The giveaway that there's something wonky is that if you had a USD market with the same odds as the UK market you'd have an arb, because you could put pounds on the UK extend/revoke market and dollars on the US No Deal market then end up with the same or more pounds whatever happened. This proves the USD and GBP markets should have different odds.
Not after Betfair's premium charge & Predictit's crazy high rake you don't.
Yes currently at 52 cents (52%) - but if you bet in both markets, which you'd need a physical US and UK address to do you'd end up way behind because of charges/rake.
The GFA has provisions for the dismantling of border posts? Perhaps it happened at the same time, but I don’t see any text in the GFA forbidding customs checks, at the border or otherwise.
Another one who presumably wilfully doesn't understand the history or politics of Northern Ireland (or perhaps anywhere else).
What has that got to do with pointing out factually incorrect statements?
But by all means tell me that it has nothing to do with the GFA. You think you are being clever, clever but you are actually being a dick.
Charming. Just pointing out that there are no such provisions in the text of the agreement as you had claimed. And I think an army observation post is a bit different from a customs border, which is the current point of contention.
Jesus Fucking Christ I am trying to be reasonable here but it's like teaching a haddock how to ride a bicycle.
In the context of the Troubles every seemingly straightforward policing or enforcement action had to have a subsidiary full scale military operation around it. Hence you would get two RUC bobbies walking down the road, thumbs stuck in their tunics, with anything up to 28 soldiers patrolling around them plus helicopters plus other elements just so those two bobbies could walk down the road.
Same with police stations, observations posts, oh fuck it. Forget it. It's not worth the effort. Basically you have to sit on the triangle thing and then reach down with your feet to the pedals oh wait, you don't have feet...
Feel free to point out the provision relating to customs checks and I’ll drop it.
The GFA has provisions for the dismantling of border posts? Perhaps it happened at the same time, but I don’t see any text in the GFA forbidding customs checks, at the border or otherwise.
Another one who presumably wilfully doesn't understand the history or politics of Northern Ireland (or perhaps anywhere else).
What has that got to do with pointing out factually incorrect statements?
But by all means tell me that it has nothing to do with the GFA. You think you are being clever, clever but you are actually being a dick.
Charming. Just pointing out that there are no such provisions in the text of the agreement as you had claimed. And I think an army observation post is a bit different from a customs border, which is the current point of contention.
Jesus Fucking Christ I am trying to be reasonable here but it's like teaching a haddock how to ride a bicycle.
In the context of the Troubles every seemingly straightforward policing or enforcement action had to have a subsidiary full scale military operation around it. Hence you would get two RUC bobbies walking down the road, thumbs stuck in their tunics, with anything up to 28 soldiers patrolling around them plus helicopters plus other elements just so those two bobbies could walk down the road.
Same with police stations, observations posts, oh fuck it. Forget it. It's not worth the effort. Basically you have to sit on the triangle thing and then reach down with your feet to the pedals oh wait, you don't have feet...
The Troubles are over. But remind me how much army infrastructure does it take to enforce Ireland having a hard border for Corporation Tax? Or for VAT rates? Income Tax rates? Customs is just another tax and the Irish don't want harmonised taxes.
Also remind me how many customs posts existed in 1997. Because we were already in a customs union then yet the Troubles still occured.
When the IRA bastards blew up children in my hometown, both Ireland and the UK were in the EU. Not the EEC. It didn't stop them.
The GFA has provisions for the dismantling of border posts? Perhaps it happened at the same time, but I don’t see any text in the GFA forbidding customs checks, at the border or otherwise.
Another one who presumably wilfully doesn't understand the history or politics of Northern Ireland (or perhaps anywhere else).
What has that got to do with pointing out factually incorrect statements?
But by all means tell me that it has nothing to do with the GFA. You think you are being clever, clever but you are actually being a dick.
Charming. Just pointing out that there are no such provisions in the text of the agreement as you had claimed. And I think an army observation post is a bit different from a customs border, which is the current point of contention.
Jesus Fucking Christ I am trying to be reasonable here but it's like teaching a haddock how to ride a bicycle.
In the context of the Troubles every seemingly straightforward policing or enforcement action had to have a subsidiary full scale military operation around it. Hence you would get two RUC bobbies walking down the road, thumbs stuck in their tunics, with anything up to 28 soldiers patrolling around them plus helicopters plus other elements just so those two bobbies could walk down the road.
Same with police stations, observations posts, oh fuck it. Forget it. It's not worth the effort. Basically you have to sit on the triangle thing and then reach down with your feet to the pedals oh wait, you don't have feet...
Feel free to point out the provision relating to customs checks and I’ll drop it.
Sorry you have now put yourself into the @HYUFD not worth responding seriously to group.
The EU are not the bad guys, and the public knows it.
You've lost and the public knows it.
Suck it up, buttercup.
We are all the losers thanks to thick wankers like yourself.
You may be losing but I feel like I'm winning. I've been an almost lone voice on this site over the last 12 months arguing against the backstop. Now things are finally going the way I feel like I was almost uniquely arguing for. I'm quite content with that thank you very much.
If we manage to leave without a backstop then you heard it here first.
How many avoidable deaths would you regard as an acceptable number to secure no deal Brexit?
There is no answer to that question. We'll both never know if there are any deats due to Brexit, deaths vary every year and I expect a bad winter flu season will be worse.
Secondly, there is no death toll that makes sacrificing democracy acceptable.
Finally I don't want a no deal Brexit, my preference is a backstopless deal Brexit. My order of preference, as stated her before is:
Good deal > No Deal > Revoke > Bad Deal.
Your callous lack of understanding for Ireland is appalling. Do you wants the troubles to return?
The GFA has provisions for the dismantling of border posts? Perhaps it happened at the same time, but I don’t see any text in the GFA forbidding customs checks, at the border or otherwise.
Another one who presumably wilfully doesn't understand the history or politics of Northern Ireland (or perhaps anywhere else).
What has that got to do with pointing out factually incorrect statements?
But by all means tell me that it has nothing to do with the GFA. You think you are being clever, clever but you are actually being a dick.
Charming. Just pointing out that there are no such provisions in the text of the agreement as you had claimed. And I think an army observation post is a bit different from a customs border, which is the current point of contention.
Jesus Fucking Christ I am trying to be reasonable here but it's like teaching a haddock how to ride a bicycle.
In the context of the Troubles every seemingly straightforward policing or enforcement action had to have a subsidiary full scale military operation around it. Hence you would get two RUC bobbies walking down the road, thumbs stuck in their tunics, with anything up to 28 soldiers patrolling around them plus helicopters plus other elements just so those two bobbies could walk down the road.
Same with police stations, observations posts, oh fuck it. Forget it. It's not worth the effort. Basically you have to sit on the triangle thing and then reach down with your feet to the pedals oh wait, you don't have feet...
Feel free to point out the provision relating to customs checks and I’ll drop it.
There is none and he knows it. People are sickly trying to abuse for sectarian advantage the GFA.
The EU's stance was always illogical, the only defence to it was that they had so much strength that the UK had to fold. But it doesn't matter in poker if you are dominant chip leader, if your opposition goes All In you are forced to react.
I don't think this is quite fair.
The EU has a position: these are the rules of the club, if you want to benefit from the club you have to accept them all. That seems reasonable. The problem is the UK says we don't like some of the rules, but we want to keep the benefits. We want to say no freedom of movement, but still allow freedom of goods and services.
The issue is the history of Ireland. In an attempt to protect a member state the EU have said the Irish Border issue is as important as any of their usual rules. To try to ameliorate that issue for peace they bent on the rules: the backstop is essentially freedom of goods and services with an opt out for people. The EU hate that, but were willing to do it for Irish peace. May failed to sell it, and the loonies sold it as vassaldom.
If Ireland was not an issue, I think the EU (specifically France) would have already told us where to stick it. From the EU point of view, May's deal is already the EU giving away lots. It's just that many people in the UK have such a narrow view of foreign policy, especially when it comes to the EU, they refuse to recognise it.
That's true insofar as it goes for Remainers like May and Robbins keeping the benefits of the EU while ending free movement is a fantastic deal.
However despite the belief of May and the protestations of Mr Meeks, Brexit was for us about more than just migration. If Brexit is about more than just migration, this is not a fantastic deal.
But it was a stepping stone. You go from being in the EU with all that entails, to being out of the EU with a few strings, to eventually getting rid of the strings. To cut all the strings at once with no safety net.
Had it just been a transition then yes absolutely.
However the backstop is a trap. It wasn't a transition it was nailing down the future and not in a positive way.
I mean it is an insurance policy. By nature the hope is it would not be used.
Do you think the EU want to have a permanent non member with the "benefits" (even if you don't see them as such) of free trade but the limitation on freedom of movement? Do you think Hungary and Italy wouldn't have looked at that and gone "well we should threaten to leave if we can get that deal"? The EU hate the idea of the backstop, but prefer the idea of Irish peace more. It seems we hate the EU more than we like peace.
Rachel Riley has slammed a Labour councillor for endorsing an article which claimed the Countdown presenter was 'working for the Israeli state propaganda machine'.
Newly-elected Southbourne councillor Lisa Lewis was called out by Ms Riley after she endorsed a Dorset Eye report calling the star a 'pointless, poisonous celebrity'.
The article claimed Ms Riley 'and her goons' will be responsible for 'another Jo Cox moment' by calling out anti-Semitism in the party, referring to the MP's 2016 murder.
Where are all these idiots coming from, and what on Earth do they think they’ll gain from attacking a popular TV presenter? Some of those comments are damn close to inciting violence against her.
The GFA has provisions for the dismantling of border posts? Perhaps it happened at the same time, but I don’t see any text in the GFA forbidding customs checks, at the border or otherwise.
Another one who presumably wilfully doesn't understand the history or politics of Northern Ireland (or perhaps anywhere else).
What has that got to do with pointing out factually incorrect statements?
But by all means tell me that it has nothing to do with the GFA. You think you are being clever, clever but you are actually being a dick.
Charming. Just pointing out that there are no such provisions in the text of the agreement as you had claimed. And I think an army observation post is a bit different from a customs border, which is the current point of contention.
Jesus Fucking Christ I am trying to be reasonable here but it's like teaching a haddock how to ride a bicycle.
In the context of the Troubles every seemingly straightforward policing or enforcement action had to have a subsidiary full scale military operation around it. Hence you would get two RUC bobbies walking down the road, thumbs stuck in their tunics, with anything up to 28 soldiers patrolling around them plus helicopters plus other elements just so those two bobbies could walk down the road.
Same with police stations, observations posts, oh fuck it. Forget it. It's not worth the effort. Basically you have to sit on the triangle thing and then reach down with your feet to the pedals oh wait, you don't have feet...
Feel free to point out the provision relating to customs checks and I’ll drop it.
There is none and he knows it. People are sickly trying to abuse for sectarian advantage the GFA.
Making the situation even more difficult. There’s no reason a customs border can’t exist while still continuing the cross-border cooperation described in the agreement.
I've made this point before but 53 no-deal pounds is less than 47 extend-or-revoke pounds, so this market is pointing at the exit happening by Oct 31st.
Does this interpretation hold? Couldn't you simply hedge the FX impact of deal/no deal, rendering the payout under the two outcomes independent of the value of GBP? In other words, if you are betting USD then whether you choose to make the bet just on the Brexit outcome or a combined bet on Brexit plus the value of GBPUSD is up to you, and so the Brexit portion of the bet should be a clean measure of subjective probabilities.
It only makes sense for someone betting from abroad and place their stake in £. Which must be a tiny minority of the Uk betting market.
It makes sense for anyone concerned about the value of GBP under the two scenarios. Even if you are UK based. The point I was trying to make was that it was mistaken to view the odds as skewed by the exchange rate implications of Brexit, because those implications could be hedged against when placing the bet. That is my contention anyway, I might be wrong.
The giveaway that there's something wonky is that if you had a USD market with the same odds as the UK market you'd have an arb, because you could put pounds on the UK extend/revoke market and dollars on the US No Deal market then end up with the same or more pounds whatever happened. This proves the USD and GBP markets should have different odds.
The whole basis of international trade is that there is money to be made by sellingnin one place and buying in another.
