I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
PB continues to be obsessed with Scotland, while the PM's lies come home to roost in Northern Ireland.
We'll we're waiting for the Devil's Trifecta.
Indyref2, a border poll in NI, and I'm working out what the third one in this awful trifecta will be.
No 3. ART Davies becomes FM in Wales ensuring demands for Welsh Independence exceed 50% before the end of May.
If RT Davies becomes FM it will be because he is the most successful Welsh Tory leader ever and a humiliating result for Labour and Plaid, Wales voted for Brexit and it would cement Wales in Union with England even further.
It would also almost certainly require the Tories to be over 40% in Wales
That would indeed be true to just before the point where you write "cement Wales in Union with England even further". Do you think that blithering clown would do anything other than make the Conservatives unelectable in Wales for the remainder of the Millenium? And if Llafur are dead in the water, where does that lead us? PC!
If the Tories are over 40% (which they would need to be to form a deal with Abolish which is the only way RT becomes FM), then RT would likely scrap the Senedd anyway with Abolish and Wales would return to full union with England. RT would clearly not be unelectable in Wales, the opposite, he would be the most successful Tory leader in Wales ever if he got over 40%.
RT would get rewarded with a safe seat at Westminster then after
You are talking utter rubbish again
Any attempt to scap the Senedd will see the end of the conservatives in Wales
Also show me where any conservative candidate has affirmed their desire to end devolution
I think it is very likely that Labour will beat the Tories this time out. As a Unionist I am much more interested in the overall situation between the groupings than how the vote is divided within them. I wish Sarwar every success in regaining votes and hopefully seats in Glasgow.
Douglas Ross is proving a bit rubbish, I notice SCons have put Ruth Davidson front and centre recently in this campaign.
A wise move.
I said at the time that Ross attacking Nippie on grounds of honesty and propriety was ludicrous. Now that she has been cleared and is rock solid in place the Tory attack appears even sillier as it fades into the background. That they have been reduced to sticking Baroness Chickenrun on their leaflets just makes it funnier.
He doesnt need to, the vicar of Bath is on the case accusing her of trousering £600k. More mud and some of it will stick.
She hasn't been cleared, RP is deliberately misrepresenting the facts to suit his (bizarrely) favourable to the SNP schtick. I expect this to last a relatively short period into his residence in Scotland, where he'll gradually realise what the SNP are actually all about.
nationalist and socialist, what could possibly go wrong ?
Mr. Pioneers, and you don't see a problem with the reverse of that?
Is Northern Ireland an excuse to keep us locked in the EU, accepting whatever the EU determines with QMV (enacted after Brown reneged upon a promise for a referendum)?
Brown did not renege. The decision not to hold a referendum was taken by Tony Blair, after the new constitution had been massively watered down in response to the French and Dutch referendums.
I think this Holyrood election could be shaping up to be a real stooshie.
The Tories and the SNP are mirroring each other and its not the greatest of looks for either party, but especially the Tories. Although Salmond is definitely reminding people about the bad stuff in the SNP, I still think the Tories without Ruth that will get a bigger kicking.
Sarwar and Willie Rennie are having a good campaign. Is it enough to beat the Nats? Not on the current polls, but, anecdotally, something is happening. A cheeky outside bet might be SLAB/SLib Dem and Greens
You do know the Greens are pro independence so it will either be a SNP majority or a SNP/Greens coalition
I just cannot see any further than that, unless something extraordinary happens
Or they could just put the independence question into cold storage, get into government and help make progress on environmental questions. They would have to decide that after the election, of course.
'Dump Northern Ireland' would likely be a vote winner in large parts of England. Starmer should try it.
Starmer would align the whole UK back closer to the single market and customs union, making the border in the Irish Sea largely redundant anyway so it would no longer be an issue
What a good idea! Maybe Johnson the Wrecking Ball should try that instead of 'Ourselves Alone"!
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I think Johnson was right. Letting the Northern Irish tail wag the British dog again would have been ridiculous, and probably led to serious riots in England.
My preferred solution is still for us to get rid of Northern Ireland, which has been an embarassing and expensive curse for centuries.
Certainly not from the Conservative and Unionist Party, the latter part of which came from opposition even to Irish Home Rule
It is true, but political positions of a century and a half ago should not determine what we think or do today.
Northern Ireland is a huge drain on our economy and politics and gives us nothing in return. The Republicans actively want to sabotage the country, and the Unionists would have landed us with Corbyn in 2017 if we hadn't bribed them. So we're much better off without them.
Without DUP MPs support for May in 2017, Corbyn could have become PM with SNP, Plaid, and Green and LD support.
I fully support the patriots of Antrim who wish to stay part of our UK and always will
PB continues to be obsessed with Scotland, while the PM's lies come home to roost in Northern Ireland.
We'll we're waiting for the Devil's Trifecta.
Indyref2, a border poll in NI, and I'm working out what the third one in this awful trifecta will be.
No 3. ART Davies becomes FM in Wales ensuring demands for Welsh Independence exceed 50% before the end of May.
If RT Davies becomes FM it will be because he is the most successful Welsh Tory leader ever and a humiliating result for Labour and Plaid, Wales voted for Brexit and it would cement Wales in Union with England even further.
It would also almost certainly require the Tories to be over 40% in Wales
That would indeed be true to just before the point where you write "cement Wales in Union with England even further". Do you think that blithering clown would do anything other than make the Conservatives unelectable in Wales for the remainder of the Millenium? And if Llafur are dead in the water, where does that lead us? PC!
If the Tories are over 40% (which they would need to be to form a deal with Abolish which is the only way RT becomes FM), then RT would likely scrap the Senedd anyway with Abolish and Wales would return to full union with England. RT would clearly not be unelectable in Wales, the opposite, he would be the most successful Tory leader in Wales ever if he got over 40%.
RT would get rewarded with a safe seat at Westminster then after
...and as such my anticipation of a surge in Welsh independence post FM RT, is reality.
It isn't, if the Tories get over 40% and Abolish get 10%+ (which is the only way RT becomes FM), then RT would clearly have a mandate to abolish the Senedd.
Wales would return to just being part of Westminster and Welsh voters would have voted for that
Presumably If the Senedd can be abolished by a majority of its members (is that really Welsh Tory policy?) then Scotland can declare Indeprndence via a majority at Holyrood.
I think this Holyrood election could be shaping up to be a real stooshie.
The Tories and the SNP are mirroring each other and its not the greatest of looks for either party, but especially the Tories. Although Salmond is definitely reminding people about the bad stuff in the SNP, I still think the Tories without Ruth that will get a bigger kicking.
Sarwar and Willie Rennie are having a good campaign. Is it enough to beat the Nats? Not on the current polls, but, anecdotally, something is happening. A cheeky outside bet might be SLAB/SLib Dem and Greens
You do know the Greens are pro independence so it will either be a SNP majority or a SNP/Greens coalition
I just cannot see any further than that, unless something extraordinary happens
Or they could just put the independence question into cold storage, get into government and help make progress on environmental questions. They would have to decide that after the election, of course.
But then how would the Scottish Government distract people when the questions got difficult...
Independence is mentioned often to change the topic of conversation from another screwup while (usually successfully) moving the blame for the actual issue from the SNP towards Westminster.
I think Johnson was right. Letting the Northern Irish tail wag the British dog again would have been ridiculous, and probably led to serious riots in England.
My preferred solution is still for us to get rid of Northern Ireland, which has been an embarassing and expensive curse for centuries.
Certainly not from the Conservative and Unionist Party, the latter part of which came from opposition even to Irish Home Rule
That was the old Conservative Party, Boris Johnson's new Tory party, of which you are an enthusiastic cheerleader, is prepared to sacrifice the Union for Brexit.
[Conservative} Party members are also willing to sacrifice another fundamental tenet of Conservative belief in order to bring about Brexit: unionism.* Asked whether they would rather avert Brexit if it would lead to Scotland or Northern Ireland breaking away from the UK, respectively 63% and 59% of party members would be willing to pay for Brexit with the breakup of the United Kingdom.
I am sure Boris Johnson would sacrifice the Union for Brexit, not for the sake of Brexit (which even he isn't stupid enough to genuinely believe in), but for the sake of Boris Johnson. Colleagues, marriages, the Conservative Party, his country, even his own family are all subsidiary to his ego. Very sad, fat little man. His apologists are even sadder.
On topic, my impression of the new SLAB leader is quite positive as regards 'look and feel", how he comes over.
Agree. And his refusal to countenance being associated with the hated Tories, whilst not morally supportable imo (Sturgeon is a corrupt FM and should have been voncd), may yet prove an astute one politically.
PB continues to be obsessed with Scotland, while the PM's lies come home to roost in Northern Ireland.
We'll we're waiting for the Devil's Trifecta.
Indyref2, a border poll in NI, and I'm working out what the third one in this awful trifecta will be.
No 3. ART Davies becomes FM in Wales ensuring demands for Welsh Independence exceed 50% before the end of May.
If RT Davies becomes FM it will be because he is the most successful Welsh Tory leader ever and a humiliating result for Labour and Plaid, Wales voted for Brexit and it would cement Wales in Union with England even further.
It would also almost certainly require the Tories to be over 40% in Wales
That would indeed be true to just before the point where you write "cement Wales in Union with England even further". Do you think that blithering clown would do anything other than make the Conservatives unelectable in Wales for the remainder of the Millenium? And if Llafur are dead in the water, where does that lead us? PC!
If the Tories are over 40% (which they would need to be to form a deal with Abolish which is the only way RT becomes FM), then RT would likely scrap the Senedd anyway with Abolish and Wales would return to full union with England. RT would clearly not be unelectable in Wales, the opposite, he would be the most successful Tory leader in Wales ever if he got over 40%.
RT would get rewarded with a safe seat at Westminster then after
...and as such my anticipation of a surge in Welsh independence post FM RT, is reality.
It isn't, if the Tories get over 40% and Abolish get 10%+ (which is the only way RT becomes FM), then RT would clearly have a mandate to abolish the Senedd.
Wales would return to just being part of Westminster and Welsh voters would have voted for that
Presumably If the Senedd can be abolished by a majority of its members (is that really Welsh Tory policy?) then Scotland can declare Indeprndence via a majority at Holyrood.
No, as Union matters are reserved to the UK government.
Boris decides as UK PM then, he would gladly agree to scrap the Senedd if most Welsh voters voted for that as he would have more power over Wales, he would not allow his power over Scotland to be lost though
PB continues to be obsessed with Scotland, while the PM's lies come home to roost in Northern Ireland.
Varadkar and Coveney are the root cause of current Belfast theatre. The posh boys saw a sleeping dog and just kept poking it despite saner voices saying leave it.
