Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
You didn’t address the fact that I was not questioning the agreement. I was questioning the interpretation of that agreement. To wit, the sandwich example above.
It’s actually the consistency of your arguments that is the key here. You are certainly batting for the other side, and you are not the only one.
I didn’t call you a terrorist. However, if we are ever invaded by a foreign power, don’t expect me to support your application to join the resistance. You are too conflicted for my liking.
|
As per Hugh’s post earlier, ‘questioning the agreement’ is just a wishy washy way of trying to get out of implicating what was was legally agreed. As per all of my previous posts, now Brexit has been done I’d like it to be a success but that success should not come at the cost of sidestepping our agreements.
I’m not conflicted at all, I expect us to do what we’ve agreed to do. That’s all.
And, if not supporting the government was evidence of hatred towards the government. You, my old mucka, would be in the tower. What with some of your criticisms regarding their handling of covid
---------- Post added at 20:01 ---------- Previous post was at 19:57 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
True, but again I think there has clearly been a calculation made here, namely that these will be acknowledged internationally as exceptional circumstances and not likely to affect our approach in general to international treaties.
|
That’s potentially true, however, my concern is that should the gfa be broken and a hard border returns on Ireland. Regarldess of who implements said border the U.K. would be held culpable by nations especially the US. It’s going to come down to who do the US care for more of in terms with trading the U.K. or the EU