The odds on a market like Betfair with predomonantly British punters is that the odds are determined by the weight of £ on each side. And punters aren’t thinking about exchange rates when they assess the likelihood of a no deal exit (not least because they don’t know the extent to which the bad news is already priced in)
The GFA has provisions for the dismantling of border posts? Perhaps it happened at the same time, but I don’t see any text in the GFA forbidding customs checks, at the border or otherwise.
Another one who presumably wilfully doesn't understand the history or politics of Northern Ireland (or perhaps anywhere else).
What has that got to do with pointing out factually incorrect statements?
But by all means tell me that it has nothing to do with the GFA. You think you are being clever, clever but you are actually being a dick.
Charming. Just pointing out that there are no such provisions in the text of the agreement as you had claimed. And I think an army observation post is a bit different from a customs border, which is the current point of contention.
Jesus Fucking Christ I am trying to be reasonable here but it's like teaching a haddock how to ride a bicycle.
In the context of the Troubles every seemingly straightforward policing or enforcement action had to have a subsidiary full scale military operation around it. Hence you would get two RUC bobbies walking down the road, thumbs stuck in their tunics, with anything up to 28 soldiers patrolling around them plus helicopters plus other elements just so those two bobbies could walk down the road.
Same with police stations, observations posts, oh fuck it. Forget it. It's not worth the effort. Basically you have to sit on the triangle thing and then reach down with your feet to the pedals oh wait, you don't have feet...
Feel free to point out the provision relating to customs checks and I’ll drop it.
There is none and he knows it. People are sickly trying to abuse for sectarian advantage the GFA.
I actually think they are waiting for a Border Poll in 2020...
Rachel Riley has slammed a Labour councillor for endorsing an article which claimed the Countdown presenter was 'working for the Israeli state propaganda machine'.
Newly-elected Southbourne councillor Lisa Lewis was called out by Ms Riley after she endorsed a Dorset Eye report calling the star a 'pointless, poisonous celebrity'.
The article claimed Ms Riley 'and her goons' will be responsible for 'another Jo Cox moment' by calling out anti-Semitism in the party, referring to the MP's 2016 murder.
It's like the whole of the Labour party has somehow been infested by Piers Morgan clones.
For a supposed independent news organization for Dorset goings on, if their twitter feed is anything to go by they seem extremely preoccupied by Israeli politics.
On topic, if I were a gambler I would bet on "No". Not because I think Bozo is bluffing, but because I think the decision will be taken out of his hands by our Sovereign Parliament. And they don't want a No Deal Brexit.
The giveaway that there's something wonky is that if you had a USD market with the same odds as the UK market you'd have an arb, because you could put pounds on the UK extend/revoke market and dollars on the US No Deal market then end up with the same or more pounds whatever happened. This proves the USD and GBP markets should have different odds.
Not after Betfair's premium charge & Predictit's crazy high rake you don't.
Yes currently at 52 cents (52%) - but if you bet in both markets, which you'd need a physical US and UK address to do you'd end up way behind because of charges/rake.
Lol, sure, but just to establish the principle: Rational markets should be pricing in the difference in the value of the betting token in the different cases. If they don't, the system contains, at least theoretically, mysterious free money, and it doesn't have to be exploitable in practice to alert you that something's wrong.
I mean it is an insurance policy. By nature the hope is it would not be used.
Do you think the EU want to have a permanent non member with the "benefits" (even if you don't see them as such) of free trade but the limitation on freedom of movement? Do you think Hungary and Italy wouldn't have looked at that and gone "well we should threaten to leave if we can get that deal"? The EU hate the idea of the backstop, but prefer the idea of Irish peace more. It seems we hate the EU more than we like peace.
The backstop makes us supplicants and ruletakers. Given the EU has a massive trade surplus with us, then yes I think they'd rather have us tied down as ruletakers than have us free altogether.
Peace is not worth subjugation. I endorse the GFA's spirit of co-operation and compromise. There is no co-operation and compromise here, it is the EU setting all the rules and us having to follow the rules without a say. If we were proposing that the Irish follow our rules without a say we would be told not to be ridiculous. Same to them.
I mean it is an insurance policy. By nature the hope is it would not be used.
Do you think the EU want to have a permanent non member with the "benefits" (even if you don't see them as such) of free trade but the limitation on freedom of movement? Do you think Hungary and Italy wouldn't have looked at that and gone "well we should threaten to leave if we can get that deal"? The EU hate the idea of the backstop, but prefer the idea of Irish peace more. It seems we hate the EU more than we like peace.
The backstop makes us supplicants and ruletakers. Given the EU has a massive trade surplus with us, then yes I think they'd rather have us tied down as ruletakers than have us free altogether.
Peace is not worth subjugation. I endorse the GFA's spirit of co-operation and compromise. There is no co-operation and compromise here, it is the EU setting all the rules and us having to follow the rules without a say. If we were proposing that the Irish follow our rules without a say we would be told not to be ridiculous. Same to them.
Being alone on the edge of the EU will do most of that unaided.
The EU are not the bad guys, and the public knows it.
You've lost and the public knows it.
Suck it up, buttercup.
We are all the losers thanks to thick wankers like yourself.
You may be losing but I feel like I'm winning. I've been an almost lone voice on this site over the last 12 months arguing against the backstop. Now things are finally going the way I feel like I was almost uniquely arguing for. I'm quite content with that thank you very much.
If we manage to leave without a backstop then you heard it here first.
How many avoidable deaths would you regard as an acceptable number to secure no deal Brexit?
There is no answer to that question. We'll both never know if there are any deats due to Brexit, deaths vary every year and I expect a bad winter flu season will be worse.
Secondly, there is no death toll that makes sacrificing democracy acceptable.
Finally I don't want a no deal Brexit, my preference is a backstopless deal Brexit. My order of preference, as stated her before is:
Good deal > No Deal > Revoke > Bad Deal.
Your callous lack of understanding for Ireland is appalling. Do you wants the troubles to return?
No I don't want the Troubles to return.
Will I pay any price to avoid it? No I will not. The GFA was agreed on the basis of compromise, so should the future negotiations. The EU are not prepared to compromise they want to get to write all the rules and we simply follow them. That violates the GFAs principles.
Had the GFA proposal been the Republic of Ireland will in future be able to pass laws and Northern Ireland must implement those laws even if they're opposed by Westminster and the Northern Ireland Assembly then that would never have been agreed. The agreement was compromise, lets go back to that.
The Troubles are over. But remind me how much army infrastructure does it take to enforce Ireland having a hard border for Corporation Tax? Or for VAT rates? Income Tax rates? Customs is just another tax and the Irish don't want harmonised taxes.
Also remind me how many customs posts existed in 1997. Because we were already in a customs union then yet the Troubles still occured.
When the IRA bastards blew up children in my hometown, both Ireland and the UK were in the EU. Not the EEC. It didn't stop them.
Yes exactly. The Troubles are over. But if you start putting customs posts up (because remember you aren't looking to confirm compliance, you are looking for non-compliance) then you are hoisting a big red flag in a field full of bulls. And The Troubles may be over but there has been simmering low level (unless of course you are the victim) violence from those "dissident Republican" groups.
Or of course there can be no checks but then the UK completely fucks its negotiating position when it comes to other FTA negotiations.
The GFA has provisions for the dismantling of border posts? Perhaps it happened at the same time, but I don’t see any text in the GFA forbidding customs checks, at the border or otherwise.
Another one who presumably wilfully doesn't understand the history or politics of Northern Ireland (or perhaps anywhere else).
What has that got to do with pointing out factually incorrect statements?
But by all means tell me that it has nothing to do with the GFA. You think you are being clever, clever but you are actually being a dick.
Charming. Just pointing out that there are no such provisions in the text of the agreement as you had claimed. And I think an army observation post is a bit different from a customs border, which is the current point of contention.
Jesus Fucking Christ I am trying to be reasonable here but it's like teaching a haddock how to ride a bicycle.
In the context of the Troubles every seemingly straightforward policing or enforcement action had to have a subsidiary full scale military operation around it. Hence you would get two RUC bobbies walking down the road, thumbs stuck in their tunics, with anything up to 28 soldiers patrolling around them plus helicopters plus other elements just so those two bobbies could walk down the road.
Same with police stations, observations posts, oh fuck it. Forget it. It's not worth the effort. Basically you have to sit on the triangle thing and then reach down with your feet to the pedals oh wait, you don't have feet...
Feel free to point out the provision relating to customs checks and I’ll drop it.
There is none and he knows it. People are sickly trying to abuse for sectarian advantage the GFA.
Making the situation even more difficult. There’s no reason a customs border can’t exist while still continuing the cross-border cooperation described in the agreement.
The GFA has provisions for the dismantling of border posts? Perhaps it happened at the same time, but I don’t see any text in the GFA forbidding customs checks, at the border or otherwise.
Another one who presumably wilfully doesn't understand the history or politics of Northern Ireland (or perhaps anywhere else).
What has that got to do with pointing out factually incorrect statements?
But by all means tell me that it has nothing to do with the GFA. You think you are being clever, clever but you are actually being a dick.
Charming. Just pointing out that there are no such provisions in the text of the agreement as you had claimed. And I think an army observation post is a bit different from a customs border, which is the current point of contention.
Jesus Fucking Christ I am trying to be reasonable here but it's like teaching a haddock how to ride a bicycle.
In the context of the Troubles every seemingly straightforward policing or enforcement action had to have a subsidiary full scale military operation around it. Hence you would get two RUC bobbies walking down the road, thumbs stuck in their tunics, with anything up to 28 soldiers patrolling around them plus helicopters plus other elements just so those two bobbies could walk down the road.
Same with police stations, observations posts, oh fuck it. Forget it. It's not worth the effort. Basically you have to sit on the triangle thing and then reach down with your feet to the pedals oh wait, you don't have feet...
I think a little precision could avoid much over claim misunderstanding.
"Breaches the Belfast Agreement" is untrue.
"Breaches the spirit of the Belfast Agreement is a reasonable point which can be well defended.
I mean it is an insurance policy. By nature the hope is it would not be used.
Do you think the EU want to have a permanent non member with the "benefits" (even if you don't see them as such) of free trade but the limitation on freedom of movement? Do you think Hungary and Italy wouldn't have looked at that and gone "well we should threaten to leave if we can get that deal"? The EU hate the idea of the backstop, but prefer the idea of Irish peace more. It seems we hate the EU more than we like peace.
The backstop makes us supplicants and ruletakers. Given the EU has a massive trade surplus with us, then yes I think they'd rather have us tied down as ruletakers than have us free altogether.
Peace is not worth subjugation. I endorse the GFA's spirit of co-operation and compromise. There is no co-operation and compromise here, it is the EU setting all the rules and us having to follow the rules without a say. If we were proposing that the Irish follow our rules without a say we would be told not to be ridiculous. Same to them.
I guess this is where the mindset of leavers and remainers differ; I do not feel the EU cares about the UK in those terms. I think the EU would rather have us outside the EU with rules that make sense, than somewhat in and somewhat out but under their control. The EU is a political body built on systems and rules. These can be fudged, sure, but not ripped up and ignored. They have no interest in Empire, they have only an interest in making life easier for capitalists. That's why the only argument against the EU that has ever made sense to me is the lexit one, and even that isn't particularly strong. The backstop is a nothing, it is an insurance policy for the purpose of peace. Nothing like what the Troika did to Greece, for instance. (And before we get the argument of "who would want to be a member of a club that did that to Greece"... we're the UK. After Ireland, who would want to be in any club named the UK...)
The Troubles are over. But remind me how much army infrastructure does it take to enforce Ireland having a hard border for Corporation Tax? Or for VAT rates? Income Tax rates? Customs is just another tax and the Irish don't want harmonised taxes.
Also remind me how many customs posts existed in 1997. Because we were already in a customs union then yet the Troubles still occured.
When the IRA bastards blew up children in my hometown, both Ireland and the UK were in the EU. Not the EEC. It didn't stop them.
Yes exactly. The Troubles are over. But if you start putting customs posts up (because remember you aren't looking to confirm compliance, you are looking for non-compliance) then you are hoisting a big red flag in a field full of bulls. And The Troubles may be over but there has been simmering low level (unless of course you are the victim) violence from those "dissident Republican" groups.