No, it is Johnsons deal. We signed up to it, we need to keep our word.
I am surprised that so many PB Tories want to give in to rioters, when even a sit down protest in Bristol gets their goat.
As and englishman your prime concern for NI is how it impacts your anti Boris shtick. Fair does. But as an Irishman I can assure the Varadkar Coveney stupidities are what is driving the current street theatre, which is why both of them now need 24/7 armed protection. Nobody so far is threatening to shoot BoJo.
Boris Johnson has armed bodyguards for that very reason.
IIRC the only cabinet ministers who received armed bodyguards/protection is the Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, Defence Secretary, and the NI Secretary.
He's a PM and always has protection, but I m not aware of any NI paramilitaries recently issuing a death threat. Varadkar and Coveny
His warning someone might get killed, has a worried personal ring to it.
Want to know something funny somebody in the army told me a few years ago.
Since the mid 80s (ever since the Anglo-Irish Agreement) the Taoiseach's Gardaí security detail has been supplemented by ex British military personnel. There was only ever one caveat, no ex parachute regiment.
But nobody likes to talk about it, but it is one of the reasons why British troops parading in Dublin for Keith Malone's funeral in 2003 went so unremarked and without incident.
Who or what was Keith Malone?
My bad, I meant Ian Malone.
Keith Malone is a friend of mine.
Ah. That explains it. I was a bit puzzled!
Have a good morning. Enjoy the County Championship opening rounds.
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
I think Johnson was right. Letting the Northern Irish tail wag the British dog again would have been ridiculous, and probably led to serious riots in England.
My preferred solution is still for us to get rid of Northern Ireland, which has been an embarassing and expensive curse for centuries.
Certainly not from the Conservative and Unionist Party, the latter part of which came from opposition even to Irish Home Rule
It is true, but political positions of a century and a half ago should not determine what we think or do today.
Northern Ireland is a huge drain on our economy and politics and gives us nothing in return. The Republicans actively want to sabotage the country, and the Unionists would have landed us with Corbyn in 2017 if we hadn't bribed them. So we're much better off without them.
Without DUP MPs support for May in 2017, Corbyn could have become PM with SNP, Plaid, and Green and LD support.
If the GB taxpayer hadn't coughed up £1 billion, Corbyn could have become PM with SNP, Plaid, and Green and LD support.
I think Johnson was right. Letting the Northern Irish tail wag the British dog again would have been ridiculous, and probably led to serious riots in England.
My preferred solution is still for us to get rid of Northern Ireland, which has been an embarassing and expensive curse for centuries.
Certainly not from the Conservative and Unionist Party, the latter part of which came from opposition even to Irish Home Rule
It is true, but political positions of a century and a half ago should not determine what we think or do today.
Northern Ireland is a huge drain on our economy and politics and gives us nothing in return. The Republicans actively want to sabotage the country, and the Unionists would have landed us with Corbyn in 2017 if we hadn't bribed them. So we're much better off without them.
Without DUP MPs support for May in 2017, Corbyn could have become PM with SNP, Plaid, and Green and LD support.
If the GB taxpayer hadn't coughed up £1 billion, Corbyn would have become PM with SNP, Plaid, and Green and LD support.
I think it is very likely that Labour will beat the Tories this time out. As a Unionist I am much more interested in the overall situation between the groupings than how the vote is divided within them. I wish Sarwar every success in regaining votes and hopefully seats in Glasgow.
Douglas Ross is proving a bit rubbish, I notice SCons have put Ruth Davidson front and centre recently in this campaign.
A wise move.
I said at the time that Ross attacking Nippie on grounds of honesty and propriety was ludicrous. Now that she has been cleared and is rock solid in place the Tory attack appears even sillier as it fades into the background. That they have been reduced to sticking Baroness Chickenrun on their leaflets just makes it funnier.
He doesnt need to, the vicar of Bath is on the case accusing her of trousering £600k. More mud and some of it will stick.
She hasn't been cleared, RP is deliberately misrepresenting the facts to suit his (bizarrely) favourable to the SNP schtick. I expect this to last a relatively short period into his residence in Scotland, where he'll gradually realise what the SNP are actually all about.
She *has* been cleared politically. Thats the conclusion of the *cough* independent legal report. The Tories totally overplayed their hand, leaked claims that were disproven in the legal findings, and now want people to vote for them not the SNP on the grounds of trust and propriety. It was a classic clusterfuck tactic which has spectacularly backfired. Whatever smoke is still billowing about (and there is plenty of smoke) is being wafted away as partisan.
As for me being "bizarrely favourable" I am just saying what I see. I am (or will be once the snow clears) campaigning for the LibDems so I have no truck for Nippie. But it is what it is. She will win a majority and the Tories are heading to lose seats.
I think this Holyrood election could be shaping up to be a real stooshie.
The Tories and the SNP are mirroring each other and its not the greatest of looks for either party, but especially the Tories. Although Salmond is definitely reminding people about the bad stuff in the SNP, I still think the Tories without Ruth that will get a bigger kicking.
Sarwar and Willie Rennie are having a good campaign. Is it enough to beat the Nats? Not on the current polls, but, anecdotally, something is happening. A cheeky outside bet might be SLAB/SLib Dem and Greens
You do know the Greens are pro independence so it will either be a SNP majority or a SNP/Greens coalition
I just cannot see any further than that, unless something extraordinary happens
Or they could just put the independence question into cold storage, get into government and help make progress on environmental questions. They would have to decide that after the election, of course.
But then how would the Scottish Government distract people when the questions got difficult... Independence is mentioned often to change the topic of conversation from another screwup while (usually successfully) moving the blame for the actual issue from the SNP towards Westminster.
We are speculating here on the possibility of a Scottish government without SNP participation. And without Conservative participation either. It could be an honest govvernment, without all the phoney posturing.
I think Johnson was right. Letting the Northern Irish tail wag the British dog again would have been ridiculous, and probably led to serious riots in England.
My preferred solution is still for us to get rid of Northern Ireland, which has been an embarassing and expensive curse for centuries.
Certainly not from the Conservative and Unionist Party, the latter part of which came from opposition even to Irish Home Rule
It is true, but political positions of a century and a half ago should not determine what we think or do today.
Northern Ireland is a huge drain on our economy and politics and gives us nothing in return. The Republicans actively want to sabotage the country, and the Unionists would have landed us with Corbyn in 2017 if we hadn't bribed them. So we're much better off without them.
I feel that about London
can we ditch that too ?
You think London is a huge drain on our economy and gives us nothing in return?
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
PB continues to be obsessed with Scotland, while the PM's lies come home to roost in Northern Ireland.
Varadkar and Coveney are the root cause of current Belfast theatre. The posh boys saw a sleeping dog and just kept poking it despite saner voices saying leave it.
No, it is Johnsons deal. We signed up to it, we need to keep our word.
I am surprised that so many PB Tories want to give in to rioters, when even a sit down protest in Bristol gets their goat.
As and englishman your prime concern for NI is how it impacts your anti Boris shtick. Fair does. But as an Irishman I can assure the Varadkar Coveney stupidities are what is driving the current street theatre, which is why both of them now need 24/7 armed protection. Nobody so far is threatening to shoot BoJo.
Boris Johnson has armed bodyguards for that very reason.
IIRC the only cabinet ministers who received armed bodyguards/protection is the Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, Defence Secretary, and the NI Secretary.
He's a PM and always has protection, but I m not aware of any NI paramilitaries recently issuing a death threat. Varadkar and Coveny
His warning someone might get killed, has a worried personal ring to it.
Want to know something funny somebody in the army told me a few years ago.
Since the mid 80s (ever since the Anglo-Irish Agreement) the Taoiseach's Gardaí security detail has been supplemented by ex British military personnel. There was only ever one caveat, no ex parachute regiment.
But nobody likes to talk about it, but it is one of the reasons why British troops parading in Dublin for Keith Malone's funeral in 2003 went so unremarked and without incident.
Who or what was Keith Malone?
My bad, I meant Ian Malone.
Keith Malone is a friend of mine.
Ah. That explains it. I was a bit puzzled!
Have a good morning. Enjoy the County Championship opening rounds.
Too bloody cold to enjoy the cricket in this weather,
I am afraid Alanbrooke is correct Leo Varadkar in particular has messed about when the long held view of the main political parties in Ireland has been to let the sleeping dogs lie and the constitutional issue may at some point (like 30+ years hence) work its way through. No hurry, no problem. People also forget how much large sections of what may be considered nationalists in Northern Ireland weren't exactly in a hurry either. Poll after poll showed a kind of 'sometime maybe a bit later' being a big slice of the population.
I suspect Martin has the ability to work this differently. He considers himself, as most politicians down south do, as an avowed nationalist but he has been involved from way back with things up here so knows the picture. Over the last few of years there has been the odd intervention of senior Fianna Fail figures who were involved in the political negotiations up back in the 90s & 2000s here warning the Varadkar led government that you had to bring unionism along.
They made those interventions because they saw Varadkar was being too arrogant about it.
The protocol is a problem less because of the principle which I suspect could have been got away with if it it didn't have such a visible impact. The practicalities of it have been absurd and the EU, London & Dublin should have caught themselves on . Get a bit pragmatic they could have dealt with it, but they didn't and now we are where we are.
What, however, has really tipped it over is the failure to sanction those people who turned up at Bobby Storeys funeral in about as blatant a break of Covid regulations as you could get. The inescapable conclusion is that they police didn't want to put up in court or fine (which would have been the logical move) the Sinn Fein Deputy First Minister & other Sinn Fein politicians because of exactly who they were. I know enough people in well informed positions who know they bottled it. And just as note every other major political party here apart from Sinn Fein was pissed off about it because they could see exactly what the implication was, impunity.
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
I think his argument is that if the RoI was to impose a hard border to do RoI-NI checks following abolition (or a 'technological solution' improvement) of GB-NI checks, they're welcome to do so (they won't do so). Similar for the EU (also not stupid enough to do so).
Then we reach the only sustainable outcome for NI - a largely free border with both the UK and RoI, with some smuggling happening. The key to reaching that is keeping the EU utterly disinterested, while the parties with skin in the game find a workable solution.
Did some maths on Matt Hancock's statement to the BBC
8.5 million under 30s haven't received a vaccination yet. UK 30-18 (ONS 2019) is 10,161,904.
So 1.6 million 30-18 have already been vaccinated.
That's actually pretty impressive, 16%. Presumably mostly working in health and social care, emergency services and living with the vulnerable.
Or pre-existing conditions. Many people are born with conditions or even have them develop as teenagers, conditions don't just exist amongst the elderly.
