Brexit

[Angua]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The accusation made was "Brexit has been a brilliant recruitment tool for the latest incarnation of the IRA.".

1) Why should the IRA etc be that bothered about the border?
2) Why should we have to continually pander to them?

As 1andrew1 posted, read the article.

Any system that of necessity closes off roads between RoI & Ni will cause problems with the GFA. Any system that is not robust enough will cause problems with WTO rules. Simple things, like milk being collected from farms both sides of the border, bottled on one side and sold on the other. This falls foul of Country of Origin rules when we leave the EU.

Then there is the problem of those pesky migrants, who travel to RoI under FoM, then cross into NI through one of these unchecked borders.

Shove checkpoints in and the New IRA will target them.
There is no technology that can cope with remote checking of tanker full of milk from either side of the border, let alone simple checks on goods.
Move the border to the Irish Sea and the DUP will kick off.
NI farmers are particularly vulnerable to cheap beef imports.

Simplest solution is reunification. Would the DUP support the government if this was even whispered, let alone supported?

Originally Posted by Angua

As 1andrew1 posted, read the article.

Any system that of necessity closes off roads between RoI & Ni will cause problems with the GFA. Any system that is not robust enough will cause problems with WTO rules. Simple things, like milk being collected from farms both sides of the border, bottled on one side and sold on the other. This falls foul of Country of Origin rules when we leave the EU.

Then there is the problem of those pesky migrants, who travel to RoI under FoM, then cross into NI through one of these unchecked borders.

Shove checkpoints in and the New IRA will target them.
There is no technology that can cope with remote checking of tanker full of milk from either side of the border, let alone simple checks on goods.
Move the border to the Irish Sea and the DUP will kick off.
NI farmers are particularly vulnerable to cheap beef imports.

Simplest solution is reunification. Would the DUP support the government if this was even whispered, let alone supported?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Mick

Prove it with facts. (Potentially Fictional Forecasts are not proof before you even try running with them.)

You cannot tell others to prove something when you don’t bother to prove what you’re saying is even remotely true.

Reality does not work that way I am afraid. You research, assess the conclusions of those more knowledgeable that you in the applicable areas and then come to a informed position on what is the probable scenario.

What you do not do, although this is now the popular approach, is to invent a possibility based on no credible evidence and say this is going to happen.

---------- Post added at 09:28 ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 ----------

Originally Posted by Angua

Simplest solution is reunification. Would the DUP support the government if this was even whispered, let alone supported?

This is the logical & inexorable outcome of a No Deal scenario. NI has had a lot of EU funding over the years and this level of investment is unlikely to be continued by Westminster given the priority the Leave leaning politicians give NI. I mean, in the Leave campaign, when was the NI border discussed as a strategic factor in the process?

Originally Posted by ianch99

This is the logical & inexorable outcome of a No Deal scenario. NI has had a lot of EU funding over the years and this level of investment is unlikely to be continued by Westminster given the priority the Leave leaning politicians give NI. I mean, in the Leave campaign, when was the NI border discussed as a strategic factor in the process?

It’s the logical and inexorable outcome of demographics. The birth rate amongst the Catholic (and largely nationalist) population in NI is higher than that in the Protestant (and largely unionist) population. Within a couple of decades there will be a natural majority for Irish reunification, a border poll and a change of sovereign control over the territory. The calculation has always been that that would occur so far down the road, with the institutions of Northern Irish government so well established, and with the ongoing cooperation of the British and Irish governments so embedded, that the change would have amounted to little more than a flag-raising ceremony.

Part of what’s worrying Varadkar right now is that Northern Ireland is still a money pit, and a fractious one. A major world economy like the UK has the resources to deal with it. Ireland does not. The Irish neither want nor need Northern Ireland on their plate right now. It suits them to have influence without ever having to pay for it.

I agree with you, Brexit is likely to hasten Irish reunification, but that doesn’t worry me to the extent that that has always been the endgame; just one nobody dared say out loud. It should concern all of us that doing it too soon could cause some problems, but I absolutely don’t agree with the argument that says we shouldn’t do Brexit because it’s too difficult. For me, that simply reinforces the argument that our ongoing entanglement with the EU is de facto eroding our sovereignty.

Originally Posted by ianch99

Reality does not work that way I am afraid. You research, assess the conclusions of those more knowledgeable that you in the applicable areas and then come to a informed position on what is the probable scenario.

What you do not do, although this is now the popular approach, is to invent a possibility based on no credible evidence and say this is going to happen.

Which is what you do all the time.