Or of course there can be no checks but then the UK completely fucks its negotiating position when it comes to other FTA negotiations.
So compromise, which is the basis of the GFA. Don't put up customs posts. Any more than there are corporation tax posts, or VAT posts, or posts for other taxes.
We diverge on customs like we've diverged on other taxes. Some smuggling may occur, like some tax evasion occurs on every single tax man has ever invented, but preventing it is not worth bringing The Troubles back over.
Like with other taxes we can use intelligence and evidence and the law to fight tax evasion. If people evade customs duties and it gets proven in court they should be punished to deter others. But is it worth building customs posts? No.
Which is why the backstop is unnecessary. Because an alternative exists.
The GFA has provisions for the dismantling of border posts? Perhaps it happened at the same time, but I don’t see any text in the GFA forbidding customs checks, at the border or otherwise.
Another one who presumably wilfully doesn't understand the history or politics of Northern Ireland (or perhaps anywhere else).
What has that got to do with pointing out factually incorrect statements?
But by all means tell me that it has nothing to do with the GFA. You think you are being clever, clever but you are actually being a dick.
Charming. Just pointing out that there are no such provisions in the text of the agreement as you had claimed. And I think an army observation post is a bit different from a customs border, which is the current point of contention.
Jesus Fucking Christ I am trying to be reasonable here but it's like teaching a haddock how to ride a bicycle.
In the context of the Troubles every seemingly straightforward policing or enforcement action had to have a subsidiary full scale military operation around it. Hence you would get two RUC bobbies walking down the road, thumbs stuck in their tunics, with anything up to 28 soldiers patrolling around them plus helicopters plus other elements just so those two bobbies could walk down the road.
Same with police stations, observations posts, oh fuck it. Forget it. It's not worth the effort. Basically you have to sit on the triangle thing and then reach down with your feet to the pedals oh wait, you don't have feet...
I think a little precision could avoid much over claim misunderstanding.
"Breaches the Belfast Agreement" is untrue.
"Breaches the spirit of the Belfast Agreement is a reasonable point which can be well defended.
The GFA has provisions for the dismantling of border posts? Perhaps it happened at the same time, but I don’t see any text in the GFA forbidding customs checks, at the border or otherwise.
Another one who presumably wilfully doesn't understand the history or politics of Northern Ireland (or perhaps anywhere else).
What has that got to do with pointing out factually incorrect statements?
But by all means tell me that it has nothing to do with the GFA. You think you are being clever, clever but you are actually being a dick.
Charming. Just pointing out that there are no such provisions in the text of the agreement as you had claimed. And I think an army observation post is a bit different from a customs border, which is the current point of contention.
Jesus Fucking Christ I am trying to be reasonable here but it's like teaching a haddock how to ride a bicycle.
In the context of the Troubles every seemingly straightforward policing or enforcement action had to have a subsidiary full scale military operation around it. Hence you would get two RUC bobbies walking down the road, thumbs stuck in their tunics, with anything up to 28 soldiers patrolling around them plus helicopters plus other elements just so those two bobbies could walk down the road.
Same with police stations, observations posts, oh fuck it. Forget it. It's not worth the effort. Basically you have to sit on the triangle thing and then reach down with your feet to the pedals oh wait, you don't have feet...
I think a little precision could avoid much over claim misunderstanding.
"Breaches the Belfast Agreement" is untrue.
"Breaches the spirit of the Belfast Agreement is a reasonable point which can be well defended.
Precisely. As a true PB pedant, I simply pointed out a factual error. All I get in return is personal abuse.
I mean it is an insurance policy. By nature the hope is it would not be used.
Do you think the EU want to have a permanent non member with the "benefits" (even if you don't see them as such) of free trade but the limitation on freedom of movement? Do you think Hungary and Italy wouldn't have looked at that and gone "well we should threaten to leave if we can get that deal"? The EU hate the idea of the backstop, but prefer the idea of Irish peace more. It seems we hate the EU more than we like peace.
The backstop makes us supplicants and ruletakers. Given the EU has a massive trade surplus with us, then yes I think they'd rather have us tied down as ruletakers than have us free altogether.
Peace is not worth subjugation. I endorse the GFA's spirit of co-operation and compromise. There is no co-operation and compromise here, it is the EU setting all the rules and us having to follow the rules without a say. If we were proposing that the Irish follow our rules without a say we would be told not to be ridiculous. Same to them.
You demean the truly subjugated. You insult those genuinely fighting for freedom. You see some of our closest allies as enemies. I genuinely cannot get into a mindset that views the world in such a way. Post No Deal we are going to be more reliant on the goodwill of the EU27 and others than we are now. I just don’t get why you’d welcome that and see it as any kind of victory, let alone as the foundation on which to build a prosperous society at ease with itself.
Hmm. Either this a concerted attempt by the government to paint the EU as the intransigent bad guys or panic is starting to set in.
Dear absolute God in Heaven above. I have been saying for over two years that 'failing and blaming" is a deliberate policy and now you're surprised??? What is the point of me being infinitely wise and prescient if nobody listens?...
It never pays to be correct too early before anyone else.
The biggest sin in politics: being prematurely right...
I think a little precision could avoid much over claim misunderstanding.
"Breaches the Belfast Agreement" is untrue.
"Breaches the spirit of the Belfast Agreement is a reasonable point which can be well defended.
Indeed.
But the spirit of the Belfast Agreement was local democracy, compromise and cross-border co-operation, not one side subjugating the other.
Customs posts violate the spirit. So too does the backstop. It is undemocratic and has a major sectarian divide.
Which means we need an alternative. You have already written "there can be no checks" so do that. It comes with a price too - but if the alternative prices are restarting the Troubles or terminating democracy then it is the best option available.
Customs posts aren't going to be chucked up becasue when push and shove come the WTO is a toothless tiger. Unfortunately that's going to work against us when it comes to China, the EU or the USA playing "fair" if we leave with no deal too. The Irish border will be fine if we leave without a deal, we'll have far more pressing matters to hand.
The Troubles are over. But remind me how much army infrastructure does it take to enforce Ireland having a hard border for Corporation Tax? Or for VAT rates? Income Tax rates? Customs is just another tax and the Irish don't want harmonised taxes.
Also remind me how many customs posts existed in 1997. Because we were already in a customs union then yet the Troubles still occured.
When the IRA bastards blew up children in my hometown, both Ireland and the UK were in the EU. Not the EEC. It didn't stop them.
Yes exactly. The Troubles are over. But if you start putting customs posts up (because remember you aren't looking to confirm compliance, you are looking for non-compliance) then you are hoisting a big red flag in a field full of bulls. And The Troubles may be over but there has been simmering low level (unless of course you are the victim) violence from those "dissident Republican" groups.
Or of course there can be no checks but then the UK completely fucks its negotiating position when it comes to other FTA negotiations.
So compromise, which is the basis of the GFA. Don't put up customs posts. Any more than there are corporation tax posts, or VAT posts, or posts for other taxes.
We diverge on customs like we've diverged on other taxes. Some smuggling may occur, like some tax evasion occurs on every single tax man has ever invented, but preventing it is not worth bringing The Troubles back over.
Like with other taxes we can use intelligence and evidence and the law to fight tax evasion. If people evade customs duties and it gets proven in court they should be punished to deter others. But is it worth building customs posts? No.
Which is why the backstop is unnecessary. Because an alternative exists.
Yes, as Enda Kenny said, you can have increased smuggling but I'm not sure either side would be prepared to turn a blind eye to such institutionalised smuggling as might occur.
If we go to WTO with no border then I have to believe that goods, all of a sudden subject to tariffs, will become especially attractive to smuggle - livestock for example where the tariffs are relatively high. I am not sure what phyto-sanitary checks are required at the EU border. Or indeed at the UK border. But it seems that the risks of a WTO MFN challenge or too great a degree of leakage are too high.
Hmm. Either this a concerted attempt by the government to paint the EU as the intransigent bad guys or panic is starting to set in.
Dear absolute God in Heaven above. I have been saying for over two years that 'failing and blaming" is a deliberate policy and now you're surprised??? What is the point of me being infinitely wise and prescient if nobody listens?...
It never pays to be correct too early before anyone else.
The biggest sin in politics: being prematurely right...
The GFA has provisions for the dismantling of border posts? Perhaps it happened at the same time, but I don’t see any text in the GFA forbidding customs checks, at the border or otherwise.
Another one who presumably wilfully doesn't understand the history or politics of Northern Ireland (or perhaps anywhere else).
What has that got to do with pointing out factually incorrect statements?
But by all means tell me that it has nothing to do with the GFA. You think you are being clever, clever but you are actually being a dick.
Charming. Just pointing out that there are no such provisions in the text of the agreement as you had claimed. And I think an army observation post is a bit different from a customs border, which is the current point of contention.
Jesus Fucking Christ I am trying to be reasonable here but it's like teaching a haddock how to ride a bicycle.
In the context of the Troubles every seemingly straightforward policing or enforcement action had to have a subsidiary full scale military operation around it. Hence you would get two RUC bobbies walking down the road, thumbs stuck in their tunics, with anything up to 28 soldiers patrolling around them plus helicopters plus other elements just so those two bobbies could walk down the road.
Same with police stations, observations posts, oh fuck it. Forget it. It's not worth the effort. Basically you have to sit on the triangle thing and then reach down with your feet to the pedals oh wait, you don't have feet...
I think a little precision could avoid much over claim misunderstanding.
"Breaches the Belfast Agreement" is untrue.
"Breaches the spirit of the Belfast Agreement is a reasonable point which can be well defended.
Precisely. As a true PB pedant, I simply pointed out a factual error. All I get in return is personal abuse.
The GFA has provisions for the dismantling of border posts? Perhaps it happened at the same time, but I don’t see any text in the GFA forbidding customs checks, at the border or otherwise.
Another one who presumably wilfully doesn't understand the history or politics of Northern Ireland (or perhaps anywhere else).
What has that got to do with pointing out factually incorrect statements?
But by all means tell me that it has nothing to do with the GFA. You think you are being clever, clever but you are actually being a dick.
Charming. Just pointing out that there are no such provisions in the text of the agreement as you had claimed. And I think an army observation post is a bit different from a customs border, which is the current point of contention.
Jesus Fucking Christ I am trying to be reasonable here but it's like teaching a haddock how to ride a bicycle.
In the context of the Troubles patrolling around them plus helicopters plus other elements just so those two bobbies could walk down the road.
Same with police stations, observations posts, oh fuck it. Forget it. It's not worth the effort. Basically you have to sit on the triangle thing and then reach down with your feet to the pedals oh wait, you don't have feet...
I think a little precision could avoid much over claim misunderstanding.
"Breaches the Belfast Agreement" is untrue.
"Breaches the spirit of the Belfast Agreement is a reasonable point which can be well defended.
Precisely. As a true PB pedant, I simply pointed out a factual error. All I get in return is personal abuse.
You are maintaining that we could have customs posts because customs posts are not explicitly mentioned in the GFA, thereby (wilfully but perhaps moronically) misunderstanding the totality of the GFA and its reach, together with the particular circumstances and history of Northern Ireland.
Whichever it is - wilfully misunderstanding or unable to understand, ie moron - it really is adding nothing whatsoever to the discussion.
Rachel Riley has slammed a Labour councillor for endorsing an article which claimed the Countdown presenter was 'working for the Israeli state propaganda machine'.
Newly-elected Southbourne councillor Lisa Lewis was called out by Ms Riley after she endorsed a Dorset Eye report calling the star a 'pointless, poisonous celebrity'.
The article claimed Ms Riley 'and her goons' will be responsible for 'another Jo Cox moment' by calling out anti-Semitism in the party, referring to the MP's 2016 murder.
It's like the whole of the Labour party has somehow been infested by Piers Morgan clones.
For a supposed independent news organization for Dorset goings on, if their twitter feed is anything to go by they seem extremely preoccupied by Israeli politics.
Curious website. It combines hardcore Momentumist politics with some rather twee arts and craft.
I mean it is an insurance policy. By nature the hope is it would not be used.
Do you think the EU want to have a permanent non member with the "benefits" (even if you don't see them as such) of free trade but the limitation on freedom of movement? Do you think Hungary and Italy wouldn't have looked at that and gone "well we should threaten to leave if we can get that deal"? The EU hate the idea of the backstop, but prefer the idea of Irish peace more. It seems we hate the EU more than we like peace.
The backstop makes us supplicants and ruletakers. Given the EU has a massive trade surplus with us, then yes I think they'd rather have us tied down as ruletakers than have us free altogether.
Peace is not worth subjugation. I endorse the GFA's spirit of co-operation and compromise. There is no co-operation and compromise here, it is the EU setting all the rules and us having to follow the rules without a say. If we were proposing that the Irish follow our rules without a say we would be told not to be ridiculous. Same to them.
I guess this is where the mindset of leavers and remainers differ; I do not feel the EU cares about the UK in those terms. I think the EU would rather have us outside the EU with rules that make sense, than somewhat in and somewhat out but under their control. The EU is a political body built on systems and rules. These can be fudged, sure, but not ripped up and ignored. They have no interest in Empire, they have only an interest in making life easier for capitalists. That's why the only argument against the EU that has ever made sense to me is the lexit one, and even that isn't particularly strong. The backstop is a nothing, it is an insurance policy for the purpose of peace. Nothing like what the Troika did to Greece, for instance. (And before we get the argument of "who would want to be a member of a club that did that to Greece"... we're the UK. After Ireland, who would want to be in any club named the UK...)
The idea that there are uniform systems and rules is patent garbage. It is a mountain of fudge the nations of Europe have thrown together and they have never been uniform. The nations of Europe cynically seek what is best for them and if they want us in the backstop it is not out of the goodness of their heart, it is because it is what is best in their eyes.
"The EU as a system of rules" is the biggest unicorn of this entire debate. It has never existed.
The EU are not the bad guys, and the public knows it.
You've lost and the public knows it.
Suck it up, buttercup.
We are all the losers thanks to thick wankers like yourself.
You may be losing but I feel like I'm winning. I've been an almost lone voice on this site over the last 12 months arguing against the backstop. Now things are finally going the way I feel like I was almost uniquely arguing for. I'm quite content with that thank you very much.
If we manage to leave without a backstop then you heard it here first.
How many avoidable deaths would you regard as an acceptable number to secure no deal Brexit?
There is no answer to that question. We'll both never know if there are any deats due to Brexit, deaths vary every year and I expect a bad winter flu season will be worse.
Secondly, there is no death toll that makes sacrificing democracy acceptable.
Finally I don't want a no deal Brexit, my preference is a backstopless deal Brexit. My order of preference, as stated her before is:
Good deal > No Deal > Revoke > Bad Deal.
Your callous lack of understanding for Ireland is appalling. Do you wants the troubles to return?
"Secondly, there is no death toll that makes sacrificing democracy acceptable."
Philip would happily allow the entire country to dissolve into a post-apocalyptic wasteland if it was self-governing and free of the EU. Quite literally, as the above quote shows. A return to the troubles, and the random murder and maiming of men, women and children wouldn't even register. It's the behaviour of a psychopath.
32 C feels 36C southerly breeze, beer is calling but I do wonder if anybody will still be talking to anyone else by this evening the way this afternoon has gone.
Customs posts aren't going to be chucked up becasue when push and shove come the WTO is a toothless tiger. Unfortunately that's going to work against us when it comes to China, the EU or the USA playing "fair" if we leave with no deal too. The Irish border will be fine if we leave without a deal, we'll have far more pressing matters to hand.
I don't disagree. It is the worry that any challenge might actually work that informed the WA and hence resulted in the backstop. The mere risk that it could happen was not one that the government under May felt it could entertain. Because I suppose a government, especially the British government, can't hit and hope when it comes to such things. Perhaps Boris' govt will feel differently.
You are maintaining that we could have customs posts because customs posts are not explicitly mentioned in the GFA, thereby (wilfully but perhaps moronically) misunderstanding the totality of the GFA and its reach, together with the particular circumstances and history of Northern Ireland.
Whichever it is - wilfully misunderstanding or unable to understand, ie moron - it really is adding nothing whatsoever to the discussion.
My assertion is that customs checks (whether on or off the border) aren’t prohibited, as is often wrongly claimed. If things are done off the border, I don’t see how it is any different from other types of regulatory borders that already exist.
That would officially be the funniest thing in politics since Jonathan Aitken was jailed for perjury.
It has been the obvious thing to do all along. But the headbangers on both sides won't compromise. We have become a political culture where everyone can't just disagree with their opponents, they act like the other side are like dictators or terrorists. It ends in this dreadful situation that when someone is genuinely beyond the pale, nobody cares because we have all called wolf too many times.
Rachel Riley has slammed a Labour councillor for endorsing an article which claimed the Countdown presenter was 'working for the Israeli state propaganda machine'.
Newly-elected Southbourne councillor Lisa Lewis was called out by Ms Riley after she endorsed a Dorset Eye report calling the star a 'pointless, poisonous celebrity'.
The article claimed Ms Riley 'and her goons' will be responsible for 'another Jo Cox moment' by calling out anti-Semitism in the party, referring to the MP's 2016 murder.
Where are all these idiots coming from, and what on Earth do they think they’ll gain from attacking a popular TV presenter? Some of those comments are damn close to inciting violence against her.
And why have all these idiots joined the Labour party. What has attracted them?
The EU is asking Boris to revoke and ignore the referendum or to enact a WA that Parly has repeatedly voted down.
That's it - that's their stance.
No wonder we ended up no deal.
The EU isn't asking us to do anything.
The UK asked for the WA (which they gave us) and then asked for it to be modified (which it did). Parliament rejected it. The UK then requested that the WA be modified to remove the backstop[1] The EU has not responded.
[1] I am making an assumption here which I have to check. Has Boris actually officially asked for the backstop to be removed? I know it's been said in the press and all, but that's not the same thing.
I think a little precision could avoid much over claim misunderstanding.
"Breaches the Belfast Agreement" is untrue.
"Breaches the spirit of the Belfast Agreement is a reasonable point which can be well defended.
Indeed.
But the spirit of the Belfast Agreement was local democracy, compromise and cross-border co-operation, not one side subjugating the other.
Customs posts violate the spirit. So too does the backstop. It is undemocratic and has a major sectarian divide.
Which means we need an alternative. You have already written "there can be no checks" so do that. It comes with a price too - but if the alternative prices are restarting the Troubles or terminating democracy then it is the best option available.
The price could be throwing away our negotiating position in future FTAs which if you lot are to be believed was a critical factor in Brexit.
You are maintaining that we could have customs posts because customs posts are not explicitly mentioned in the GFA, thereby (wilfully but perhaps moronically) misunderstanding the totality of the GFA and its reach, together with the particular circumstances and history of Northern Ireland.
Whichever it is - wilfully misunderstanding or unable to understand, ie moron - it really is adding nothing whatsoever to the discussion.
Correction: He said customs border, not customs posts.
You can have borders without posts. We can have a customs border without any customs posts, there might be smuggling across it but oh well. Is it worth reigniting The Troubles to prevent that?
The EU are not the bad guys, and the public knows it.
You've lost and the public knows it.
Suck it up, buttercup.
We are all the losers thanks to thick wankers like yourself.
You may be losing but I feel like I'm winning. I've been an almost lone voice on this site over the last 12 months arguing against the backstop. Now things are finally going the way I feel like I was almost uniquely arguing for. I'm quite content with that thank you very much.
If we manage to leave without a backstop then you heard it here first.
How many avoidable deaths would you regard as an acceptable number to secure no deal Brexit?
There is no answer to that question. We'll both never know if there are any deats due to Brexit, deaths vary every year and I expect a bad winter flu season will be worse.
Secondly, there is no death toll that makes sacrificing democracy acceptable.
Finally I don't want a no deal Brexit, my preference is a backstopless deal Brexit. My order of preference, as stated her before is:
Good deal > No Deal > Revoke > Bad Deal.
Your callous lack of understanding for Ireland is appalling. Do you wants the troubles to return?
"Secondly, there is no death toll that makes sacrificing democracy acceptable."
Philip would happily allow the entire country to dissolve into a post-apocalyptic wasteland if it was self-governing and free of the EU. Quite literally, as the above quote shows. A return to the troubles, and the random murder and maiming of men, women and children wouldn't even register. It's the behaviour of a psychopath.
The people to blame for killing and terrorism are the killers, terrorrists and their supporters. No one else.
The EU is asking Boris to revoke and ignore the referendum or to enact a WA that Parly has repeatedly voted down.
That's it - that's their stance.
No wonder we ended up no deal.
The EU isn't asking us to do anything.
The UK asked for the WA (which they gave us) and then asked for it to be modified (which it did). Parliament rejected it. The UK then requested that the WA be modified to remove the backstop[1] The EU has not responded.
[1] I am making an assumption here which I have to check. Has Boris actually officially asked for the backstop to be removed? I know it's been said in the press and all, but that's not the same thing.
I don’t think he has spoken to any EU leader apart from Varadkar.
The article lists a few of the issue which will arise post 31 October. If this is holding all the cards, I’d hate to think what a bad hand looks like.
And, yet, you’ve declared your total and unconditional surrender on the previous thread, and that you’d now join the Euro.
That’s just as pathetic. Just because you think you got the original decision slightly wrong doesn’t mean you turn the whole world upside down.
No - I said I would consider it depending on whether / if Britain remained or rejoined and that old verities and assumptions would have to be questioned. When the facts change I try and rethink what I thought before. What do you do?
Still, interesting that you consider rethinking in the light of events to be “total and unconditional surrender”. That is quite revealing of a certain type of Brexiteer mindset but not of mine.
I change my mind too. But I see no basis for a complete volte face as an emotional reaction to spite some of the more extreme Brexiteers. You said you’d go “all in”, which would be total and unconditional surrender.
It's only a surrender if you think the objective in the first place was to resist European integration rather than to choose the best future for this country from a range of possibilities.
The best future for this country will never involve joining the Euro and Schengen. It suits neither our economic interests nor our political interests and was settled long before Brexit came a long as a debate.
You’re a fanatic, so you’ll always advocate for it, but just because leaving absolutely everything overnight doesn’t make sense neither does joining absolutely everything either.
It’s pretty obvious that a semi-detached position for the UK has always been the sweet spot.
The UK will not be around much longer. The sweet spot for the independent nations of Britain is full membership on the same terms as our neighbours.
You see abolition of the UK as just punishment for it having the temerity to vote against the European Union.
You are maintaining that we could have customs posts because customs posts are not explicitly mentioned in the GFA, thereby (wilfully but perhaps moronically) misunderstanding the totality of the GFA and its reach, together with the particular circumstances and history of Northern Ireland.
Whichever it is - wilfully misunderstanding or unable to understand, ie moron - it really is adding nothing whatsoever to the discussion.
My assertion is that customs checks (whether on or off the border) aren’t prohibited, as is often wrongly claimed. If things are done off the border, I don’t see how it is any different from other types of regulatory borders that already exist.
Because borders are there to catch violations and people in the act of perpetrating that violation. If you have a lorry load of lambs that would otherwise attract (under WTO) a 20% tariff then there is no point in checking them at either end of the journey it would have to be done at the border.
Rachel Riley has slammed a Labour councillor for endorsing an article which claimed the Countdown presenter was 'working for the Israeli state propaganda machine'.
Newly-elected Southbourne councillor Lisa Lewis was called out by Ms Riley after she endorsed a Dorset Eye report calling the star a 'pointless, poisonous celebrity'.
The article claimed Ms Riley 'and her goons' will be responsible for 'another Jo Cox moment' by calling out anti-Semitism in the party, referring to the MP's 2016 murder.
It's like the whole of the Labour party has somehow been infested by Piers Morgan clones.
For a supposed independent news organization for Dorset goings on, if their twitter feed is anything to go by they seem extremely preoccupied by Israeli politics.
Curious website. It combines hardcore Momentumist politics with some rather twee arts and craft.
The article lists a few of the issue which will arise post 31 October. If this is holding all the cards, I’d hate to think what a bad hand looks like.
