty it might appear to an outsider, it is deadly serious to them.
User avatar
zulumoose
 
Posts: 3175

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#3326  Postby Scot Dutchy » Oct 11, 2018 12:02 pm

He attaches far too much to a backward looking group of insignificant idiots that have at the end of the day fuck all to say.
It is deadly serious also to the republicans which is why unification will happen much sooner than later.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 40861
Age: 69
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#3327  Postby Sendraks » Oct 11, 2018 12:06 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:Thank you once again for your total inane bull shit. No understanding or comprehension as always.


And you provide absolutely nothing to support your views that would give any reasonable person cause to take them seriously. I know you think you're "right" but, I can't see any basis on why I or anyone else should. The best you seem able to muster is dismissing comments out of hand with no evidence to suggest that you have understood what was said or that you are capable of understanding what was said.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 14884
Age: 102
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Brexit

#3328  Postby zulumoose » Oct 11, 2018 12:11 pm

a backward looking group of insignificant idiots that have at the end of the day fuck all to say.


They are the most extreme version of the grouping which comprises up to 70% of the population. You don't have to be an extremist to sympathise with their feelings, or vote with them. 70% have the majority say, by a long shot.

You also don't have to be fanatically British to think that remaining part of the U.K. might be a safer option than leaving to join Ireland in the E.U., which I would suspect would be the motivation behind a very large percentage of those in the north who would oppose unification. It might even be just what they tell themselves, when their real reasons are actually more emotional/cultural/religious than practical.
User avatar
zulumoose
 
Posts: 3175

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#3329  Postby Thommo » Oct 11, 2018 12:15 pm

Teague wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Teague wrote:
Thommo wrote:

I honestly don't see any mention of hard borders in that. Which part do you think applies?


No, I'm not saying that does say hard borders but from a position of equality as stated in the declaration, how do you take EU proposals into consideration when one side is in the EU and the other is under WTO rules?


What "relevant EU meetings" does the presence or lack of a hard border affect? None that I can see.


What?


We were discussing whether a hard border, as opposed to a soft border would breach the Good Friday Agreement. To that end you posted a quote from the agreement:
"17. The Council to consider the European Union dimension of relevant matters, including the implementation of EU policies and programmes and proposals under consideration in the EU framework. Arrangements to be made to ensure that the views of the Council are taken into account and represented appropriately at relevant EU meetings. "

Which places a responsibility on the Council that the European side of matters must be represented appropriately at relevant EU meetings.

As far as I can tell this is completely unaffected by the existence of a hard border as opposed to a soft border. The only demand is that "relevant EU meetings" receive "appropriate representation", so I asked which "relevant EU meetings" would be affected, and how. It would be good if you could answer that question, unless you agree with me that the passage doesn't bear on the situation.

Teague wrote:There will be a hard border with border checks there and the GFA stipulates equal trade between the two.


The part you quoted does not stipulate that, perhaps you could quote which part you're referring to?

Teague wrote:A soft border wouldn't have checks but trade rules would still be different. Then when the IRA return, we'll be back to square one. Hard border - british soldiers patroling the streets of NI.


This is an unfortunate possibility, yes. I'm not sure how that ties in with the passage you were discussing or the question of whether the GFA has been breached, and if so, by whom.
Last edited by Thommo on Oct 11, 2018 12:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 24727

Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#3330  Postby Thommo » Oct 11, 2018 12:17 pm

zulumoose wrote:

You attach significance where there is none, just as above you attach no significance to significant facts like the existence of incredibly strongly felt Unionist support among DUP voters.


I did live in N. Ireland during part of the troubles, for what it's worth, and I can say with some conviction that even now there must be a large population for whom unification would be regarded as equivalent to unification between Israel and Palestine.
There are many seriously fanatical people over there, and no matter how petty it might appear to an outsider, it is deadly serious to them.


That is my understanding too. Thanks for the input! :thumbup:
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 24727

Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#3331  Postby Teague » Oct 11, 2018 12:23 pm

Thommo wrote:
Teague wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Teague wrote:

No, I'm not saying that does say hard borders but from a position of equality as stated in the declaration, how do you take EU proposals into consideration when one side is in the EU and the other is under WTO rules?


What "relevant EU meetings" does the presence or lack of a hard border affect? None that I can see.


What?


We were discussing whether a hard border, as opposed to a soft border would breach the Good Friday Agreement. To that end you posted a quote from the agreement:
"17. The Council to consider the European Union dimension of relevant matters, including the implementation of EU policies and programmes and proposals under consideration in the EU framework. Arrangements to be made to ensure that the views of the Council are taken into account and represented appropriately at relevant EU meetings. "

Which places a responsibility on the Council of Europe that the European side of matters must be represented appropriately at relevant EU meetings.