I think it is very likely that Labour will beat the Tories this time out. As a Unionist I am much more interested in the overall situation between the groupings than how the vote is divided within them. I wish Sarwar every success in regaining votes and hopefully seats in Glasgow.
Douglas Ross is proving a bit rubbish, I notice SCons have put Ruth Davidson front and centre recently in this campaign.
A wise move.
I said at the time that Ross attacking Nippie on grounds of honesty and propriety was ludicrous. Now that she has been cleared and is rock solid in place the Tory attack appears even sillier as it fades into the background. That they have been reduced to sticking Baroness Chickenrun on their leaflets just makes it funnier.
He doesnt need to, the vicar of Bath is on the case accusing her of trousering £600k. More mud and some of it will stick.
She hasn't been cleared, RP is deliberately misrepresenting the facts to suit his (bizarrely) favourable to the SNP schtick. I expect this to last a relatively short period into his residence in Scotland, where he'll gradually realise what the SNP are actually all about.
She *has* been cleared politically. Thats the conclusion of the *cough* independent legal report. The Tories totally overplayed their hand, leaked claims that were disproven in the legal findings, and now want people to vote for them not the SNP on the grounds of trust and propriety. It was a classic clusterfuck tactic which has spectacularly backfired. Whatever smoke is still billowing about (and there is plenty of smoke) is being wafted away as partisan.
As for me being "bizarrely favourable" I am just saying what I see. I am (or will be once the snow clears) campaigning for the LibDems so I have no truck for Nippie. But it is what it is. She will win a majority and the Tories are heading to lose seats.
No. The Committee investigating the handling of the Salmond case found that she had indeed misled Parliament - a resigning matter. This is what was leaked - there is no evidence that it was leaked by the Tories on the committee - the more compelling theory is that it was leaked by the SNP, in order to 'get it out of the way' in the news agenda so that Sturgeon could claim that the other report was the 'final word', which is exactly what happened. Even the report that did 'clear' Sturgeon acknowledged that redactions to evidence made it impossible to demonstrate that she had *not* broken the Ministerial code. Sturgeon is an extremely savvy campaigner and politician, and that must be admired, but let's not confuse getting away with the swag with being innocent of the crime.
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
Whenever I think that no-one (except Corbyn) could be worse than Boris Johnson as our PM, I see the simplistic shite that you spout and feel a tiny bit grateful that Bozo is in charge and not you 😂
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
I think his argument is that if the RoI was to impose a hard border to do RoI-NI checks following abolition (or a 'technological solution' improvement) of GB-NI checks, they're welcome to do so (they won't do so). Similar for the EU (also not stupid enough to do so).
Then we reach the only sustainable outcome for NI - a largely free border with both the UK and RoI, with some smuggling happening. The key to reaching that is keeping the EU utterly disinterested, while the parties with skin in the game find a workable solution.
Precisely!
It has been the obvious and only solution all along.
Sadly some people are so far up the EU's backside that they actually convince themselves that the UK must align with the EU as a real solution, as opposed to this.
I think Johnson was right. Letting the Northern Irish tail wag the British dog again would have been ridiculous, and probably led to serious riots in England.
My preferred solution is still for us to get rid of Northern Ireland, which has been an embarassing and expensive curse for centuries.
Certainly not from the Conservative and Unionist Party, the latter part of which came from opposition even to Irish Home Rule
It is true, but political positions of a century and a half ago should not determine what we think or do today.
Northern Ireland is a huge drain on our economy and politics and gives us nothing in return. The Republicans actively want to sabotage the country, and the Unionists would have landed us with Corbyn in 2017 if we hadn't bribed them. So we're much better off without them.
Without DUP MPs support for May in 2017, Corbyn could have become PM with SNP, Plaid, and Green and LD support.
If the GB taxpayer hadn't coughed up £1 billion, Corbyn could have become PM with SNP, Plaid, and Green and LD support.
That combination having won more votes than the Conservatives/DUP.
PB continues to be obsessed with Scotland, while the PM's lies come home to roost in Northern Ireland.
Varadkar and Coveney are the root cause of current Belfast theatre. The posh boys saw a sleeping dog and just kept poking it despite saner voices saying leave it.
No, it is Johnsons deal. We signed up to it, we need to keep our word.
I am surprised that so many PB Tories want to give in to rioters, when even a sit down protest in Bristol gets their goat.
As and englishman your prime concern for NI is how it impacts your anti Boris shtick. Fair does. But as an Irishman I can assure the Varadkar Coveney stupidities are what is driving the current street theatre, which is why both of them now need 24/7 armed protection. Nobody so far is threatening to shoot BoJo.
Boris Johnson has armed bodyguards for that very reason.
IIRC the only cabinet ministers who received armed bodyguards/protection is the Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, Defence Secretary, and the NI Secretary.
He's a PM and always has protection, but I m not aware of any NI paramilitaries recently issuing a death threat. Varadkar and Coveny
His warning someone might get killed, has a worried personal ring to it.
Want to know something funny somebody in the army told me a few years ago.
Since the mid 80s (ever since the Anglo-Irish Agreement) the Taoiseach's Gardaí security detail has been supplemented by ex British military personnel. There was only ever one caveat, no ex parachute regiment.
But nobody likes to talk about it, but it is one of the reasons why British troops parading in Dublin for Ian Malone's funeral in 2003 went so unremarked and without incident.
Are you sure about that? There are many capable Irish police & military personnel who could do that job.
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
Whenever I think that no-one (except Corbyn) could be worse than Boris Johnson as our PM, I see the simplistic shite that you spout and feel a tiny bit grateful that Bozo is in charge and not you 😂
See I don't just say whatever Johnson says.
Johnson has been too soft on this issue. He needs to harden up.
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
What part of For trade purposes, since January 1st (and thanks to Boris's "deal") Northern Ireland isn't in Britain's trade area but is instead still part of the EU.
I think Johnson was right. Letting the Northern Irish tail wag the British dog again would have been ridiculous, and probably led to serious riots in England.
My preferred solution is still for us to get rid of Northern Ireland, which has been an embarassing and expensive curse for centuries.
Certainly not from the Conservative and Unionist Party, the latter part of which came from opposition even to Irish Home Rule
It is true, but political positions of a century and a half ago should not determine what we think or do today.
Northern Ireland is a huge drain on our economy and politics and gives us nothing in return. The Republicans actively want to sabotage the country, and the Unionists would have landed us with Corbyn in 2017 if we hadn't bribed them. So we're much better off without them.
Without DUP MPs support for May in 2017, Corbyn could have become PM with SNP, Plaid, and Green and LD support.
If the GB taxpayer hadn't coughed up £1 billion, Corbyn could have become PM with SNP, Plaid, and Green and LD support.
FTFU.
Yes and Corbyn would have coughed up even more billions for Wales and Scotland.
Northern Ireland is closer to England politically than Scotland is certainly still, it had a bigger Leave vote than Scotland and the DUP and UUP combined get a higher voteshare in Northern Ireland than the Tories do in Scotland
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
I think his argument is that if the RoI was to impose a hard border to do RoI-NI checks following abolition (or a 'technological solution' improvement) of GB-NI checks, they're welcome to do so (they won't do so). Similar for the EU (also not stupid enough to do so).
Then we reach the only sustainable outcome for NI - a largely free border with both the UK and RoI, with some smuggling happening. The key to reaching that is keeping the EU utterly disinterested, while the parties with skin in the game find a workable solution.
Precisely!
It has been the obvious and only solution all along.
Sadly some people are so far up the EU's backside that they actually convince themselves that the UK must align with the EU as a real solution, as opposed to this.
Indeed. "Why won't you accept a long-term solution where you allow smuggling". Every responsible nation and trading area is happy to accept smuggling....
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
Whenever I think that no-one (except Corbyn) could be worse than Boris Johnson as our PM, I see the simplistic shite that you spout and feel a tiny bit grateful that Bozo is in charge and not you 😂
See I don't just say whatever Johnson says.
Johnson has been too soft on this issue. He needs to harden up.
I am sure his advisors will be monitoring this very site and he will take heed of your feedback 😂😂😂😂
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
What part of For trade purposes, since January 1st (and thanks to Boris's "deal") Northern Ireland isn't in Britain's trade area but is instead still part of the EU.
Northern Ireland is de jure part of the United Kingdom and part of the United Kingdom's Customs Union. So yes Belfast is 100% our responsibility and we should cease to do any checks in Belfast and let the EU come up with an alternative solution.
If the EU come up with nothing then that is an alternative solution. There's no checks in the UK, none on the Irish Border, problem solved life goes on. This is their problem to fix, not ours.
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
Extraordinary cakeism!
Now everyone knew an ERG Brexit would have ramifications for the GFA.
Now, as a former Remainer I accept Richard Tyndall's argument that Brexit was all about the "sovereignty" and we would have to live with any collateral consequences. He accepts that for "sovereignty" to be regained bad things would happen and it was a price worth paying.
Your (and Boris Johnson's) argument is an out and out lie. You claim we regained our mystical "sovereignty", and there are no consequences, only those imposed on a Sovereign England by foreigners interfering with England's sovereignty.
What, however, has really tipped it over is the failure to sanction those people who turned up at Bobby Storeys funeral in about as blatant a break of Covid regulations as you could get. The inescapable conclusion is that they police didn't want to put up in court or fine (which would have been the logical move) the Sinn Fein Deputy First Minister & other Sinn Fein politicians because of exactly who they were. I know enough people in well informed positions who know they bottled it. And just as note every other major political party here apart from Sinn Fein was pissed off about it because they could see exactly what the implication was, impunity.
As a complete outsider politics and 'community leaders' in Northern Ireland appear to want things both ways - they decry the area being ignored or treated differently and want others to help sort things out, but also tell people to not stick their noses in to what they don't understand, and want to be free to do their own thing because *wink* things might 'tragically' go wrong with the peace process *wink*, thus meaning things like rioting and other things should not really be addressed, no matter if they say it should not happen.
That may well be unfair, but is the overwhelming impression I get from comments from political leaders in Northern Ireland, and if it is even half right it is no good suggesting it is simply their fault, since the people seem to be totally on board with it all. If they're not, why do they constantly let their leaders get away with it?
Because the usual refrain is just 'People don't understand Northern Ireland'. Well, the leaders there seem to like it that way.
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
What part of For trade purposes, since January 1st (and thanks to Boris's "deal") Northern Ireland isn't in Britain's trade area but is instead still part of the EU.
Northern Ireland is de jure part of the United Kingdom and part of the United Kingdom's Customs Union. So yes Belfast is 100% our responsibility and we should cease to do any checks in Belfast and let the EU come up with an alternative solution.