And, yet, you’ve declared your total and unconditional surrender on the previous thread, and that you’d now join the Euro.
That’s just as pathetic. Just because you think you got the original decision slightly wrong doesn’t mean you turn the whole world upside down.
No - I said I would consider it depending on whether / if Britain remained or rejoined and that old verities and assumptions would have to be questioned. When the facts change I try and rethink what I thought before. What do you do?
Still, interesting that you consider rethinking in the light of events to be “total and unconditional surrender”. That is quite revealing of a certain type of Brexiteer mindset but not of mine.
I
You just like to think you’re cleverer and smarter than everyone else. Maybe you are, but it grates. And I’m rather tired of it and your (whilst always eloquent and well-written) shotgun rants.
I’ll ignore the personal abuse. A shame since from my brief meeting with you I rather liked you; and it is inconsistent with stuff you’ve written to and about me in the past. But as you say everyone can change their mind.
I think revoke can only happen after either a GE won by a party explicitly having this in their manifesto or a referendum to this effect - unlikely given the timing. The Cameron deal is no longer on offer.
I am rethinking my position on the euro. Not sure where I will end up. But the point is rather moot in any case.
Don’t post pro-Euro stuff then. It really boils my piss. Your choice but, if you do, don’t expect a pleasant reaction.
Your inconsistency and unreliability on core principles that I thought you shared with me is what disappoints me.
If you totally desert me, and then rub it in to boot, how do you expect me to react?
I think a little precision could avoid much over claim misunderstanding.
"Breaches the Belfast Agreement" is untrue.
"Breaches the spirit of the Belfast Agreement is a reasonable point which can be well defended.
Indeed.
But the spirit of the Belfast Agreement was local democracy, compromise and cross-border co-operation, not one side subjugating the other.
Customs posts violate the spirit. So too does the backstop. It is undemocratic and has a major sectarian divide.
Which means we need an alternative. You have already written "there can be no checks" so do that. It comes with a price too - but if the alternative prices are restarting the Troubles or terminating democracy then it is the best option available.
The price could be throwing away our negotiating position in future FTAs which if you lot are to be believed was a critical factor in Brexit.
I both don't believe that and can live with that.
I don't believe that because the border will still exist, but be invisible. If suddenly large fleets of smuggling lorries were crossing every day that can be tackled like any other criminal behaviour or tax evasion can be. Doesn't take customs posts to do that.
Anyway the backstop throws away our negotiating position in future FTAs since we insist we will harmonise rules if we do that. So we can't negotiate alternatives. If we wish to negotiate with the USA and decide to allow chlorinated chicken, like we have chlorinated tapwater, the backstop prevents that.
However with an invisible border we can agree with the USA that we will import chlorinated chicken, the EU can maintain its rules forbidding it and anyone who imports chlorinated chicken into the Republic will be breaking the law. But we don't need posts to determine that.
The EU are not the bad guys, and the public knows it.
You've lost and the public knows it.
Suck it up, buttercup.
We are all the losers thanks to thick wankers like yourself.
You may be losing but I feel like I'm winning. I've been an almost lone voice on this site over the last 12 months arguing against the backstop. Now things are finally going the way I feel like I was almost uniquely arguing for. I'm quite content with that thank you very much.
If we manage to leave without a backstop then you heard it here first.
How many avoidable deaths would you regard as an acceptable number to secure no deal Brexit?
There is no answer to that question. We'll both never know if there are any deats due to Brexit, deaths vary every year and I expect a bad winter flu season will be worse.
Secondly, there is no death toll that makes sacrificing democracy acceptable.
Finally I don't want a no deal Brexit, my preference is a backstopless deal Brexit. My order of preference, as stated her before is:
Good deal > No Deal > Revoke > Bad Deal.
Your callous lack of understanding for Ireland is appalling. Do you wants the troubles to return?
"Secondly, there is no death toll that makes sacrificing democracy acceptable."
Philip would happily allow the entire country to dissolve into a post-apocalyptic wasteland if it was self-governing and free of the EU. Quite literally, as the above quote shows. A return to the troubles, and the random murder and maiming of men, women and children wouldn't even register. It's the behaviour of a psychopath.
The people to blame for killing and terrorism are the killers, terrorrists and their supporters. No one else.
The best future for this country will never involve joining the Euro and Schengen. It suits neither our economic interests nor our political interests and was settled long before Brexit came a long as a debate.
You’re a fanatic, so you’ll always advocate for it, but just because leaving absolutely everything overnight doesn’t make sense neither does joining absolutely everything either.
It’s pretty obvious that a semi-detached position for the UK has always been the sweet spot.
The UK will not be around much longer. The sweet spot for the independent nations of Britain is full membership on the same terms as our neighbours.
You see abolition of the UK as just punishment for it having the temerity to vote against the European Union.
You disgust me.
It's no punishment at all. Once England is freed from the shackles of the UK superstate, it will thrive as never before.
You are maintaining that we could have customs posts because customs posts are not explicitly mentioned in the GFA, thereby (wilfully but perhaps moronically) misunderstanding the totality of the GFA and its reach, together with the particular circumstances and history of Northern Ireland.
Whichever it is - wilfully misunderstanding or unable to understand, ie moron - it really is adding nothing whatsoever to the discussion.
My assertion is that customs checks (whether on or off the border) aren’t prohibited, as is often wrongly claimed. If things are done off the border, I don’t see how it is any different from other types of regulatory borders that already exist.
Because borders are there to catch violations and people in the act of perpetrating that violation. If you have a lorry load of lambs that would otherwise attract (under WTO) a 20% tariff then there is no point in checking them at either end of the journey it would have to be done at the border.
You can catch people after they have committed a crime. It doesn’t have to be during.
The EU are not the bad guys, and the public knows it.
You've lost and the public knows it.
Suck it up, buttercup.
We are all the losers thanks to thick wankers like yourself.
You may be losing but I feel like I'm winning. I've been an almost lone voice on this site over the last 12 months arguing against the backstop. Now things are finally going the way I feel like I was almost uniquely arguing for. I'm quite content with that thank you very much.
If we manage to leave without a backstop then you heard it here first.
How many avoidable deaths would you regard as an acceptable number to secure no deal Brexit?
There is no answer to that question. We'll both never know if there are any deats due to Brexit, deaths vary every year and I expect a bad winter flu season will be worse.
Secondly, there is no death toll that makes sacrificing democracy acceptable.
Finally I don't want a no deal Brexit, my preference is a backstopless deal Brexit. My order of preference, as stated her before is:
Good deal > No Deal > Revoke > Bad Deal.
Your callous lack of understanding for Ireland is appalling. Do you wants the troubles to return?
"Secondly, there is no death toll that makes sacrificing democracy acceptable."
Philip would happily allow the entire country to dissolve into a post-apocalyptic wasteland if it was self-governing and free of the EU. Quite literally, as the above quote shows. A return to the troubles, and the random murder and maiming of men, women and children wouldn't even register. It's the behaviour of a psychopath.
The people to blame for killing and terrorism are the killers, terrorrists and their supporters. No one else.
Those, who for no good reason, create the conditions in which they thrive also deserve some blame. There is a reason why the majority of the people of Northern Ireland support the backstop. Philip is so committed to freedom he is happy to see them ignored and suffer the consequences.
The EU are not the bad guys, and the public knows it.
You've lost and the public knows it.
Suck it up, buttercup.
We are all the losers thanks to thick wankers like yourself.
You may be losing but I feel like I'm winning. I've been an almost lone voice on this site over the last 12 months arguing against the backstop. Now things are finally going the way I feel like I was almost uniquely arguing for. I'm quite content with that thank you very much.
If we manage to leave without a backstop then you heard it here first.
How many avoidable deaths would you regard as an acceptable number to secure no deal Brexit?
There is no answer to that question. We'll both never know if there are any deats due to Brexit, deaths vary every year and I expect a bad winter flu season will be worse.
Secondly, there is no death toll that makes sacrificing democracy acceptable.
Finally I don't want a no deal Brexit, my preference is a backstopless deal Brexit. My order of preference, as stated her before is:
Good deal > No Deal > Revoke > Bad Deal.
Your callous lack of understanding for Ireland is appalling. Do you wants the troubles to return?
"Secondly, there is no death toll that makes sacrificing democracy acceptable."
Philip would happily allow the entire country to dissolve into a post-apocalyptic wasteland if it was self-governing and free of the EU. Quite literally, as the above quote shows. A return to the troubles, and the random murder and maiming of men, women and children wouldn't even register. It's the behaviour of a psychopath.
The people to blame for killing and terrorism are the killers, terrorrists and their supporters. No one else.
The EU are not the bad guys, and the public knows it.
You've lost and the public knows it.
Suck it up, buttercup.
We are all the losers thanks to thick wankers like yourself.
You may be losing but I feel like I'm winning. I've been an almost lone voice on this site over the last 12 months arguing against the backstop. Now things are finally going the way I feel like I was almost uniquely arguing for. I'm quite content with that thank you very much.
If we manage to leave without a backstop then you heard it here first.
How many avoidable deaths would you regard as an acceptable number to secure no deal Brexit?
There is no answer to that question. We'll both never know if there are any deats due to Brexit, deaths vary every year and I expect a bad winter flu season will be worse.
Secondly, there is no death toll that makes sacrificing democracy acceptable.
Finally I don't want a no deal Brexit, my preference is a backstopless deal Brexit. My order of preference, as stated her before is:
Good deal > No Deal > Revoke > Bad Deal.
Your callous lack of understanding for Ireland is appalling. Do you wants the troubles to return?
"Secondly, there is no death toll that makes sacrificing democracy acceptable."
Philip would happily allow the entire country to dissolve into a post-apocalyptic wasteland if it was self-governing and free of the EU. Quite literally, as the above quote shows. A return to the troubles, and the random murder and maiming of men, women and children wouldn't even register. It's the behaviour of a psychopath.
The people to blame for killing and terrorism are the killers, terrorrists and their supporters. No one else.
How facile.
Tell you what, I'll walk round Bradford wearing a "Mohammad was a ****" sandwich board and a kippah. If I get punched (or worse) then it's solely the fault of those assaulting me, is it?
I think a little precision could avoid much over claim misunderstanding.
"Breaches the Belfast Agreement" is untrue.
"Breaches the spirit of the Belfast Agreement is a reasonable point which can be well defended.
Indeed.
But the spirit of the Belfast Agreement was local democracy, compromise and cross-border co-operation, not one side subjugating the other.
Customs posts violate the spirit. So too does the backstop. It is undemocratic and has a major sectarian divide.
Which means we need an alternative. You have already written "there can be no checks" so do that. It comes with a price too - but if the alternative prices are restarting the Troubles or terminating democracy then it is the best option available.
The price could be throwing away our negotiating position in future FTAs which if you lot are to be believed was a critical factor in Brexit.
The backstop is not a sectarian divide. If the British people want rid of the backstop they can elect a government on a promise to abrogate the treaty. Catholic/Nationalist families in Northern Ireland whose children were being gunned down by the British Army had no option to do similarly. There is no sectarian element. The British people are defended by a well armed and trained military and if it decides to abrogate the backstop the repercussions will be economic and diplomatic, not military.
Most “technological solutions” I have seen involve the U.K. government holding details of the licence plates and registered holders of Irish vehicles. What makes you think the Irish people’s experience of the British Government at any point in history makes that a palatable or appealing option? Imagine the level you don’t trust the EU, then multiply that by 1000, and you have the Irish population’s level of trust in the U.K. Government.
You are maintaining that we could have customs posts because customs posts are not explicitly mentioned in the GFA, thereby (wilfully but perhaps moronically) misunderstanding the totality of the GFA and its reach, together with the particular circumstances and history of Northern Ireland.
Whichever it is - wilfully misunderstanding or unable to understand, ie moron - it really is adding nothing whatsoever to the discussion.
Correction: He said customs border, not customs posts.
You can have borders without posts. We can have a customs border without any customs posts, there might be smuggling across it but oh well. Is it worth reigniting The Troubles to prevent that?
As already happens with liquor, tobacco, fuel and other items - policed away from the border itself with a combination of technology and old fashioned detective work.
Those, who for no good reason, create the conditions in which they thrive also deserve some blame. There is a reason why the majority of the people of Northern Ireland support the backstop. Philip is so committed to freedom he is happy to see them ignored and suffer the consequences.
This is a lie and you know it. On a massive sectarian divide one community in NI hates the backstop and the other community loves it.
The whole "spirit of the GFA" was that we would in the future seek compromise between the communities, not have one impose its will on the other.
You are prepared to f##k over one NI community because the other community wants to do so. I am not.
You are maintaining that we could have customs posts because customs posts are not explicitly mentioned in the GFA, thereby (wilfully but perhaps moronically) misunderstanding the totality of the GFA and its reach, together with the particular circumstances and history of Northern Ireland.
Whichever it is - wilfully misunderstanding or unable to understand, ie moron - it really is adding nothing whatsoever to the discussion.
Correction: He said customs border, not customs posts.
You can have borders without posts. We can have a customs border without any customs posts, there might be smuggling across it but oh well. Is it worth reigniting The Troubles to prevent that?
As already happens with liquor, tobacco, fuel and other items - policed away from the border itself with a combination of technology and old fashioned detective work.
Funny that!
Tax differences on liquor, tobacco etc in the EU vary far more than customs ever likely will. Smuggling is illegal already, no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Charming. Just pointing out that there are no such provisions in the text of the agreement as you had claimed. And I think an army observation post is a bit different from a customs border, which is the current point of contention.
Jesus Fucking Christ I am trying to be reasonable here but it's like teaching a haddock how to ride a bicycle.
In the context of the Troubles every seemingly straightforward policing or enforcement action had to have a subsidiary full scale military operation around it. Hence you would get two RUC bobbies walking down the road, thumbs stuck in their tunics, with anything up to 28 soldiers patrolling around them plus helicopters plus other elements just so those two bobbies could walk down the road.
Same with police stations, observations posts, oh fuck it. Forget it. It's not worth the effort. Basically you have to sit on the triangle thing and then reach down with your feet to the pedals oh wait, you don't have feet...
The Troubles are over. But remind me how much army infrastructure does it take to enforce Ireland having a hard border for Corporation Tax? Or for VAT rates? Income Tax rates? Customs is just another tax and the Irish don't want harmonised taxes.
Also remind me how many customs posts existed in 1997. Because we were already in a customs union then yet the Troubles still occured.
When the IRA bastards blew up children in my hometown, both Ireland and the UK were in the EU. Not the EEC. It didn't stop them.
There were Ireland/NI border posts up until about 1992, when (I think) the single market rendered them unnecessary. You can Google them if you like.
In order to keep civil society and British administration going during the Troubles took an enormous amount of time and effort. Operation Motorman was the longest lasting op in 20th century Army history. Every sector of society was affected, and even those as innocent as census-takers were murdered. I'm not sure you understand the magnitude of the problem nor the efforts it took to reduce it to a manageable level.
O/T..... but is it? Report from the Guardian: Foreign countries are warning their citizens about travel to the US after this weekend’s pair of shootings that killed 31 people, the LA Times reports.
I mean it is an insurance policy. By nature the hope is it would not be used.
I guess this is where the mindset of leavers and remainers differ; I do not feel the EU cares about the UK in those terms. I think the EU would rather have us outside the EU with rules that make sense, than somewhat in and somewhat out but under their control. The EU is a political body built on systems and rules. These can be fudged, sure, but not ripped up and ignored. They have no interest in Empire, they have only an interest in making life easier for capitalists. That's why the only argument against the EU that has ever made sense to me is the lexit one, and even that isn't particularly strong. The backstop is a nothing, it is an insurance policy for the purpose of peace. Nothing like what the Troika did to Greece, for instance. (And before we get the argument of "who would want to be a member of a club that did that to Greece"... we're the UK. After Ireland, who would want to be in any club named the UK...)
The idea that there are uniform systems and rules is patent garbage. It is a mountain of fudge the nations of Europe have thrown together and they have never been uniform. The nations of Europe cynically seek what is best for them and if they want us in the backstop it is not out of the goodness of their heart, it is because it is what is best in their eyes.
"The EU as a system of rules" is the biggest unicorn of this entire debate. It has never existed.
We are going to be under their sphere of influence either way. If we, or companies based here, want to sell to the EU they will have to follow the rules they set. Now the only difference is that the UK won't get a say in what those rules are. I really dislike Heseltine, but he made a good point in his interview with Portillo on C5 the other week. "A man alone in the desert is free. He has no power, but he is free."
The EU are not the bad guys, and the public knows it.
You've lost and the public knows it.
Suck it up, buttercup.
We are all the losers thanks to thick wankers like yourself.
You may be losing but I feel like I'm winning. I've been an almost lone voice on this site over the last 12 months arguing against the backstop. Now things are finally going the way I feel like I was almost uniquely arguing for. I'm quite content with that thank you very much.
If we manage to leave without a backstop then you heard it here first.
How many avoidable deaths would you regard as an acceptable number to secure no deal Brexit?
There is no answer to that question. We'll both never know if there are any deats due to Brexit, deaths vary every year and I expect a bad winter flu season will be worse.
Secondly, there is no death toll that makes sacrificing democracy acceptable.
Finally I don't want a no deal Brexit, my preference is a backstopless deal Brexit. My order of preference, as stated her before is:
Good deal > No Deal > Revoke > Bad Deal.
Your callous lack of understanding for Ireland is appalling. Do you wants the troubles to return?
"Secondly, there is no death toll that makes sacrificing democracy acceptable."
Philip would happily allow the entire country to dissolve into a post-apocalyptic wasteland if it was self-governing and free of the EU. Quite literally, as the above quote shows. A return to the troubles, and the random murder and maiming of men, women and children wouldn't even register. It's the behaviour of a psychopath.
The people to blame for killing and terrorism are the killers, terrorrists and their supporters. No one else.
How facile.
Tell you what, I'll walk round Bradford wearing a "Mohammad was a ****" sandwich board and a kippah. If I get punched (or worse) then it's solely the fault of those assaulting me, is it?
Yes. Just like if a woman walks around in a short skirt and gets raped. Stop victim blaming.
Our businesses are on the whole going to continue following EU rules anyway. The only rules that are going to change are the ones that benefit the consumer and they are going to change for the worse, not the better.
The Troubles are over. But remind me how much army infrastructure does it take to enforce Ireland having a hard border for Corporation Tax? Or for VAT rates? Income Tax rates? Customs is just another tax and the Irish don't want harmonised taxes.
Also remind me how many customs posts existed in 1997. Because we were already in a customs union then yet the Troubles still occured.
When the IRA bastards blew up children in my hometown, both Ireland and the UK were in the EU. Not the EEC. It didn't stop them.
Yes exactly. The Troubles are over. But if you start putting customs posts up (because remember you aren't looking to confirm compliance, you are looking for non-compliance) then you are hoisting a big red flag in a field full of bulls. And The Troubles may be over but there has been simmering low level (unless of course you are the victim) violence from those "dissident Republican" groups.
Or of course there can be no checks but then the UK completely fucks its negotiating position when it comes to other FTA negotiations.
So compromise, which is the basis of the GFA. Don't put up customs posts. Any more than there are corporation tax posts, or VAT posts, or posts for other taxes.
We diverge on customs like we've diverged on other taxes. Some smuggling may occur, like some tax evasion occurs on every single tax man has ever invented, but preventing it is not worth bringing The Troubles back over.
Like with other taxes we can use intelligence and evidence and the law to fight tax evasion. If people evade customs duties and it gets proven in court they should be punished to deter others. But is it worth building customs posts? No.
Which is why the backstop is unnecessary. Because an alternative exists.
You're completely missing the point here.
The EU is the mechanism that allows duality on the island of Ireland. People can live in Northern Ireland, but hold an Irish passport and travel anywhere
Charming. Just pointing out that there are no such provisions in the text of the agreement as you had claimed. And I think an army observation post is a bit different from a customs border, which is the current point of contention.
Jesus Fucking Christ I am trying to be reasonable here but it's like teaching a haddock how to ride a bicycle.
In the context of the Troubles every seemingly straightforward policing or enforcement action had to have a subsidiary full scale military operation around it. Hence you would get two RUC bobbies walking down the road, thumbs stuck in their tunics, with anything up to 28 soldiers patrolling around them plus helicopters plus other elements just so those two bobbies could walk down the road.
Same with police stations, observations posts, oh fuck it. Forget it. It's not worth the effort. Basically you have to sit on the triangle thing and then reach down with your feet to the pedals oh wait, you don't have feet...
The Troubles are over. But remind me how much army infrastructure does it take to enforce Ireland having a hard border for Corporation Tax? Or for VAT rates? Income Tax rates? Customs is just another tax and the Irish don't want harmonised taxes.
Also remind me how many customs posts existed in 1997. Because we were already in a customs union then yet the Troubles still occured.
When the IRA bastards blew up children in my hometown, both Ireland and the UK were in the EU. Not the EEC. It didn't stop them.
There were Ireland/NI border posts up until about 1992, when (I think) the single market rendered them unnecessary. You can Google them if you like.
In order to keep civil society and British administration going during the Troubles took an enormous amount of time and effort. Operation Motorman was the longest lasting op in 20th century Army history. Every sector of society was affected, and even those as innocent as census-takers were murdered. I'm not sure you understand the magnitude of the problem nor the efforts it took to reduce it to a manageable level.
My hometown was bombed in 1993. Two children murdered by IRA scum.
So no, I don't accept that customs was the reason why kids were killed when we already had a customs unions. The GFA is more than customs, it is not about no border, it is about cross-border and cross-community co-operation. That is a better solution.
The EU are not the bad guys, and the public knows it.
You've lost and the public knows it.
Suck it up, buttercup.
We are all the losers thanks to thick wankers like yourself.
You may be losing but I feel like I'm winning. I've been an almost lone voice on this site over the last 12 months arguing against the backstop. Now things are finally going the way I feel like I was almost uniquely arguing for. I'm quite content with that thank you very much.
If we manage to leave without a backstop then you heard it here first.
How many avoidable deaths would you regard as an acceptable number to secure no deal Brexit?
There is no answer to that question. We'll both never know if there are any deats due to Brexit, deaths vary every year and I expect a bad winter flu season will be worse.
Secondly, there is no death toll that makes sacrificing democracy acceptable.
Finally I don't want a no deal Brexit, my preference is a backstopless deal Brexit. My order of preference, as stated her before is:
Good deal > No Deal > Revoke > Bad Deal.
Your callous lack of understanding for Ireland is appalling. Do you wants the troubles to return?
"Secondly, there is no death toll that makes sacrificing democracy acceptable."
Philip would happily allow the entire country to dissolve into a post-apocalyptic wasteland if it was self-governing and free of the EU. Quite literally, as the above quote shows. A return to the troubles, and the random murder and maiming of men, women and children wouldn't even register. It's the behaviour of a psychopath.
The people to blame for killing and terrorism are the killers, terrorrists and their supporters. No one else.
The article lists a few of the issue which will arise post 31 October. If this is holding all the cards, I’d hate to think what a bad hand looks like.
And, yet, you’ve declared your total and unconditional surrender on the previous thread, and that you’d now join the Euro.
That’s just as pathetic. Just because you think you got the original decision slightly wrong doesn’t mean you turn the whole world upside down.
No - I said I would consider it depending on whether / if Britain remained or rejoined and that old verities and assumptions would have to be questioned. When the facts change I try and rethink what I thought before. What do you do?
Still, interesting that you consider rethinking in the light of events to be “total and unconditional surrender”. That is quite revealing of a certain type of Brexiteer mindset but not of mine.
I
You just like to think you’re cleverer and smarter than everyone else. Maybe you are, but it grates. And I’m rather tired of it and your (whilst always eloquent and well-written) shotgun rants.
I’ll ignore the personal abuse. A shame since from my brief meeting with you I rather liked you; and it is inconsistent with stuff you’ve written to and about me in the past. But as you say everyone can change their mind.
I think revoke can only happen after either a GE won by a party explicitly having this in their manifesto or a referendum to this effect - unlikely given the timing. The Cameron deal is no longer on offer.
I am rethinking my position on the euro. Not sure where I will end up. But the point is rather moot in any case.