Those that you claim are more knowledgeable are far from knowledgeable, they are still basing their negative presumptions on forecasts and as I said, these are not evidence in the slightest.

So perhaps stop demanding others have to prove something, when you continue to not do the same thing!

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

Which is what you do all the time.

Those that you claim are more knowledgeable are far from knowledgeable, they are still basing their negative presumptions on forecasts and as I said, these are not evidence in the slightest.

So perhaps stop demanding others have to prove something, when you continue to not do the same thing!

I don't think you can credibly expect anyone on this forum to come up with more evidence than is available to Her Majesty's Government.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I don't think you can credibly expect anyone on this forum to come up with more evidence than is available to Her Majesty's Government.

Is this the same 'Her Majesty's Government' that many are currently calling incompetent clowns (or worse) ?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Carth

Is this the same 'Her Majesty's Government' that many are currently calling incompetent clowns (or worse) ?

The politicians can be incompetent and the Civil Servants competent

[Dave42]

even Liam Fox admits gatt 24 claim is not true

BBC Politics
‏
Verified account

@BBCPolitics
2h
2 hours ago


More
Liam Fox on Boris Johnson’s ‘GATT 24’ #Brexit claims: “It isn’t true, that’s the problem”

The trade secretary tells #Marr that the argument from Boris Johnson, that we can use world trade rules to avoid tariffs after Brexit, “isn’t true”

http://bbc.in/2tnzxS0

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I don't think you can credibly expect anyone on this forum to come up with more evidence than is available to Her Majesty's Government.

And what they have is not evidence, they are forecasts, which means what they have, are predictions - you seem to have a real problem understanding the basic concept of what constitutes real evidence and just opinion.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Mick

And what they have is not evidence, they are forecasts, which means what they have, are predictions - you seem to have a real problem understanding the basic concept of what constitutes real evidence and just opinion.

No, there is evidence. Even Liam Fox accepts that Article 24 cannot be used without the agreement of the EU.

Basically johnson is lying to our faces just like he did in 2016. He seems a good fit for the Prime Minister of Brexitland.

Originally Posted by ianch99

No, there is evidence. Even Liam Fox accepts that Article 24 cannot be used without the agreement of the EU.

No there is not, stop telling lies - I am not talking about A24, and you jolly well know this. I am talking about your fictional negative fantasies of chaos, in a "No deal scenario" based on absolutely no evidence. My issue is your tiresome demands of evidence from others, when you have presented none at all.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Mick

No there is not, stop telling lies - I am not talking about A24, and you jolly well know this. I am talking about your fictional negative fantasies of chaos, in a "No deal scenario" based on absolutely no evidence. My issue is your tiresome demands of evidence from others, when you have presented none at all.

Ah but you see the world does not work like that. You suggest something is going to happen that has no downside when all the evidence presented contradicts you. Your position has all the work ahead of you to prove its case. The case that No Deal negatively impacts this country has already been made.

Originally Posted by ianch99

Ah but you see the world does not work like that. You suggest something is going to happen that has no downside when all the evidence presented contradicts you. Your position has all the work ahead of you to prove its case. The case that No Deal negatively impacts this country has already been made.

Again - That is not evidence, so I have not been contradicted thanks. I repeat, they are forecasts which have been and can be wrong!!!

If the weatherman forecasts it's going to rain on Wednesday but it does no such thing on the day, that is not evidence, it's a prediction just like your negative remainer fantasies of chaos are predictions.

You cannot cast forecasts as evidence, evidence is by definition something that has happened and witnessed to be fact-based. Predictions and opinions and forecasts are not and never will be evidence, so stop casting them as such and stop asking others for evidence when you don't present any.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Mick

Again - That is not evidence, so I have not been contradicted thanks. I repeat, they are forecasts which have been and can be wrong!!!

If the weatherman forecasts it's going to rain on Wednesday but it does no such thing on the day, that is not evidence, it's a prediction just like your negative remainer fantasies of chaos are predictions.

You cannot cast forecasts as evidence, evidence is by definition something that has happened and witnessed to be fact-based. Predictions and opinions and forecasts are not and never will be evidence, so stop casting them as such and stop asking others for evidence when you don't present any.

You are entitled to your opinion however you are wrong on the definition of evidence:

evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

There are numerous bodies of facts and information to indicate that the proposition that No Deal is disadvantageous to this country. This is a matter of record.

Now, please present the available body of facts or information that indicates that No Deal is advantageous to this country.

As to the request to stop asking for evidence to backup fantasy claims that could directly disadvantage me and my children, .. no chance ..