If the EU come up with nothing then that is an alternative solution. There's no checks in the UK, none on the Irish Border, problem solved life goes on. This is their problem to fix, not ours.
It's no longer part of the UK's Customs Union - that ship sailed when Boris moved the border from where May had placed it (between NI and the Republic) to the Irish Sea.
Which part of that very simple fact are you wilfully ignoring?
I think Johnson was right. Letting the Northern Irish tail wag the British dog again would have been ridiculous, and probably led to serious riots in England.
My preferred solution is still for us to get rid of Northern Ireland, which has been an embarassing and expensive curse for centuries.
Certainly not from the Conservative and Unionist Party, the latter part of which came from opposition even to Irish Home Rule
It is true, but political positions of a century and a half ago should not determine what we think or do today.
Northern Ireland is a huge drain on our economy and politics and gives us nothing in return. The Republicans actively want to sabotage the country, and the Unionists would have landed us with Corbyn in 2017 if we hadn't bribed them. So we're much better off without them.
I feel that about London
can we ditch that too ?
You think London is a huge drain on our economy and gives us nothing in return?
PB continues to be obsessed with Scotland, while the PM's lies come home to roost in Northern Ireland.
We'll we're waiting for the Devil's Trifecta.
Indyref2, a border poll in NI, and I'm working out what the third one in this awful trifecta will be.
No 3. ART Davies becomes FM in Wales ensuring demands for Welsh Independence exceed 50% before the end of May.
If RT Davies becomes FM it will be because he is the most successful Welsh Tory leader ever and a humiliating result for Labour and Plaid, Wales voted for Brexit and it would cement Wales in Union with England even further.
It would also almost certainly require the Tories to be over 40% in Wales
That would indeed be true to just before the point where you write "cement Wales in Union with England even further". Do you think that blithering clown would do anything other than make the Conservatives unelectable in Wales for the remainder of the Millenium? And if Llafur are dead in the water, where does that lead us? PC!
If the Tories are over 40% (which they would need to be to form a deal with Abolish which is the only way RT becomes FM), then RT would likely scrap the Senedd anyway with Abolish and Wales would return to full union with England. RT would clearly not be unelectable in Wales, the opposite, he would be the most successful Tory leader in Wales ever if he got over 40%.
RT would get rewarded with a safe seat at Westminster then after
...and as such my anticipation of a surge in Welsh independence post FM RT, is reality.
It isn't, if the Tories get over 40% and Abolish get 10%+ (which is the only way RT becomes FM), then RT would clearly have a mandate to abolish the Senedd.
Wales would return to just being part of Westminster and Welsh voters would have voted for that
Of course he would not
He is not standing on a mandate for that and it seems only you can come up with a bizarre response that would see the end of all conservatives and their mps in Wales
You have an incredibly insane attitude to both Scotland and now Wales
My only consolation is that at least I have found a conservative even more stupid that Andrew RT Davies and that says it all
Have a look at the salaries of Housing Association Chief Executives. Some of these earn three times the amount the Prime Minister gets, all for providing the service of Social Housing, for which there will always be a permanent demand in this Country.
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
Extraordinary cakeism!
Now everyone knew an ERG Brexit would have ramifications for the GFA.
Now, as a former Remainer I accept Richard Tyndall's argument that Brexit was all about the "sovereignty" and we would have to live with any collateral consequences. He accepts that for "sovereignty" to be regained bad things would happen and it was a price worth paying
Your (and Boris Johnson's) argument is an out and out lie. You claim we regained our mystical "sovereignty", and there are no consequences, only those imposed on a Sovereign England by foreigners interfering with England's sovereignty.
Of course its cakeism!
So is the EU's notion that they can have peace in NI and their definition of "integrity of the Single Market". That is cakeism and it has failed, its their problem to fix.
If we refuse to do any checks in Belfast then I accept our decisions may have consequences in our relations with them, that's up to them to impose if they choose to do so. If they choose to erect border posts along the Irish land border that's their choice, we can't stop them doing that if they choose to do so. I don't think they will though, do you?
I'm not sure the message on the bus had much to do with it. There were Brexit options that did not require a sea border. Both the EU and UK politicians who refused to back concessionary position prior to Boris being elected, and of course Boris and his cronies doing the thing they said they would never do.
Why should the EU do anything - this is an internal issue of a third party country.
Because one of their members has a land border with said third party country and was determined not to have a hard border with it?
Were the EU a party who signed the Good Friday Agreement?
More to the point were they the Government who drove a bus through it without any thought of the consequences?
The first question is irrelevant to the point I made and Ireland's position. And they were a signatory. The second suggests that the UK was to be trapped in the EU forever to meet an agreement which was based on a set of facts at the time it was entered. You want to score political points but surely you can see how absurd and undemocratic such a conclusion would be.
May's solution was best on this and we need to try and get back there. Once again the loons on both sides who voted that down should hang their heads in shame.
International treaties once signed continue in perpetuity - unless and until both sides negotiate and agree changes.
The Good Friday Agreement is an international agreement that we have decided to ignore and challenge.
We are not ignoring and challenging the GFA.
We would be quite happy to continue to have the GFA in force and to have no checks between GB and NI.
It's the EU that is creating the issue.
As a well-educated sensible chap you know fully well that having declared ourselves a 3rd country that the border has to go somewhere. There seems to be this fantasy that we reach no deal of substance with the EU, have no border with them, and don't get in trouble with WTO rules. You know that it is nonsense. So why are you saying it? You aren't a moron like Brexit Hardman Steve Baker.
We do seem to have a lot of people here who believe that we and the EU can ignore the issues of being a third party because this is Northern Ireland and the needs of the Good Friday Agreement clearly trumps WTO rules.
But the EU can't do that because in their eyes the WTO rules (which need to by applied on all borders) are necessarily more important than the Good Friday that technically impacts only 1 part of a third party country (and one where the country has agreed is inside the EU's borders for convenience purposes).
It really is a philosophical issue though. Should we have been as a country to leave the EU - of course. Should we want to stay together as a union? Yes and this is not a contradiction. The imagination for a solution needs to reflect reality. Too many people want the status quo but how do we achieve what we want.
In 1997 would an exception have been made by the WTO to support the peace process? Are we really saying the GFA would have been impossible without the EU?
I think it is very likely that Labour will beat the Tories this time out. As a Unionist I am much more interested in the overall situation between the groupings than how the vote is divided within them. I wish Sarwar every success in regaining votes and hopefully seats in Glasgow.
Douglas Ross is proving a bit rubbish, I notice SCons have put Ruth Davidson front and centre recently in this campaign.
A wise move.
I said at the time that Ross attacking Nippie on grounds of honesty and propriety was ludicrous. Now that she has been cleared and is rock solid in place the Tory attack appears even sillier as it fades into the background. That they have been reduced to sticking Baroness Chickenrun on their leaflets just makes it funnier.
He doesnt need to, the vicar of Bath is on the case accusing her of trousering £600k. More mud and some of it will stick.
She hasn't been cleared, RP is deliberately misrepresenting the facts to suit his (bizarrely) favourable to the SNP schtick. I expect this to last a relatively short period into his residence in Scotland, where he'll gradually realise what the SNP are actually all about.
She *has* been cleared politically. Thats the conclusion of the *cough* independent legal report. The Tories totally overplayed their hand, leaked claims that were disproven in the legal findings, and now want people to vote for them not the SNP on the grounds of trust and propriety. It was a classic clusterfuck tactic which has spectacularly backfired. Whatever smoke is still billowing about (and there is plenty of smoke) is being wafted away as partisan.
As for me being "bizarrely favourable" I am just saying what I see. I am (or will be once the snow clears) campaigning for the LibDems so I have no truck for Nippie. But it is what it is. She will win a majority and the Tories are heading to lose seats.
No. The Committee investigating the handling of the Salmond case found that she had indeed misled Parliament - a resigning matter. This is what was leaked - there is no evidence that it was leaked by the Tories on the committee - the more compelling theory is that it was leaked by the SNP, in order to 'get it out of the way' in the news agenda so that Sturgeon could claim that the other report was the 'final word', which is exactly what happened. Even the report that did 'clear' Sturgeon acknowledged that redactions to evidence made it impossible to demonstrate that she had *not* broken the Ministerial code. Sturgeon is an extremely savvy campaigner and politician, and that must be admired, but let's not confuse getting away with the swag with being innocent of the crime.
Regarding the SCONs premature VONCing attempt, the order would have been as follows: 1. QC report came out, exonerated Sturgeon. 2. Committee report came out, found Sturgeon guilty. 3. VONC. What actually happened 1. Committee report leaks, and this stuff is all over the news. 2. SCONS must decide whether to VONC now when it's news, or VONC later when it has been superceded by the QC report which will no doubt exonerate Sturgeon.
They made the wrong decision. They should have poured cold water on the leak, criticised the SNP members (for their minority report stunt) said that we should wait for the final report. It wouldn't have been as impactful, but might still have worked. They were played - but their decision is understandable.
PB continues to be obsessed with Scotland, while the PM's lies come home to roost in Northern Ireland.
Varadkar and Coveney are the root cause of current Belfast theatre. The posh boys saw a sleeping dog and just kept poking it despite saner voices saying leave it.
No, it is Johnsons deal. We signed up to it, we need to keep our word.
I am surprised that so many PB Tories want to give in to rioters, when even a sit down protest in Bristol gets their goat.
As and englishman your prime concern for NI is how it impacts your anti Boris shtick. Fair does. But as an Irishman I can assure the Varadkar Coveney stupidities are what is driving the current street theatre, which is why both of them now need 24/7 armed protection. Nobody so far is threatening to shoot BoJo.
Boris Johnson has armed bodyguards for that very reason.
IIRC the only cabinet ministers who received armed bodyguards/protection is the Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, Defence Secretary, and the NI Secretary.
He's a PM and always has protection, but I m not aware of any NI paramilitaries recently issuing a death threat. Varadkar and Coveny
His warning someone might get killed, has a worried personal ring to it.
Want to know something funny somebody in the army told me a few years ago.
Since the mid 80s (ever since the Anglo-Irish Agreement) the Taoiseach's Gardaí security detail has been supplemented by ex British military personnel. There was only ever one caveat, no ex parachute regiment.
But nobody likes to talk about it, but it is one of the reasons why British troops parading in Dublin for Ian Malone's funeral in 2003 went so unremarked and without incident.
Are you sure about that? There are many capable Irish police & military personnel who could do that job.
Yes I am. The Irish provide the overwhelming majority of the security detail, but as I said they are supplemented by ex British military personnel.
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
What part of For trade purposes, since January 1st (and thanks to Boris's "deal") Northern Ireland isn't in Britain's trade area but is instead still part of the EU.