As far as I can tell this is completely unaffected by the existence of a hard border as opposed to a soft border. The only demand is that "relevant EU meetings" receive "appropriate representation", so I asked which "relevant EU meetings" would be affected, and how. It would be good if you could answer that question, unless you agree with me that the passage doesn't bear on the situation.

Teague wrote:There will be a hard border with border checks there and the GFA stipulates equal trade between the two.


The part you quoted does not stipulate that, perhaps you could quote which part you're referring to?

Teague wrote:A soft border wouldn't have checks but trade rules would still be different. Then when the IRA return, we'll be back to square one. Hard border - british soldiers patroling the streets of NI.


This is an unfortunate possibility, yes. I'm not sure how that ties in with the passage you were discussing or the question of whether the GFA has been breached, and if so, by whom.


Nothing's been agreed so nothing's been breached - what are you on about? You asked me what I thought would be issues and I gave them from what I read in the GFA. To think there won't be hard border checks come brexit is simply wrong unless some miracle deal is acheived. The GFS will be breached if Brexit goes ahead.
User avatar
Teague
 
Posts: 10041

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#3332  Postby Thommo » Oct 11, 2018 12:33 pm

Teague wrote:Nothing's been agreed so nothing's been breached - what are you on about?


That question doesn't appear to tie to the sentence before the hyphen. I was asking you about the eventuality of a hard border and how it would breach the GFA, which you had contended in #3268 it would.

Strand 2 17. Does not make any commitments to adopt EU regulation, to have "equal trade" (whatever that term is supposed to mean) or anything similar. It appears to have no bearing on the difference between a hard border and a soft border.

I'm asking what relevance you think it has.

Teague wrote:You asked me what I thought would be issues and I gave them from what I read in the GFA. To think there won't be hard border checks come brexit is simply wrong unless some miracle deal is acheived. The GFS will be breached if Brexit goes ahead.


It appears that you're saying that the GFA stipulates there will not be border checks between NI and ROI, and that somewhere in the GFA border checks are directly prohibited, and thus the agreement is broken in the case of a hard border, but not in the case of a soft border.

The text you quoted neither says nor implies that border checks are directly prohibited, and I cannot see where else in the text your premise (or what I'm forced to presume is your premise) is supported. So I'm asking you to explain how the text you quoted bears on the matter, or where you think there is a part of the text that bears on the matter.

Alternatively if you're saying that strand 2 17. effectively says there can't be a hard border, then I'm just pointing out that it clearly does not.
Last edited by Thommo on Oct 11, 2018 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 24727

Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#3333  Postby Scot Dutchy » Oct 11, 2018 12:35 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:Thank you once again for your total inane bull shit. No understanding or comprehension as always.


And you provide absolutely nothing to support your views that would give any reasonable person cause to take them seriously. I know you think you're "right" but, I can't see any basis on why I or anyone else should. The best you seem able to muster is dismissing comments out of hand with no evidence to suggest that you have understood what was said or that you are capable of understanding what was said.


I am sorry if cant see past your very British attitude into the real world. I am the one not making woeful claims based on absolutely nothing. Giving credit and power to groups that have fuck all to say at the end of the day because all they have is the tories by the short and curlies.
You seem determined to push the Brexiteers agenda in any conversation as if they have the last word in all this. Sorry they dont. They are going to accept what the EU wants which to both of you is totally unacceptable. You both suffer from a extreme case of PCS (post colonial syndrome) which is rampant in the UK.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 40861
Age: 69
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#3334  Postby Teague » Oct 11, 2018 12:40 pm

Thommo wrote:
Teague wrote:Nothing's been agreed so nothing's been breached - what are you on about?


That question doesn't appear to tie to the sentence before the hpyhen. I was asking you about the eventuality of a hard border and how it would breach the GFA, which you had contended in #3268 it would.

Strand 2 17. Does not make any commitments to adopt EU regulation, to have "equal trade" (whatever that term is supposed to mean) or anything similar. It appears to have no bearing on the difference between a hard border and a soft border.

I'm asking what relevance you think it has.

Teague wrote:You asked me what I thought would be issues and I gave them from what I read in the GFA. To think there won't be hard border checks come brexit is simply wrong unless some miracle deal is acheived. The GFS will be breached if Brexit goes ahead.