Don’t post pro-Euro stuff then. It really boils my piss. Your choice but, if you do, don’t expect a pleasant reaction.
Your inconsistency and unreliability on core principles that I thought you shared with me is what disappoints me.
If you totally desert me, and then rub it in to boot, how do you expect me to react?
"Don't post pro-Euro stuff then"?!!!
Oh dear, another example of the inarticulate rantings of pro-self harm morons. We get the politicians that people like you deserve.
The best future for this country will never involve joining the Euro and Schengen. It suits neither our economic interests nor our political interests and was settled long before Brexit came a long as a debate.
You’re a fanatic, so you’ll always advocate for it, but just because leaving absolutely everything overnight doesn’t make sense neither does joining absolutely everything either.
It’s pretty obvious that a semi-detached position for the UK has always been the sweet spot.
The UK will not be around much longer. The sweet spot for the independent nations of Britain is full membership on the same terms as our neighbours.
You see abolition of the UK as just punishment for it having the temerity to vote against the European Union.
You disgust me.
It's no punishment at all. Once England is freed from the shackles of the UK superstate, it will thrive as never before.
I wouldn't be too concerned by being disgusted by a ranting fuckwit. I would see it as a badge of honour
The Troubles are over. But remind me how much army infrastructure does it take to enforce Ireland having a hard border for Corporation Tax? Or for VAT rates? Income Tax rates? Customs is just another tax and the Irish don't want harmonised taxes.
Also remind me how many customs posts existed in 1997. Because we were already in a customs union then yet the Troubles still occured.
When the IRA bastards blew up children in my hometown, both Ireland and the UK were in the EU. Not the EEC. It didn't stop them.
Yes exactly. The Troubles are over. But if you start putting customs posts up (because remember you aren't looking to confirm compliance, you are looking for non-compliance) then you are hoisting a big red flag in a field full of bulls. And The Troubles may be over but there has been simmering low level (unless of course you are the victim) violence from those "dissident Republican" groups.
Or of course there can be no checks but then the UK completely fucks its negotiating position when it comes to other FTA negotiations.
So compromise, which is the basis of the GFA. Don't put up customs posts. Any more than there are corporation tax posts, or VAT posts, or posts for other taxes.
We diverge on customs like we've diverged on other taxes. Some smuggling may occur, like some tax evasion occurs on every single tax man has ever invented, but preventing it is not worth bringing The Troubles back over.
Like with other taxes we can use intelligence and evidence and the law to fight tax evasion. If people evade customs duties and it gets proven in court they should be punished to deter others. But is it worth building customs posts? No.
Which is why the backstop is unnecessary. Because an alternative exists.
You're completely missing the point here.
The EU is the mechanism that allows duality on the island of Ireland. People can live in Northern Ireland, but hold an Irish passport and travel anywhere
No you are missing the point, the EU is not the mechanism. We were in the EU when bombings were still ongoing.
Compromise was the mechanism. Compromise is the solution.
The EU are not the bad guys, and the public knows it.
You've lost and the public knows it.
Suck it up, buttercup.
We are all the losers thanks to thick wankers like yourself.
You may be losing but I feel like I'm winning. I've been an almost lone voice on this site over the last 12 months arguing against the backstop. Now things are finally going the way I feel like I was almost uniquely arguing for. I'm quite content with that thank you very much.
If we manage to leave without a backstop then you heard it here first.
How many avoidable deaths would you regard as an acceptable number to secure no deal Brexit?
There is no answer to that question. We'll both never know if there are any deats due to Brexit, deaths vary every year and I expect a bad winter flu season will be worse.
Secondly, there is no death toll that makes sacrificing democracy acceptable.
Finally I don't want a no deal Brexit, my preference is a backstopless deal Brexit. My order of preference, as stated her before is:
Good deal > No Deal > Revoke > Bad Deal.
Your callous lack of understanding for Ireland is appalling. Do you wants the troubles to return?
"Secondly, there is no death toll that makes sacrificing democracy acceptable."
Philip would happily allow the entire country to dissolve into a post-apocalyptic wasteland if it was self-governing and free of the EU. Quite literally, as the above quote shows. A return to the troubles, and the random murder and maiming of men, women and children wouldn't even register. It's the behaviour of a psychopath.
The people to blame for killing and terrorism are the killers, terrorrists and their supporters. No one else.
How facile.
Tell you what, I'll walk round Bradford wearing a "Mohammad was a ****" sandwich board and a kippah. If I get punched (or worse) then it's solely the fault of those assaulting me, is it?
Yes. Just like if a woman walks around in a short skirt and gets raped. Stop victim blaming.
You have some very regressive views if you think those are comparable
The EU are not the bad guys, and the public knows it.
You've lost and the public knows it.
Suck it up, buttercup.
We are all the losers thanks to thick wankers like yourself.
You may be losing but I feel like I'm winning. I've been an almost lone voice on this site over the last 12 months arguing against the backstop. Now things are finally going the way I feel like I was almost uniquely arguing for. I'm quite content with that thank you very much.
If we manage to leave without a backstop then you heard it here first.
How many avoidable deaths would you regard as an acceptable number to secure no deal Brexit?
There is no answer to that question. We'll both never know if there are any deats due to Brexit, deaths vary every year and I expect a bad winter flu season will be worse.
Secondly, there is no death toll that makes sacrificing democracy acceptable.
Finally I don't want a no deal Brexit, my preference is a backstopless deal Brexit. My order of preference, as stated her before is:
Good deal > No Deal > Revoke > Bad Deal.
Your callous lack of understanding for Ireland is appalling. Do you wants the troubles to return?
"Secondly, there is no death toll that makes sacrificing democracy acceptable."
Philip would happily allow the entire country to dissolve into a post-apocalyptic wasteland if it was self-governing and free of the EU. Quite literally, as the above quote shows. A return to the troubles, and the random murder and maiming of men, women and children wouldn't even register. It's the behaviour of a psychopath.
The people to blame for killing and terrorism are the killers, terrorrists and their supporters. No one else.
How facile.
Tell you what, I'll walk round Bradford wearing a "Mohammad was a ****" sandwich board and a kippah. If I get punched (or worse) then it's solely the fault of those assaulting me, is it?
Yes. Just like if a woman walks around in a short skirt and gets raped. Stop victim blaming.
Again, a false equivalence. But keep digging.
One is a knowing and deliberate provocation of a group with a history of violence; the other is perfectly normal behaviour in a civilised society.
I think a little precision could avoid much over claim misunderstanding.
"Breaches the Belfast Agreement" is untrue.
"Breaches the spirit of the Belfast Agreement is a reasonable point which can be well defended.
Indeed.
But the spirit of the Belfast Agreement was local democracy, compromise and cross-border co-operation, not one side subjugating the other.
Customs posts violate the spirit. So too does the backstop. It is undemocratic and has a major sectarian divide.
Which means we need an alternative. You have already written "there can be no checks" so do that. It comes with a price too - but if the alternative prices are restarting the Troubles or terminating democracy then it is the best option available.
The price could be throwing away our negotiating position in future FTAs which if you lot are to be believed was a critical factor in Brexit.
I both don't believe that and can live with that.
I don't believe that because the border will still exist, but be invisible. If suddenly large fleets of smuggling lorries were crossing every day that can be tackled like any other criminal behaviour or tax evasion can be. Doesn't take customs posts to do that.
Anyway the backstop throws away our negotiating position in future FTAs since we insist we will harmonise rules if we do that. So we can't negotiate alternatives. If we wish to negotiate with the USA and decide to allow chlorinated chicken, like we have chlorinated tapwater, the backstop prevents that.
However with an invisible border we can agree with the USA that we will import chlorinated chicken, the EU can maintain its rules forbidding it and anyone who imports chlorinated chicken into the Republic will be breaking the law. But we don't need posts to determine that.
Yes it can be tackled but I'm not sure how you tackle it without border checks, unless the technology you are talking about is from Minority Report. To commit an offence I believe you have to actually commit the offence ie drive the wagon over the border with the lambs. Now, common sense says that in order to catch that, you have to be pretty close to the border or the UK courts are going to be full before the end of the first week of operations.
I'm not sure how restrictive the backstop is - certainly for NI it would be more restrictive, given the single market elements not present for the rest of the UK.
The EU are not the bad guys, and the public knows it.
You've lost and the public knows it.
Suck it up, buttercup.
We are all the losers thanks to thick wankers like yourself.
You may be losing but I feel like I'm winning. I've been an almost lone voice on this site over the last 12 months arguing against the backstop. Now things are finally going the way I feel like I was almost uniquely arguing for. I'm quite content with that thank you very much.
If we manage to leave without a backstop then you heard it here first.
How many avoidable deaths would you regard as an acceptable number to secure no deal Brexit?
There is no answer to that question. We'll both never know if there are any deats due to Brexit, deaths vary every year and I expect a bad winter flu season will be worse.
Secondly, there is no death toll that makes sacrificing democracy acceptable.
Finally I don't want a no deal Brexit, my preference is a backstopless deal Brexit. My order of preference, as stated her before is:
Good deal > No Deal > Revoke > Bad Deal.
Your callous lack of understanding for Ireland is appalling. Do you wants the troubles to return?
"Secondly, there is no death toll that makes sacrificing democracy acceptable."
Philip would happily allow the entire country to dissolve into a post-apocalyptic wasteland if it was self-governing and free of the EU. Quite literally, as the above quote shows. A return to the troubles, and the random murder and maiming of men, women and children wouldn't even register. It's the behaviour of a psychopath.
The people to blame for killing and terrorism are the killers, terrorrists and their supporters. No one else.
How facile.
Tell you what, I'll walk round Bradford wearing a "Mohammad was a ****" sandwich board and a kippah. If I get punched (or worse) then it's solely the fault of those assaulting me, is it?
Yes. Just like if a woman walks around in a short skirt and gets raped. Stop victim blaming.
You have some very regressive views if you think those are comparable
Taking away the sandwich board, you think wearing a kippah justifies assault?
No - I said I would consider it depending on whether / if Britain remained or rejoined and that old verities and assumptions would have to be questioned. When the facts change I try and rethink what I thought before. What do you do?
Still, interesting that you consider rethinking in the light of events to be “total and unconditional surrender”. That is quite revealing of a certain type of Brexiteer mindset but not of mine.
I
You just like to think you’re cleverer and smarter than everyone else. Maybe you are, but it grates. And I’m rather tired of it and your (whilst always eloquent and well-written) shotgun rants.
I’ll ignore the personal abuse. A shame since from my brief meeting with you I rather liked you; and it is inconsistent with stuff you’ve written to and about me in the past. But as you say everyone can change their mind.
I think revoke can only happen after either a GE won by a party explicitly having this in their manifesto or a referendum to this effect - unlikely given the timing. The Cameron deal is no longer on offer.
I am rethinking my position on the euro. Not sure where I will end up. But the point is rather moot in any case.
Don’t post pro-Euro stuff then. It really boils my piss. Your choice but, if you do, don’t expect a pleasant reaction.
Your inconsistency and unreliability on core principles that I thought you shared with me is what disappoints me.
If you totally desert me, and then rub it in to boot, how do you expect me to react?
At the risk of being pompous, I think it is possible to be polite even while disagreeing about politics. Or many other things.
And to be perfectly honest, in the comments I write what I think ( though not everything that I think) and in the thread headers what I hope will stimulate discussion. I don’t take into account what individual posters think or how they will react.
(Discussions about Italian coffee and food may be an exception to this rule.)
Anyway, I wish you and your family well, even if we disagree about politics. Let’s hope we’re both wrong and that Brexit turns out to be less of a problem than feared and that Corbyn does not get to be PM. On this last point I think you and I are in agreement.
The article lists a few of the issue which will arise post 31 October. If this is holding all the cards, I’d hate to think what a bad hand looks like.
And, yet, you’ve declared your total and unconditional surrender on the previous thread, and that you’d now join the Euro.
That’s just as pathetic. Just because you think you got the original decision slightly wrong doesn’t mean you turn the whole world upside down.
No - I said I would consider it depending on whether / if Britain remained or rejoined and that old verities and assumptions would have to be questioned. When the facts change I try and rethink what I thought before. What do you do?
Still, interesting that you consider rethinking in the light of events to be “total and unconditional surrender”. That is quite revealing of a certain type of Brexiteer mindset but not of mine.
I
You just like to think you’re cleverer and smarter than everyone else. Maybe you are, but it grates. And I’m rather tired of it and your (whilst always eloquent and well-written) shotgun rants.
I’ll ignore the personal abuse. A shame since from my brief meeting with you I rather liked you; and it is inconsistent with stuff you’ve written to and about me in the past. But as you say everyone can change their mind.
I think revoke can only happen after either a GE won by a party explicitly having this in their manifesto or a referendum to this effect - unlikely given the timing. The Cameron deal is no longer on offer.
I am rethinking my position on the euro. Not sure where I will end up. But the point is rather moot in any case.
Your inconsistency and unreliability on core principles that I thought you shared with me is what disappoints me.
Not something I've observed, to be fair. I don't always agree with Cyclefree, but she strikes me as a thoughtful and insightful poster - and no more or less consistent than the rest of us.
The EU are not the bad guys, and the public knows it.
You've lost and the public knows it.
Suck it up, buttercup.
We are all the losers thanks to thick wankers like yourself.
You may be losing but I feel like I'm winning. I've been an almost lone voice on this site over the last 12 months arguing against the backstop. Now things are finally going the way I feel like I was almost uniquely arguing for. I'm quite content with that thank you very much.
If we manage to leave without a backstop then you heard it here first.
How many avoidable deaths would you regard as an acceptable number to secure no deal Brexit?
There is no answer to that question. We'll both never know if there are any deats due to Brexit, deaths vary every year and I expect a bad winter flu season will be worse.
Secondly, there is no death toll that makes sacrificing democracy acceptable.
Finally I don't want a no deal Brexit, my preference is a backstopless deal Brexit. My order of preference, as stated her before is:
Good deal > No Deal > Revoke > Bad Deal.
The backstop is not sacrificing democracy. Proroguing Parliament, which you are cool with, to impose no deal Brexit would be sacrificing democracy. So what you wrote is your usual unhinged rubbish.
Proroguing Parliament would suspend democracy for a few weeks. The backstop terminates democracy forever. One is infinitely worse than the other and given you are perfectly fine with the undemocratic backstop, given you are fine with EU rules being applied to us but us having no MEPs or votes in Council to shape them, you complaining about a small proroguation is hilariously absurd.
Take the beam out of your own eye.
Proroguing Parliament would inflict on the country a policy with no mandate and without support in Parliament with effects that would endure for a generation. It's not "suspending democracy for a few weeks", it's an abandonment of democracy.
Conversely, the backstop is merely a temporary holding position pending a permanent solution, which headbanging Leavers airily assure us is a trivial matter to resolve. There's nothing permanent about it at all. It was agreed to under a democratically secured mandate and negotiated by a democratically elected government.
Yes it can be tackled but I'm not sure how you tackle it without border checks, unless the technology you are talking about is from Minority Report. To commit an offence I believe you have to actually commit the offence ie drive the wagon over the border with the lambs. Now, common sense says that in order to catch that, you have to be pretty close to the border or the UK courts are going to be full before the end of the first week of operations.
I'm not sure how restrictive the backstop is - certainly for NI it would be more restrictive, given the single market elements not present for the rest of the UK.
How do we tackle smuggling of liquor? How do we tackle smuggling of tobacco?
I'll give you a hint: Pick up any bottle of alcohol in your house and look on the label. Does it have a "UK Duties Paid" badge on the label? If it has, either the label was forged or the bottle wasn't smuggled.
Go to a restaurant and buy a bottle of wine. If their wine doesn't have that label on, chances are their reselling smuggled wine. No border posts necessary.
Comments
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/5429/Will-the-UK-officially-exit-the-European-Union-by-Nov-1
Yes currently at 52 cents (52%) - but if you bet in both markets, which you'd need a physical US and UK address to do you'd end up way behind because of charges/rake.
Also remind me how many customs posts existed in 1997. Because we were already in a customs union then yet the Troubles still occured.
When the IRA bastards blew up children in my hometown, both Ireland and the UK were in the EU. Not the EEC. It didn't stop them.
Go knock yourself out about the GFA wording.
Do you think the EU want to have a permanent non member with the "benefits" (even if you don't see them as such) of free trade but the limitation on freedom of movement? Do you think Hungary and Italy wouldn't have looked at that and gone "well we should threaten to leave if we can get that deal"? The EU hate the idea of the backstop, but prefer the idea of Irish peace more. It seems we hate the EU more than we like peace.
The odds on a market like Betfair with predomonantly British punters is that the odds are determined by the weight of £ on each side. And punters aren’t thinking about exchange rates when they assess the likelihood of a no deal exit (not least because they don’t know the extent to which the bad news is already priced in)
Peace is not worth subjugation. I endorse the GFA's spirit of co-operation and compromise. There is no co-operation and compromise here, it is the EU setting all the rules and us having to follow the rules without a say. If we were proposing that the Irish follow our rules without a say we would be told not to be ridiculous. Same to them.
We're not that far away from two very hard borders on the british isles (or islands of the north atlantic if you prefer)
Will I pay any price to avoid it? No I will not. The GFA was agreed on the basis of compromise, so should the future negotiations. The EU are not prepared to compromise they want to get to write all the rules and we simply follow them. That violates the GFAs principles.
Had the GFA proposal been the Republic of Ireland will in future be able to pass laws and Northern Ireland must implement those laws even if they're opposed by Westminster and the Northern Ireland Assembly then that would never have been agreed. The agreement was compromise, lets go back to that.
Or of course there can be no checks but then the UK completely fucks its negotiating position when it comes to other FTA negotiations.
Speaking of which, can everybody please stop being rude to stupid people?
"Breaches the Belfast Agreement" is untrue.
"Breaches the spirit of the Belfast Agreement is a reasonable point which can be well defended.
We diverge on customs like we've diverged on other taxes. Some smuggling may occur, like some tax evasion occurs on every single tax man has ever invented, but preventing it is not worth bringing The Troubles back over.
Like with other taxes we can use intelligence and evidence and the law to fight tax evasion. If people evade customs duties and it gets proven in court they should be punished to deter others. But is it worth building customs posts? No.
Which is why the backstop is unnecessary. Because an alternative exists.
Customs posts violate the spirit. So too does the backstop. It is undemocratic and has a major sectarian divide.
Which means we need an alternative. You have already written "there can be no checks" so do that. It comes with a price too - but if the alternative prices are restarting the Troubles or terminating democracy then it is the best option available.
The Irish border will be fine if we leave without a deal, we'll have far more pressing matters to hand.
If we go to WTO with no border then I have to believe that goods, all of a sudden subject to tariffs, will become especially attractive to smuggle - livestock for example where the tariffs are relatively high. I am not sure what phyto-sanitary checks are required at the EU border. Or indeed at the UK border. But it seems that the risks of a WTO MFN challenge or too great a degree of leakage are too high.
https://twitter.com/ScotTories/status/1154703923921522690
Whichever it is - wilfully misunderstanding or unable to understand, ie moron - it really is adding nothing whatsoever to the discussion.
https://dorseteye.com/shop/
The idea that there are uniform systems and rules is patent garbage. It is a mountain of fudge the nations of Europe have thrown together and they have never been uniform. The nations of Europe cynically seek what is best for them and if they want us in the backstop it is not out of the goodness of their heart, it is because it is what is best in their eyes.
"The EU as a system of rules" is the biggest unicorn of this entire debate. It has never existed.
Philip would happily allow the entire country to dissolve into a post-apocalyptic wasteland if it was self-governing and free of the EU. Quite literally, as the above quote shows. A return to the troubles, and the random murder and maiming of men, women and children wouldn't even register. It's the behaviour of a psychopath.
The UK asked for the WA (which they gave us) and then asked for it to be modified (which it did). Parliament rejected it. The UK then requested that the WA be modified to remove the backstop[1] The EU has not responded.
[1] I am making an assumption here which I have to check. Has Boris actually officially asked for the backstop to be removed? I know it's been said in the press and all, but that's not the same thing.
You can have borders without posts. We can have a customs border without any customs posts, there might be smuggling across it but oh well. Is it worth reigniting The Troubles to prevent that?
You disgust me.
GB - vasal state to Trump's United States. This is where the morons have got us!
Your inconsistency and unreliability on core principles that I thought you shared with me is what disappoints me.
If you totally desert me, and then rub it in to boot, how do you expect me to react?
I don't believe that because the border will still exist, but be invisible. If suddenly large fleets of smuggling lorries were crossing every day that can be tackled like any other criminal behaviour or tax evasion can be. Doesn't take customs posts to do that.
Anyway the backstop throws away our negotiating position in future FTAs since we insist we will harmonise rules if we do that. So we can't negotiate alternatives. If we wish to negotiate with the USA and decide to allow chlorinated chicken, like we have chlorinated tapwater, the backstop prevents that.
However with an invisible border we can agree with the USA that we will import chlorinated chicken, the EU can maintain its rules forbidding it and anyone who imports chlorinated chicken into the Republic will be breaking the law. But we don't need posts to determine that.
a) VONC, GONU, extend or Revoke
b) Letwin - Cooper Mk II, extend or Revoke
Tell you what, I'll walk round Bradford wearing a "Mohammad was a ****" sandwich board and a kippah. If I get punched (or worse) then it's solely the fault of those assaulting me, is it?
Most “technological solutions” I have seen involve the U.K. government holding details of the licence plates and registered holders of Irish vehicles. What makes you think the Irish people’s experience of the British Government at any point in history makes that a palatable or appealing option? Imagine the level you don’t trust the EU, then multiply that by 1000, and you have the Irish population’s level of trust in the U.K. Government.
The whole "spirit of the GFA" was that we would in the future seek compromise between the communities, not have one impose its will on the other.
You are prepared to f##k over one NI community because the other community wants to do so. I am not.
Tax differences on liquor, tobacco etc in the EU vary far more than customs ever likely will. Smuggling is illegal already, no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
In order to keep civil society and British administration going during the Troubles took an enormous amount of time and effort. Operation Motorman was the longest lasting op in 20th century Army history. Every sector of society was affected, and even those as innocent as census-takers were murdered. I'm not sure you understand the magnitude of the problem nor the efforts it took to reduce it to a manageable level.
The EU is the mechanism that allows duality on the island of Ireland. People can live in Northern Ireland, but hold an Irish passport and travel anywhere
So no, I don't accept that customs was the reason why kids were killed when we already had a customs unions. The GFA is more than customs, it is not about no border, it is about cross-border and cross-community co-operation. That is a better solution.
Oh dear, another example of the inarticulate rantings of pro-self harm morons. We get the politicians that people like you deserve.
Compromise was the mechanism. Compromise is the solution.
One is a knowing and deliberate provocation of a group with a history of violence; the other is perfectly normal behaviour in a civilised society.
I'm not sure how restrictive the backstop is - certainly for NI it would be more restrictive, given the single market elements not present for the rest of the UK.
And to be perfectly honest, in the comments I write what I think ( though not everything that I think) and in the thread headers what I hope will stimulate discussion. I don’t take into account what individual posters think or how they will react.
(Discussions about Italian coffee and food may be an exception to this rule.)
Anyway, I wish you and your family well, even if we disagree about politics. Let’s hope we’re both wrong and that Brexit turns out to be less of a problem than feared and that Corbyn does not get to be PM. On this last point I think you and I are in agreement.
Conversely, the backstop is merely a temporary holding position pending a permanent solution, which headbanging Leavers airily assure us is a trivial matter to resolve. There's nothing permanent about it at all. It was agreed to under a democratically secured mandate and negotiated by a democratically elected government.
You seem to have no concept of what democracy is.
No Deal Brexit 2019 - 2.68
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.156586178
Grab it like it's hot
I'll give you a hint: Pick up any bottle of alcohol in your house and look on the label. Does it have a "UK Duties Paid" badge on the label? If it has, either the label was forged or the bottle wasn't smuggled.
Go to a restaurant and buy a bottle of wine. If their wine doesn't have that label on, chances are their reselling smuggled wine. No border posts necessary.