Northern Ireland is de jure part of the United Kingdom and part of the United Kingdom's Customs Union. So yes Belfast is 100% our responsibility and we should cease to do any checks in Belfast and let the EU come up with an alternative solution.
If the EU come up with nothing then that is an alternative solution. There's no checks in the UK, none on the Irish Border, problem solved life goes on. This is their problem to fix, not ours.
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
What part of For trade purposes, since January 1st (and thanks to Boris's "deal") Northern Ireland isn't in Britain's trade area but is instead still part of the EU.
Northern Ireland is de jure part of the United Kingdom and part of the United Kingdom's Customs Union. So yes Belfast is 100% our responsibility and we should cease to do any checks in Belfast and let the EU come up with an alternative solution.
If the EU come up with nothing then that is an alternative solution. There's no checks in the UK, none on the Irish Border, problem solved life goes on. This is their problem to fix, not ours.
It's no longer part of the UK's Customs Union - that ship sailed when Boris moved the border from where May had placed it (between NI and the Republic) to the Irish Sea.
Which part of that very simple fact are you wilfully ignoring?
You are fully and legally wrong. It is part of the UK's Customs Union.
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
Extraordinary cakeism!
Now everyone knew an ERG Brexit would have ramifications for the GFA.
Now, as a former Remainer I accept Richard Tyndall's argument that Brexit was all about the "sovereignty" and we would have to live with any collateral consequences. He accepts that for "sovereignty" to be regained bad things would happen and it was a price worth paying
Your (and Boris Johnson's) argument is an out and out lie. You claim we regained our mystical "sovereignty", and there are no consequences, only those imposed on a Sovereign England by foreigners interfering with England's sovereignty.
Of course its cakeism!
So is the EU's notion that they can have peace in NI and their definition of "integrity of the Single Market". That is cakeism and it has failed, its their problem to fix.
If we refuse to do any checks in Belfast then I accept our decisions may have consequences in our relations with them, that's up to them to impose if they choose to do so. If they choose to erect border posts along the Irish land border that's their choice, we can't stop them doing that if they choose to do so. I don't think they will though, do you?
In my job - I will tell people that their decision is likely to result in an issue and highlight how to avoid or mitigate the issue.
It is, however, not my job to fix an issue their decision created and nor is it the EUs...
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
What part of For trade purposes, since January 1st (and thanks to Boris's "deal") Northern Ireland isn't in Britain's trade area but is instead still part of the EU.
Northern Ireland is de jure part of the United Kingdom and part of the United Kingdom's Customs Union. So yes Belfast is 100% our responsibility and we should cease to do any checks in Belfast and let the EU come up with an alternative solution.
If the EU come up with nothing then that is an alternative solution. There's no checks in the UK, none on the Irish Border, problem solved life goes on. This is their problem to fix, not ours.
The WTO disagree
[Citation Needed]
The WTO recognises NI as part of the UK's customs territory. You're wrong.
PB continues to be obsessed with Scotland, while the PM's lies come home to roost in Northern Ireland.
We'll we're waiting for the Devil's Trifecta.
Indyref2, a border poll in NI, and I'm working out what the third one in this awful trifecta will be.
No 3. ART Davies becomes FM in Wales ensuring demands for Welsh Independence exceed 50% before the end of May.
If RT Davies becomes FM it will be because he is the most successful Welsh Tory leader ever and a humiliating result for Labour and Plaid, Wales voted for Brexit and it would cement Wales in Union with England even further.
It would also almost certainly require the Tories to be over 40% in Wales
That would indeed be true to just before the point where you write "cement Wales in Union with England even further". Do you think that blithering clown would do anything other than make the Conservatives unelectable in Wales for the remainder of the Millenium? And if Llafur are dead in the water, where does that lead us? PC!
If the Tories are over 40% (which they would need to be to form a deal with Abolish which is the only way RT becomes FM), then RT would likely scrap the Senedd anyway with Abolish and Wales would return to full union with England. RT would clearly not be unelectable in Wales, the opposite, he would be the most successful Tory leader in Wales ever if he got over 40%.
RT would get rewarded with a safe seat at Westminster then after
...and as such my anticipation of a surge in Welsh independence post FM RT, is reality.
It isn't, if the Tories get over 40% and Abolish get 10%+ (which is the only way RT becomes FM), then RT would clearly have a mandate to abolish the Senedd.
Wales would return to just being part of Westminster and Welsh voters would have voted for that
Of course he would not
He is not standing on a mandate for that and it seems only you can come up with a bizarre response that would see the end of all conservatives and their mps in Wales
You have an incredibly insane attitude to both Scotland and now Wales
My only consolation is that at least I have found a conservative even more stupid that Andrew RT Davies and that says it all
RT has refused to rule out a post election deal with Abolish the Assembly if they had the numbers together for a Senedd majority, remember 49% of Welsh voters even voted against having an Assembly in 1997
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
Extraordinary cakeism!
Now everyone knew an ERG Brexit would have ramifications for the GFA.
Now, as a former Remainer I accept Richard Tyndall's argument that Brexit was all about the "sovereignty" and we would have to live with any collateral consequences. He accepts that for "sovereignty" to be regained bad things would happen and it was a price worth paying
Your (and Boris Johnson's) argument is an out and out lie. You claim we regained our mystical "sovereignty", and there are no consequences, only those imposed on a Sovereign England by foreigners interfering with England's sovereignty.
Of course its cakeism!
So is the EU's notion that they can have peace in NI and their definition of "integrity of the Single Market". That is cakeism and it has failed, its their problem to fix.
If we refuse to do any checks in Belfast then I accept our decisions may have consequences in our relations with them, that's up to them to impose if they choose to do so. If they choose to erect border posts along the Irish land border that's their choice, we can't stop them doing that if they choose to do so. I don't think they will though, do you?
Probably the most salient point is that most people in the rest of UK don't care. England and Wales voted for Brexit. If it weren't tied up in the SNP and independence would Scotland be pro European. I doubt it. It would have been much more consistent to argue leave and independence for Scotland as they are essentially the same argument.
The only place that EU separation meets reality is between NI and Ireland.
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
What part of For trade purposes, since January 1st (and thanks to Boris's "deal") Northern Ireland isn't in Britain's trade area but is instead still part of the EU.
Northern Ireland is de jure part of the United Kingdom and part of the United Kingdom's Customs Union. So yes Belfast is 100% our responsibility and we should cease to do any checks in Belfast and let the EU come up with an alternative solution.
If the EU come up with nothing then that is an alternative solution. There's no checks in the UK, none on the Irish Border, problem solved life goes on. This is their problem to fix, not ours.
The WTO disagree
[Citation Needed]
The WTO recognises NI as part of the UK's customs territory. You're wrong.
[Citation dated after 1st January 2021 needed]
Remember RochdalePioneer does this for a living - your job appears to be posting rubbish on here 24/7.
Nothing to do with patriotism, Owen Jones attended Oxford University.
People who born/grew up in Sheffield and attended Oxbridge are ghastly, ghastly people.
Owen Jones is from socially deprived area of Bramhall on the outskirts on Manchester
At least according to wiki, his mother is a University Professor.
Since 2004, so not when he was born.
I think she was not even appointed Lecturer when Owen was born.
The point I am making is that Owen's family is one in which education is considered important, intellectual attainment is valued and so it is much less surprising that his trajectory was from a middling/poorish school to Oxford University.
Parental background and encouragement is usually much more important than schooling.
[EDIT: She was a lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University when Owen was born.]
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
Extraordinary cakeism!
Now everyone knew an ERG Brexit would have ramifications for the GFA.
Now, as a former Remainer I accept Richard Tyndall's argument that Brexit was all about the "sovereignty" and we would have to live with any collateral consequences. He accepts that for "sovereignty" to be regained bad things would happen and it was a price worth paying
Your (and Boris Johnson's) argument is an out and out lie. You claim we regained our mystical "sovereignty", and there are no consequences, only those imposed on a Sovereign England by foreigners interfering with England's sovereignty.
Of course its cakeism!
So is the EU's notion that they can have peace in NI and their definition of "integrity of the Single Market". That is cakeism and it has failed, its their problem to fix.
If we refuse to do any checks in Belfast then I accept our decisions may have consequences in our relations with them, that's up to them to impose if they choose to do so. If they choose to erect border posts along the Irish land border that's their choice, we can't stop them doing that if they choose to do so. I don't think they will though, do you?
In my job - I will tell people that their decision is likely to result in an issue and highlight how to avoid or mitigate the issue.
It is, however, not my job to fix an issue their decision created and nor is it the EUs...
The UK has nothing to fix. We don't want a sea border or a land border, so we say we will not operate either.
If the EU reciprocate, problem solved. If they don't, they need to come up with a fix.
I think Johnson was right. Letting the Northern Irish tail wag the British dog again would have been ridiculous, and probably led to serious riots in England.
My preferred solution is still for us to get rid of Northern Ireland, which has been an embarassing and expensive curse for centuries.
Certainly not from the Conservative and Unionist Party, the latter part of which came from opposition even to Irish Home Rule
It is true, but political positions of a century and a half ago should not determine what we think or do today.
Northern Ireland is a huge drain on our economy and politics and gives us nothing in return. The Republicans actively want to sabotage the country, and the Unionists would have landed us with Corbyn in 2017 if we hadn't bribed them. So we're much better off without them.
I feel that about London
can we ditch that too ?
You think London is a huge drain on our economy and gives us nothing in return?
Yes
Don't fully agree but you have a point. It sucks in and crowds out.
PB continues to be obsessed with Scotland, while the PM's lies come home to roost in Northern Ireland.
We'll we're waiting for the Devil's Trifecta.
Indyref2, a border poll in NI, and I'm working out what the third one in this awful trifecta will be.
No 3. ART Davies becomes FM in Wales ensuring demands for Welsh Independence exceed 50% before the end of May.
If RT Davies becomes FM it will be because he is the most successful Welsh Tory leader ever and a humiliating result for Labour and Plaid, Wales voted for Brexit and it would cement Wales in Union with England even further.
It would also almost certainly require the Tories to be over 40% in Wales
That would indeed be true to just before the point where you write "cement Wales in Union with England even further". Do you think that blithering clown would do anything other than make the Conservatives unelectable in Wales for the remainder of the Millenium? And if Llafur are dead in the water, where does that lead us? PC!
If the Tories are over 40% (which they would need to be to form a deal with Abolish which is the only way RT becomes FM), then RT would likely scrap the Senedd anyway with Abolish and Wales would return to full union with England. RT would clearly not be unelectable in Wales, the opposite, he would be the most successful Tory leader in Wales ever if he got over 40%.