It appears that you're saying that the GFA stipulates there will not be border checks between NI and ROI, and that somewhere in the GFA border checks are directly prohibited, and thus the agreement is broken in the case of a hard border, but not in the case of a soft border.

The text you quoted neither says nor implies that border checks are directly prohibited, and I cannot see where else in the text your premise (or what I'm forced to presume is your premise) is supported. So I'm asking you to explain how the text you quoted bears on the matter, or where you think there is a part of the text that bears on the matter.

Alternatively if you're saying that strand 2 17. effectively says there can't be a hard border, then I'm just pointing out that it clearly does not.


No, I've been quite clear that ANY trade agreement that isn't equal on both sides, so they both have exactly the same deal, goes against the GFA. I can't tell u exactly where in the GFA that might be so I gave you areas it might be in but a border surely breaches the "equal on both sides" thing.
User avatar
Teague
 
Posts: 10041

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#3335  Postby Teague » Oct 11, 2018 12:41 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:Thank you once again for your total inane bull shit. No understanding or comprehension as always.


And you provide absolutely nothing to support your views that would give any reasonable person cause to take them seriously. I know you think you're "right" but, I can't see any basis on why I or anyone else should. The best you seem able to muster is dismissing comments out of hand with no evidence to suggest that you have understood what was said or that you are capable of understanding what was said.


I am sorry if cant see past your very British attitude into the real world. I am the one not making woeful claims based on absolutely nothing. Giving credit and power to groups that have fuck all to say at the end of the day because all they have is the tories by the short and curlies.
You seem determined to push the Brexiteers agenda in any conversation as if they have the last word in all this. Sorry they dont. They are going to accept what the EU wants which to both of you is totally unacceptable. You both suffer from a extreme case of PCS (post colonial syndrome) which is rampant in the UK.


Sandraks is a brexiteer? :shock: :?
User avatar
Teague
 
Posts: 10041

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Brexit

#3336  Postby Thommo » Oct 11, 2018 12:44 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:I am the one not making woeful claims based on absolutely nothing.


You're definitely wrong about that. Since my last sourced post that triggered you, you've included zero sources, and zero evidence based arguments.

Your perception of what you're doing, and what you're actually doing don't line up.

It's been nine posts since you posted any data, which was a picture from wikipedia, which you forgot to attribute, did not link and divorced from context. You ignored both the aggregate picture, and over half the data from even that source to "make" your point.

Every single post in the exchange that's come from you includes at least one snide or personalised comment.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 24727

Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#3337  Postby Thommo » Oct 11, 2018 12:46 pm

Teague wrote:No, I've been quite clear that ANY trade agreement that isn't equal on both sides, so they both have exactly the same deal, goes against the GFA. I can't tell u exactly where in the GFA that might be so I gave you areas it might be in but a border surely breaches the "equal on both sides" thing.


I don't honestly know what you mean by "the equal on both sides thing".

I'm fairly sure you're wrong that a hard border breaches the GFA though. The fact that neither of us can find any stipulation in the text that it would breach seems to support this conclusion.

If anyone else is following this and wants to help us look, this is the link I've been using:
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ire ... _text.html
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 24727

Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#3338  Postby zulumoose » Oct 11, 2018 12:48 pm

I am the one not making woeful claims based on absolutely nothing


What about these?

More people in Northern Ireland have RoI passports than people in Britain voted for Brexit.


Approx 15 million people voted for Brexit.Population of N.Ireland ? Less than 2 million total.
Even as percentages it doesn't add up, over 36% of registered voters voted Brexit, since the turnout was over 70%

Unification will happen and it wont take two decades. Once the DUP is removed from equation it will happen very quickly.


Upon what is this based? Why would 80% of ANOTHER COUNTRY be the relevant statistic.
Last edited by zulumoose on Oct 11, 2018 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
zulumoose
 
Posts: 3175

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#3339  Postby GrahamH » Oct 11, 2018 12:49 pm

Teague wrote:
Didn't you read the article?


There's the thing. The article says
Brexit deal within reach if May agrees on customs union, says Barnier


But there seems to be no chance whatsoever that May will agree to a customs union. She can't sell that to her Brexiteers. So nothing has changed and there is no prospect of a deal next week. Or did I miss something?
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 18707

Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#3340  Postby Thommo » Oct 11, 2018 12:53 pm

zulumoose wrote:Upon what is this based? Why would 80% of ANOTHER COUNTRY be the relevant statistic.


Completely offtopic, but I was just imagining what the consequences of 80% of Iranians thinking the USA should return their country to the indigenous peoples would be. :tehe:
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 24727

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest