UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I don't have time to research every claim made on this forum. I could dive in there and say it's nonsense but that's not my style. My comments are as I see things.

I've posted previously how we could better have handled matters if we it did not want a close relationship with the EU after Brexit. Instead, as that earlier Atlantic article shows we've weakened our position on every possible occasion.

You don’t have time?

Utter bollocks Andrew, more like you do not have the inclination to correct yourself when you are continuously wrong about everything EU related. You have an agenda to defend your precious EU, but I’m not falling, or buying your persistence full of hyperbole and bullshit.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

You don’t have time?

Utter bollocks Andrew, more like you do not have the inclination to correct yourself when you are continuously wrong about everything EU related. You have an agenda to defend your precious EU, but I’m not falling, or buying your persistence full of hyperbole and bullshit.

That's a bit harsh, Mick. Sleep on it.

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Democrats siding with the IRA as usual.

Absolutely spot on.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Mick

I also noticed the tumbleweed passing by when I highlighted above about Germany breaking International law

I am guessing by the Spectator article you posted, you are discussing the German courts ruling that the ECB overstepped its remit in the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (Coronavirus Eurobonds)

After the ECB sent its' justification, Germany is back in line with the ECBs initiative - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-e...-idUSKBN26711R

[jfman]

I’m unconvinced how supporting a hard won peace process - that unionist and nationalists on the island of Ireland signed up to - is “supporting the IRA”.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m unconvinced how supporting a hard won peace process - that unionist and nationalists on the island of Ireland signed up to - is “supporting the IRA”.

So when they;re going on about damaging the "peace process", who are they saying will kick off? Other than not being allowed to return, what concessions did the IRA make? They are still active, they are still armed, and they are still heavily supported.
If there ends up being a hard border, 1) so what 2) Why should the IRA kick off about it? 3) It is the destination country(ie the EU) that decides on the hard border.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

So when they;re going on about damaging the "peace process", who are they saying will kick off? Other than not being allowed to return, what concessions did the IRA make? They are still active, they are still armed, and they are still heavily supported.
If there ends up being a hard border, 1) so what 2) Why should the IRA kick off about it? 3) It is the destination country(ie the EU) that decides on the hard border.

That’s potential consequences of a hard border not the democrats “siding with the IRA” as you put it. However it gets union flag waving British nationalists frothing at the mouth to portray an eminently sensible idea as “us vs the IRA”.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by nomadking

If there ends up being a hard border, 1) so what 2) Why should the IRA kick off about it? 3) It is the destination country(ie the EU) that decides on the hard border.

This is a good point, if Northern Ireland's current status changes, the Republic of Ireland (not the EU) may need to close the border to fulfill its treaty obligations (TFEU) The UK could choose not to close the border but under its' WTO obligations, every port would need to be equally open under non-discrimination rules.

The IRA would kick off as the Good Friday Agreement is a massive fudge which affirmed the border in its current state until the people of both the Republic and Northern Ireland agreed otherwise along with power sharing. Paramilitary groups including the IRA disarmed on that premise (plus releasing lots of dodgy characters from HMP Maze) Of course, at the time, no-one thought the either the Republic of Ireland or the UK might leave the EU throwing the status of the border up in the air

[nomadking]

Are people seriously suggesting that if the IRA wanted a hard border, then that wouldn't be what the EU and Democrats in the US were pushing for? A "vote yes or we will continue to be violent" is NOT a free vote or "consent freely given" under any definition, unless it's England and the UK on the receiving end.


If there did end up being a one-sided hard border, then it would actually be the EU and anyone complaining to the WTO, who would be responsible for breaking the GFA.

Originally Posted by jonbxx

I am guessing by the Spectator article you posted, you are discussing the German courts ruling that the ECB overstepped its remit in the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (Coronavirus Eurobonds)

After the ECB sent its' justification, Germany is back in line with the ECBs initiative - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-e...-idUSKBN26711R

But Germany still broke International law and it would do so if it meant upholding their constitution.

The outrage from the Remainers is non-existent when other countries breach international treaties/laws because you’re hypocrites. I’m fed up of you all defending the EU, when it is the one acting in total disgrace towards Britain over the years. The fact, you hold the EU in such high regard when it is corrupt to the core. The fact it is Undemocratic but pretends to be so.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Are people seriously suggesting that if the IRA wanted a hard border, then that wouldn't be what the EU and Democrats in the US were pushing for? A "vote yes or we will continue to be violent" is NOT a free vote or "consent freely given" under any definition, unless it's England and the UK on the receiving end.


If there did end up being a one-sided hard border, then it would actually be the EU and anyone complaining to the WTO, who would be responsible for breaking the GFA.

It’s an IRA, EU and US democratic conspiracy to bring back a hard border? Nobody forced the UK to choose Brexit, and even after they did nobody forced them to go down a route that leads to a border on the island of Ireland that overwhelmingly does not want one. This was concocted in London, shifting the blame elsewhere for it does not serve you well. The arguments appear, at face value, almost hysterical.

[1andrew1]

People seeking a no-deal need to understand the Irish (EU) border situation. The UK will not be afforded WTO status unless it puts a hard border between itself and the EU. There's no way the UK can trade without being in the WTO so no-deal is not an option.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s an IRA, EU and US democratic conspiracy to bring back a hard border? Nobody forced the UK to choose Brexit, and even after they did nobody forced them to go down a route that leads to a border on the island of Ireland that overwhelmingly does not want one. This was concocted in London, shifting the blame elsewhere for it does not serve you well. The arguments appear, at face value, almost hysterical.

Which is more important to the EU?

Good Friday Agreement?
Fishing quotas?

All the EU needs to do is reach a trade agreement with the UK.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s an IRA, EU and US democratic conspiracy to bring back a hard border? Nobody forced the UK to choose Brexit, and even after they did nobody forced them to go down a route that leads to a border on the island of Ireland that overwhelmingly does not want one. This was concocted in London, shifting the blame elsewhere for it does not serve you well. The arguments appear, at face value, almost hysterical.

The EU is the one forcing a hard border, and NOBODY ELSE. They are the ones being constantly stubborn on a trade deal. Where else on the planet would another country be allowed to dictate what could and couldn't be moved around in the country? Do you have the remotest idea of what the EU has control over. eg parcels from GB to NI. There is a very long list of things that we have to get their approval over.
Why on earth should the IRA dictate what this country can and cannot do?

The IRA wants a United ireland, not a hard border. The peace process was sold to republicans on the basis that in the long run, an invisible frontier, normalisation of all-Ireland institutions and a constitutional mechanism for an eventual border poll was a better prospect than a shooting war, especially after the supply line from Col. Gadaffi and the cash from Noraid began to dry up. It is no coincidence that the IRA began serious efforts at decommissioning within months of the Twin Towers spelling out to ‘Irish’ New Yorkers what it actually feels like to be on the receiving end of an act of terrorism.

The EU wants a United Europe, not a hard border, in Ireland or anywhere else. That is its reason to exist and it is incapable of conceiving of any other ending. Philosophically I think the EU’s bureaucracy still doesn’t comprehend Brexit and given the continuing and very obvious division in British public life on the issue, feels quite justified in pursuing a negotiating strategy that aims to keep the U.K. as tightly aligned to the bloc as possible. The U.K. is not Norway; sitting right on the EU’s doorstep is one of the world’s biggest economies, and one of the world’s financial centres, and one of the world’s few true global cities. The risk to the EU project in the event that the U.K. seriously diverges from its regulatory regime could be destabilising. The prospect of keeping the U.K. tightly aligned is too tempting, both to prevent competitive deregulation and also to ensure the U.K. re-joining at some point is a realistic prospect, and an argument that could be made seriously in a future referendum.

As far as the EU is concerned, this is not about destabilising the U.K. or creating a border. It’s about fighting as hard as possible to avoid a border and to keep the U.K. as close to the EU as possible. The impasse occurs because it is pretty clear within the U.K. that amongst Brexit supporters, the sentiment that the U.K. should make a clean and decisive break from the EU is so strong that to ignore it is politically destabilising. Thus the U.K. and the EU side both have irreconcilable differences, and neither side has thus far budged. It is reasonable for the EU to suspect Boris will eventually cave in, because that’s what Teresa May did. Boris’ strategy for trying to prove that he won’t cave in (that highly contentious piece of legislation) is high risk, but it is meant to create a lot of noise, as it has in fact done.