RT would get rewarded with a safe seat at Westminster then after
...and as such my anticipation of a surge in Welsh independence post FM RT, is reality.
It isn't, if the Tories get over 40% and Abolish get 10%+ (which is the only way RT becomes FM), then RT would clearly have a mandate to abolish the Senedd.
Wales would return to just being part of Westminster and Welsh voters would have voted for that
Of course he would not
He is not standing on a mandate for that and it seems only you can come up with a bizarre response that would see the end of all conservatives and their mps in Wales
You have an incredibly insane attitude to both Scotland and now Wales
My only consolation is that at least I have found a conservative even more stupid that Andrew RT Davies and that says it all
RT has refused to rule out a post election deal with Abolish the Assembly if they had the numbers together for a Senedd majority, remember 49% of Welsh voters even voted against having an Assembly in 1997
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
Extraordinary cakeism!
Now everyone knew an ERG Brexit would have ramifications for the GFA.
Now, as a former Remainer I accept Richard Tyndall's argument that Brexit was all about the "sovereignty" and we would have to live with any collateral consequences. He accepts that for "sovereignty" to be regained bad things would happen and it was a price worth paying
Your (and Boris Johnson's) argument is an out and out lie. You claim we regained our mystical "sovereignty", and there are no consequences, only those imposed on a Sovereign England by foreigners interfering with England's sovereignty.
Of course its cakeism!
So is the EU's notion that they can have peace in NI and their definition of "integrity of the Single Market". That is cakeism and it has failed, its their problem to fix.
If we refuse to do any checks in Belfast then I accept our decisions may have consequences in our relations with them, that's up to them to impose if they choose to do so. If they choose to erect border posts along the Irish land border that's their choice, we can't stop them doing that if they choose to do so. I don't think they will though, do you?
In my job - I will tell people that their decision is likely to result in an issue and highlight how to avoid or mitigate the issue.
It is, however, not my job to fix an issue their decision created and nor is it the EUs...
The UK has nothing to fix. We don't want a sea border or a land border, so we say we will not operate either.
If the EU reciprocate, problem solved. If they don't, they need to come up with a fix.
What is there for us to fix?
So the UK has created a problem in Northern Ireland - why should the EU fix it?
What, however, has really tipped it over is the failure to sanction those people who turned up at Bobby Storeys funeral in about as blatant a break of Covid regulations as you could get. The inescapable conclusion is that they police didn't want to put up in court or fine (which would have been the logical move) the Sinn Fein Deputy First Minister & other Sinn Fein politicians because of exactly who they were. I know enough people in well informed positions who know they bottled it. And just as note every other major political party here apart from Sinn Fein was pissed off about it because they could see exactly what the implication was, impunity.
As a complete outsider politics and 'community leaders' in Northern Ireland appear to want things both ways - they decry the area being ignored or treated differently and want others to help sort things out, but also tell people to not stick their noses in to what they don't understand, and want to be free to do their own thing because *wink* things might 'tragically' go wrong with the peace process *wink*, thus meaning things like rioting and other things should not really be addressed, no matter if they say it should not happen.
That may well be unfair, but is the overwhelming impression I get from comments from political leaders in Northern Ireland, and if it is even half right it is no good suggesting it is simply their fault, since the people seem to be totally on board with it all. If they're not, why do they constantly let their leaders get away with it?
Because the usual refrain is just 'People don't understand Northern Ireland'. Well, the leaders there seem to like it that way.
Quite - was there any solution that their leaders would have supported - a deal needed their support for May. If not it is not a surprise they got ignored. I say the same to remained who when offered a compromise Brexit may voted it down only for something worse to replace it.
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
What part of For trade purposes, since January 1st (and thanks to Boris's "deal") Northern Ireland isn't in Britain's trade area but is instead still part of the EU.
Northern Ireland is de jure part of the United Kingdom and part of the United Kingdom's Customs Union. So yes Belfast is 100% our responsibility and we should cease to do any checks in Belfast and let the EU come up with an alternative solution.
If the EU come up with nothing then that is an alternative solution. There's no checks in the UK, none on the Irish Border, problem solved life goes on. This is their problem to fix, not ours.
The WTO disagree
[Citation Needed]
The WTO recognises NI as part of the UK's customs territory. You're wrong.
[Citation dated after 1st January 2021 needed]
Remember RochdalePioneer does this for a living - your job appears to be posting rubbish on here 24/7.
This applies for after 1st January 2021
"Northern Ireland will instead remain a part of the UK's customs territory"
De jure NI is part of the UK. If we "fix" the Protocol as per Article 16, then that's the end of the matter, since Belfast is ours not Europe's. We're in charge, they'll need to come to us with a fix if they're desperate for this to be implemented.
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
Extraordinary cakeism!
Now everyone knew an ERG Brexit would have ramifications for the GFA.
Now, as a former Remainer I accept Richard Tyndall's argument that Brexit was all about the "sovereignty" and we would have to live with any collateral consequences. He accepts that for "sovereignty" to be regained bad things would happen and it was a price worth paying
Your (and Boris Johnson's) argument is an out and out lie. You claim we regained our mystical "sovereignty", and there are no consequences, only those imposed on a Sovereign England by foreigners interfering with England's sovereignty.
Of course its cakeism!
So is the EU's notion that they can have peace in NI and their definition of "integrity of the Single Market". That is cakeism and it has failed, its their problem to fix.
If we refuse to do any checks in Belfast then I accept our decisions may have consequences in our relations with them, that's up to them to impose if they choose to do so. If they choose to erect border posts along the Irish land border that's their choice, we can't stop them doing that if they choose to do so. I don't think they will though, do you?
In my job - I will tell people that their decision is likely to result in an issue and highlight how to avoid or mitigate the issue.
It is, however, not my job to fix an issue their decision created and nor is it the EUs...
The UK has nothing to fix. We don't want a sea border or a land border, so we say we will not operate either.
If the EU reciprocate, problem solved. If they don't, they need to come up with a fix.
What is there for us to fix?
So the UK has created a problem - why should the EU fix it?
What are they doing in Ukraine and Iran then ? They didnt create the problem.
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
Extraordinary cakeism!
Now everyone knew an ERG Brexit would have ramifications for the GFA.
Now, as a former Remainer I accept Richard Tyndall's argument that Brexit was all about the "sovereignty" and we would have to live with any collateral consequences. He accepts that for "sovereignty" to be regained bad things would happen and it was a price worth paying
Your (and Boris Johnson's) argument is an out and out lie. You claim we regained our mystical "sovereignty", and there are no consequences, only those imposed on a Sovereign England by foreigners interfering with England's sovereignty.
Of course its cakeism!
So is the EU's notion that they can have peace in NI and their definition of "integrity of the Single Market". That is cakeism and it has failed, its their problem to fix.
If we refuse to do any checks in Belfast then I accept our decisions may have consequences in our relations with them, that's up to them to impose if they choose to do so. If they choose to erect border posts along the Irish land border that's their choice, we can't stop them doing that if they choose to do so. I don't think they will though, do you?
In my job - I will tell people that their decision is likely to result in an issue and highlight how to avoid or mitigate the issue.
It is, however, not my job to fix an issue their decision created and nor is it the EUs...
The UK has nothing to fix. We don't want a sea border or a land border, so we say we will not operate either.
If the EU reciprocate, problem solved. If they don't, they need to come up with a fix.
What is there for us to fix?
So the UK has created a problem in Northern Ireland - why should the EU fix it?
Because it doesn't matter who created the problem. If they want it fixing, they need to fix it. That's realpolitik.
If we simply say "oh well, no border anywhere, life goes on" and diverge and do our own thing then what are they going to do about it? If nothing because its not their problem, then its not ours either. If they do something then they're acknowledging they need to be part of the solution.
This David Allen Green fella has obviously little grasp of UK politics these days. There's been unrest in Northern Ireland pretty much every year since the GFA. This isn't even on a par with the scenes in Bristol last week.
Nothing to do with patriotism, Owen Jones attended Oxford University.
People who born/grew up in Sheffield and attended Oxbridge are ghastly, ghastly people.
Owen Jones is from socially deprived area of Bramhall on the outskirts on Manchester
At least according to wiki, his mother is a University Professor.
Since 2004, so not when he was born.
I think she was not even appointed Lecturer when Owen was born.
The point I am making is that Owen's family is one in which education is considered important, intellectual attainment is valued and so it is much less surprising that his trajectory was from a middling/poorish school to Oxford University.
Parental background and encouragement is usually much more important than schooling.
Yes, you can be poor and not poor. It is a temporary state of affairs, which you can dine out on, but really only impacted for a short period of time.. Emily Thornberry successfully played this card to slightly reduce the impact of here England flag stuff. Her working class 'Bruv' in a high vis jacket etc. But she's not the only one.
I think Johnson was right. Letting the Northern Irish tail wag the British dog again would have been ridiculous, and probably led to serious riots in England.
My preferred solution is still for us to get rid of Northern Ireland, which has been an embarassing and expensive curse for centuries.
Certainly not from the Conservative and Unionist Party, the latter part of which came from opposition even to Irish Home Rule
That was the old Conservative Party, Boris Johnson's new Tory party, of which you are an enthusiastic cheerleader, is prepared to sacrifice the Union for Brexit.
[Conservative} Party members are also willing to sacrifice another fundamental tenet of Conservative belief in order to bring about Brexit: unionism.* Asked whether they would rather avert Brexit if it would lead to Scotland or Northern Ireland breaking away from the UK, respectively 63% and 59% of party members would be willing to pay for Brexit with the breakup of the United Kingdom.
I am sure Boris Johnson would sacrifice the Union for Brexit, not for the sake of Brexit (which even he isn't stupid enough to genuinely believe in), but for the sake of Boris Johnson. Colleagues, marriages, the Conservative Party, his country, even his own family are all subsidiary to his ego. Very sad, fat little man. His apologists are even sadder.
Had you not needlessly and provocatively inserted the word 'fat' I would have agreed with your comment. As you did, I can't. Maybe rise above the petty insults?
The remainers bitterness is on full view today but it will not change anything on Brexit, (other than maybe a bit of common-sense on all sides) and Boris is unlikely to be affected by it
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
Extraordinary cakeism!
Now everyone knew an ERG Brexit would have ramifications for the GFA.
Now, as a former Remainer I accept Richard Tyndall's argument that Brexit was all about the "sovereignty" and we would have to live with any collateral consequences. He accepts that for "sovereignty" to be regained bad things would happen and it was a price worth paying
Your (and Boris Johnson's) argument is an out and out lie. You claim we regained our mystical "sovereignty", and there are no consequences, only those imposed on a Sovereign England by foreigners interfering with England's sovereignty.
Of course its cakeism!
So is the EU's notion that they can have peace in NI and their definition of "integrity of the Single Market". That is cakeism and it has failed, its their problem to fix.
If we refuse to do any checks in Belfast then I accept our decisions may have consequences in our relations with them, that's up to them to impose if they choose to do so. If they choose to erect border posts along the Irish land border that's their choice, we can't stop them doing that if they choose to do so. I don't think they will though, do you?
In my job - I will tell people that their decision is likely to result in an issue and highlight how to avoid or mitigate the issue.
It is, however, not my job to fix an issue their decision created and nor is it the EUs...
The UK has nothing to fix. We don't want a sea border or a land border, so we say we will not operate either.
If the EU reciprocate, problem solved. If they don't, they need to come up with a fix.
What is there for us to fix?
So the UK has created a problem in Northern Ireland - why should the EU fix it?
Well for one the death threats by credible terrorist groups against an EU leader. However more broadly, no-one is suggesting that the EU fixes anything, indeed the best think it could do it continue not to care.
I think Johnson was right. Letting the Northern Irish tail wag the British dog again would have been ridiculous, and probably led to serious riots in England.
My preferred solution is still for us to get rid of Northern Ireland, which has been an embarassing and expensive curse for centuries.
Certainly not from the Conservative and Unionist Party, the latter part of which came from opposition even to Irish Home Rule
That was the old Conservative Party, Boris Johnson's new Tory party, of which you are an enthusiastic cheerleader, is prepared to sacrifice the Union for Brexit.
[Conservative} Party members are also willing to sacrifice another fundamental tenet of Conservative belief in order to bring about Brexit: unionism.* Asked whether they would rather avert Brexit if it would lead to Scotland or Northern Ireland breaking away from the UK, respectively 63% and 59% of party members would be willing to pay for Brexit with the breakup of the United Kingdom.
I am sure Boris Johnson would sacrifice the Union for Brexit, not for the sake of Brexit (which even he isn't stupid enough to genuinely believe in), but for the sake of Boris Johnson. Colleagues, marriages, the Conservative Party, his country, even his own family are all subsidiary to his ego. Very sad, fat little man. His apologists are even sadder.
Had you not needlessly and provocatively inserted the word 'fat' I would have agreed with your comment. As you did, I can't. Maybe rise above the petty insults?
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
Extraordinary cakeism!
Now everyone knew an ERG Brexit would have ramifications for the GFA.
Now, as a former Remainer I accept Richard Tyndall's argument that Brexit was all about the "sovereignty" and we would have to live with any collateral consequences. He accepts that for "sovereignty" to be regained bad things would happen and it was a price worth paying
Your (and Boris Johnson's) argument is an out and out lie. You claim we regained our mystical "sovereignty", and there are no consequences, only those imposed on a Sovereign England by foreigners interfering with England's sovereignty.
Of course its cakeism!
So is the EU's notion that they can have peace in NI and their definition of "integrity of the Single Market". That is cakeism and it has failed, its their problem to fix.
If we refuse to do any checks in Belfast then I accept our decisions may have consequences in our relations with them, that's up to them to impose if they choose to do so. If they choose to erect border posts along the Irish land border that's their choice, we can't stop them doing that if they choose to do so. I don't think they will though, do you?
In my job - I will tell people that their decision is likely to result in an issue and highlight how to avoid or mitigate the issue.
It is, however, not my job to fix an issue their decision created and nor is it the EUs...
The UK has nothing to fix. We don't want a sea border or a land border, so we say we will not operate either.
If the EU reciprocate, problem solved. If they don't, they need to come up with a fix.
What is there for us to fix?
So the UK has created a problem in Northern Ireland - why should the EU fix it?
Because it doesn't matter who created the problem. If they want it fixing, they need to fix it. That's realpolitik.
If we simply say "oh well, no border anywhere, life goes on" and diverge and do our own thing then what are they going to do about it? If nothing because its not their problem, then its not ours either. If they do something then they're acknowledging they need to be part of the solution.
The EU doesn't want to fix it - it's not in their interest to.
Going back to if this was a former customer of mine, I would be sitting back and watching the disaster unfold. As that would ensure future companies would have an example to ensure they didn't make the same mistake (yes it's cruel but there are only so many hours in a week).
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
Whenever I think that no-one (except Corbyn) could be worse than Boris Johnson as our PM, I see the simplistic shite that you spout and feel a tiny bit grateful that Bozo is in charge and not you 😂
See I don't just say whatever Johnson says.
Johnson has been too soft on this issue. He needs to harden up.
I am sure his advisors will be monitoring this very site and he will take heed of your feedback 😂😂😂😂
Well I'm a voter and he appealed for my vote and got it last time by doing what I wanted.
Of course you didn't get what you wanted because you're a minority extremist 😜
Wow Scott has been on Twitter and found a load of moaning remainers - presumably his follow list - who don't like things the way they are. I wonder how many of them supported May's compromise deal which would have avoided these issues. I assume none as any action save ignoring the declared outcome was the default position for most. Acting like a creepy bloke hanging around his ex wife's house after a divorce refusing to accept reality.
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
Extraordinary cakeism!
Now everyone knew an ERG Brexit would have ramifications for the GFA.
Now, as a former Remainer I accept Richard Tyndall's argument that Brexit was all about the "sovereignty" and we would have to live with any collateral consequences. He accepts that for "sovereignty" to be regained bad things would happen and it was a price worth paying
Your (and Boris Johnson's) argument is an out and out lie. You claim we regained our mystical "sovereignty", and there are no consequences, only those imposed on a Sovereign England by foreigners interfering with England's sovereignty.
Of course its cakeism!
So is the EU's notion that they can have peace in NI and their definition of "integrity of the Single Market". That is cakeism and it has failed, its their problem to fix.
If we refuse to do any checks in Belfast then I accept our decisions may have consequences in our relations with them, that's up to them to impose if they choose to do so. If they choose to erect border posts along the Irish land border that's their choice, we can't stop them doing that if they choose to do so. I don't think they will though, do you?
In my job - I will tell people that their decision is likely to result in an issue and highlight how to avoid or mitigate the issue.
It is, however, not my job to fix an issue their decision created and nor is it the EUs...
The UK has nothing to fix. We don't want a sea border or a land border, so we say we will not operate either.
If the EU reciprocate, problem solved. If they don't, they need to come up with a fix.
What is there for us to fix?
So the UK has created a problem in Northern Ireland - why should the EU fix it?
This David Allen Green fella has obviously little grasp of UK politics these days. There's been unrest in Northern Ireland pretty much every year since the GFA. This isn't even on a par with the scenes in Bristol last week.
Yes, and the only people responsible are the ones who are rioting. Young men bored and probably unemployed after months of lockdown.
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
Extraordinary cakeism!
Now everyone knew an ERG Brexit would have ramifications for the GFA.
Now, as a former Remainer I accept Richard Tyndall's argument that Brexit was all about the "sovereignty" and we would have to live with any collateral consequences. He accepts that for "sovereignty" to be regained bad things would happen and it was a price worth paying
Your (and Boris Johnson's) argument is an out and out lie. You claim we regained our mystical "sovereignty", and there are no consequences, only those imposed on a Sovereign England by foreigners interfering with England's sovereignty.
Of course its cakeism!
So is the EU's notion that they can have peace in NI and their definition of "integrity of the Single Market". That is cakeism and it has failed, its their problem to fix.
If we refuse to do any checks in Belfast then I accept our decisions may have consequences in our relations with them, that's up to them to impose if they choose to do so. If they choose to erect border posts along the Irish land border that's their choice, we can't stop them doing that if they choose to do so. I don't think they will though, do you?
In my job - I will tell people that their decision is likely to result in an issue and highlight how to avoid or mitigate the issue.
It is, however, not my job to fix an issue their decision created and nor is it the EUs...
The UK has nothing to fix. We don't want a sea border or a land border, so we say we will not operate either.
If the EU reciprocate, problem solved. If they don't, they need to come up with a fix.
What is there for us to fix?
So the UK has created a problem in Northern Ireland - why should the EU fix it?
Because it doesn't matter who created the problem. If they want it fixing, they need to fix it. That's realpolitik.
If we simply say "oh well, no border anywhere, life goes on" and diverge and do our own thing then what are they going to do about it? If nothing because its not their problem, then its not ours either. If they do something then they're acknowledging they need to be part of the solution.
The EU doesn't want to fix it - it's not in their interest to.
Going back to if this was a former customer of mine, I would be sitting back and watching the disaster unfold. As that would ensure future companies would have an example to ensure they didn't make the same mistake (yes it's cruel but there are only so many hours in a week).
Fine so we abolish border checks in Belfast, nobody fixes anything and life goes on.
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
Extraordinary cakeism!
Now everyone knew an ERG Brexit would have ramifications for the GFA.
Now, as a former Remainer I accept Richard Tyndall's argument that Brexit was all about the "sovereignty" and we would have to live with any collateral consequences. He accepts that for "sovereignty" to be regained bad things would happen and it was a price worth paying
Your (and Boris Johnson's) argument is an out and out lie. You claim we regained our mystical "sovereignty", and there are no consequences, only those imposed on a Sovereign England by foreigners interfering with England's sovereignty.
Of course its cakeism!
So is the EU's notion that they can have peace in NI and their definition of "integrity of the Single Market". That is cakeism and it has failed, its their problem to fix.
If we refuse to do any checks in Belfast then I accept our decisions may have consequences in our relations with them, that's up to them to impose if they choose to do so. If they choose to erect border posts along the Irish land border that's their choice, we can't stop them doing that if they choose to do so. I don't think they will though, do you?
In my job - I will tell people that their decision is likely to result in an issue and highlight how to avoid or mitigate the issue.
It is, however, not my job to fix an issue their decision created and nor is it the EUs...
The UK has nothing to fix. We don't want a sea border or a land border, so we say we will not operate either.
If the EU reciprocate, problem solved. If they don't, they need to come up with a fix.
What is there for us to fix?
So the UK has created a problem in Northern Ireland - why should the EU fix it?
Because it doesn't matter who created the problem. If they want it fixing, they need to fix it. That's realpolitik.
If we simply say "oh well, no border anywhere, life goes on" and diverge and do our own thing then what are they going to do about it? If nothing because its not their problem, then its not ours either. If they do something then they're acknowledging they need to be part of the solution.
The EU doesn't want to fix it - it's not in their interest to.
Going back to if this was a former customer of mine, I would be sitting back and watching the disaster unfold. As that would ensure future companies would have an example to ensure they didn't make the same mistake (yes it's cruel but there are only so many hours in a week).
That could also be used to comment on the EU attitude to international vaccine contracts and their disregard for them
They will pay a price in future investment over their recent behaviour
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
Extraordinary cakeism!
Now everyone knew an ERG Brexit would have ramifications for the GFA.
Now, as a former Remainer I accept Richard Tyndall's argument that Brexit was all about the "sovereignty" and we would have to live with any collateral consequences. He accepts that for "sovereignty" to be regained bad things would happen and it was a price worth paying
Your (and Boris Johnson's) argument is an out and out lie. You claim we regained our mystical "sovereignty", and there are no consequences, only those imposed on a Sovereign England by foreigners interfering with England's sovereignty.
Of course its cakeism!
So is the EU's notion that they can have peace in NI and their definition of "integrity of the Single Market". That is cakeism and it has failed, its their problem to fix.
If we refuse to do any checks in Belfast then I accept our decisions may have consequences in our relations with them, that's up to them to impose if they choose to do so. If they choose to erect border posts along the Irish land border that's their choice, we can't stop them doing that if they choose to do so. I don't think they will though, do you?
In my job - I will tell people that their decision is likely to result in an issue and highlight how to avoid or mitigate the issue.
It is, however, not my job to fix an issue their decision created and nor is it the EUs...
The UK has nothing to fix. We don't want a sea border or a land border, so we say we will not operate either.
If the EU reciprocate, problem solved. If they don't, they need to come up with a fix.
What is there for us to fix?
So the UK has created a problem in Northern Ireland - why should the EU fix it?
Well for one the death threats by credible terrorist groups against an EU leader. However more broadly, no-one is suggesting that the EU fixes anything, indeed the best think it could do it continue not to care.
Exactly. We have created a problem and the EU are correctly going to leave us to fix it
The only problem the UK / Boris has is that he can't fix it without compromising on something that he won't / can't compromise on.
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
Extraordinary cakeism!
Now everyone knew an ERG Brexit would have ramifications for the GFA.
Now, as a former Remainer I accept Richard Tyndall's argument that Brexit was all about the "sovereignty" and we would have to live with any collateral consequences. He accepts that for "sovereignty" to be regained bad things would happen and it was a price worth paying
Your (and Boris Johnson's) argument is an out and out lie. You claim we regained our mystical "sovereignty", and there are no consequences, only those imposed on a Sovereign England by foreigners interfering with England's sovereignty.
Of course its cakeism!
So is the EU's notion that they can have peace in NI and their definition of "integrity of the Single Market". That is cakeism and it has failed, its their problem to fix.
If we refuse to do any checks in Belfast then I accept our decisions may have consequences in our relations with them, that's up to them to impose if they choose to do so. If they choose to erect border posts along the Irish land border that's their choice, we can't stop them doing that if they choose to do so. I don't think they will though, do you?
In my job - I will tell people that their decision is likely to result in an issue and highlight how to avoid or mitigate the issue.
It is, however, not my job to fix an issue their decision created and nor is it the EUs...
The UK has nothing to fix. We don't want a sea border or a land border, so we say we will not operate either.
If the EU reciprocate, problem solved. If they don't, they need to come up with a fix.
What is there for us to fix?
So the UK has created a problem in Northern Ireland - why should the EU fix it?
Because it doesn't matter who created the problem. If they want it fixing, they need to fix it. That's realpolitik.
If we simply say "oh well, no border anywhere, life goes on" and diverge and do our own thing then what are they going to do about it? If nothing because its not their problem, then its not ours either. If they do something then they're acknowledging they need to be part of the solution.
The EU doesn't want to fix it - it's not in their interest to.
Going back to if this was a former customer of mine, I would be sitting back and watching the disaster unfold. As that would ensure future companies would have an example to ensure they didn't make the same mistake (yes it's cruel but there are only so many hours in a week).
How many other EU nations have an issue like NI?
Anyway that demonstrates why the UK play needs to be to get rid of GB-NI checks, it forces the ball into the EU's court. Either they blow it all up (moving NI back into the UK's customs territory, with a hard border on Ireland), or accept a small fudge of e-borders between GB-NI and NI-RoI.
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
Extraordinary cakeism!
Now everyone knew an ERG Brexit would have ramifications for the GFA.
Now, as a former Remainer I accept Richard Tyndall's argument that Brexit was all about the "sovereignty" and we would have to live with any collateral consequences. He accepts that for "sovereignty" to be regained bad things would happen and it was a price worth paying
Your (and Boris Johnson's) argument is an out and out lie. You claim we regained our mystical "sovereignty", and there are no consequences, only those imposed on a Sovereign England by foreigners interfering with England's sovereignty.
Of course its cakeism!
So is the EU's notion that they can have peace in NI and their definition of "integrity of the Single Market". That is cakeism and it has failed, its their problem to fix.
If we refuse to do any checks in Belfast then I accept our decisions may have consequences in our relations with them, that's up to them to impose if they choose to do so. If they choose to erect border posts along the Irish land border that's their choice, we can't stop them doing that if they choose to do so. I don't think they will though, do you?
In my job - I will tell people that their decision is likely to result in an issue and highlight how to avoid or mitigate the issue.
It is, however, not my job to fix an issue their decision created and nor is it the EUs...
The UK has nothing to fix. We don't want a sea border or a land border, so we say we will not operate either.
If the EU reciprocate, problem solved. If they don't, they need to come up with a fix.
What is there for us to fix?
So the UK has created a problem in Northern Ireland - why should the EU fix it?
Well for one the death threats by credible terrorist groups against an EU leader. However more broadly, no-one is suggesting that the EU fixes anything, indeed the best think it could do it continue not to care.
Exactly. We have created a problem and the EU are correctly going to leave us to fix it
And let me guess, you'll also object if we fix it by abolishing/making virtual NI-GB checks?
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
Extraordinary cakeism!
Now everyone knew an ERG Brexit would have ramifications for the GFA.
Now, as a former Remainer I accept Richard Tyndall's argument that Brexit was all about the "sovereignty" and we would have to live with any collateral consequences. He accepts that for "sovereignty" to be regained bad things would happen and it was a price worth paying
Your (and Boris Johnson's) argument is an out and out lie. You claim we regained our mystical "sovereignty", and there are no consequences, only those imposed on a Sovereign England by foreigners interfering with England's sovereignty.
Of course its cakeism!
So is the EU's notion that they can have peace in NI and their definition of "integrity of the Single Market". That is cakeism and it has failed, its their problem to fix.
If we refuse to do any checks in Belfast then I accept our decisions may have consequences in our relations with them, that's up to them to impose if they choose to do so. If they choose to erect border posts along the Irish land border that's their choice, we can't stop them doing that if they choose to do so. I don't think they will though, do you?
In my job - I will tell people that their decision is likely to result in an issue and highlight how to avoid or mitigate the issue.
It is, however, not my job to fix an issue their decision created and nor is it the EUs...
The UK has nothing to fix. We don't want a sea border or a land border, so we say we will not operate either.
If the EU reciprocate, problem solved. If they don't, they need to come up with a fix.
What is there for us to fix?
So the UK has created a problem in Northern Ireland - why should the EU fix it?
Well for one the death threats by credible terrorist groups against an EU leader. However more broadly, no-one is suggesting that the EU fixes anything, indeed the best think it could do it continue not to care.
Exactly. We have created a problem and the EU are correctly going to leave us to fix it
The only problem the UK / Boris has is that he can't fix it without compromising on something that he won't / can't compromise on.
This David Allen Green fella has obviously little grasp of UK politics these days. There's been unrest in Northern Ireland pretty much every year since the GFA. This isn't even on a par with the scenes in Bristol last week.
As I said before this is more than the usual organised trouble to facilitate a desired insurance claim or three.
PB continues to be obsessed with Scotland, while the PM's lies come home to roost in Northern Ireland.
Varadkar and Coveney are the root cause of current Belfast theatre. The posh boys saw a sleeping dog and just kept poking it despite saner voices saying leave it.
No, it is Johnsons deal. We signed up to it, we need to keep our word.
I am surprised that so many PB Tories want to give in to rioters, when even a sit down protest in Bristol gets their goat.
As and englishman your prime concern for NI is how it impacts your anti Boris shtick. Fair does. But as an Irishman I can assure the Varadkar Coveney stupidities are what is driving the current street theatre, which is why both of them now need 24/7 armed protection. Nobody so far is threatening to shoot BoJo.
Boris Johnson has armed bodyguards for that very reason.
IIRC the only cabinet ministers who received armed bodyguards/protection is the Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, Defence Secretary, and the NI Secretary.
He's a PM and always has protection, but I m not aware of any NI paramilitaries recently issuing a death threat. Varadkar and Coveny
His warning someone might get killed, has a worried personal ring to it.
Want to know something funny somebody in the army told me a few years ago.
Since the mid 80s (ever since the Anglo-Irish Agreement) the Taoiseach's Gardaí security detail has been supplemented by ex British military personnel. There was only ever one caveat, no ex parachute regiment.
But nobody likes to talk about it, but it is one of the reasons why British troops parading in Dublin for Ian Malone's funeral in 2003 went so unremarked and without incident.
Are you sure about that? There are many capable Irish police & military personnel who could do that job.
It sounds like complete arse to me but there are plenty of 26 counties citizens who have served in the British military at some point...
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
Extraordinary cakeism!
Now everyone knew an ERG Brexit would have ramifications for the GFA.
Now, as a former Remainer I accept Richard Tyndall's argument that Brexit was all about the "sovereignty" and we would have to live with any collateral consequences. He accepts that for "sovereignty" to be regained bad things would happen and it was a price worth paying
Your (and Boris Johnson's) argument is an out and out lie. You claim we regained our mystical "sovereignty", and there are no consequences, only those imposed on a Sovereign England by foreigners interfering with England's sovereignty.
Of course its cakeism!
So is the EU's notion that they can have peace in NI and their definition of "integrity of the Single Market". That is cakeism and it has failed, its their problem to fix.
If we refuse to do any checks in Belfast then I accept our decisions may have consequences in our relations with them, that's up to them to impose if they choose to do so. If they choose to erect border posts along the Irish land border that's their choice, we can't stop them doing that if they choose to do so. I don't think they will though, do you?
In my job - I will tell people that their decision is likely to result in an issue and highlight how to avoid or mitigate the issue.
It is, however, not my job to fix an issue their decision created and nor is it the EUs...
The UK has nothing to fix. We don't want a sea border or a land border, so we say we will not operate either.
If the EU reciprocate, problem solved. If they don't, they need to come up with a fix.
What is there for us to fix?
So the UK has created a problem in Northern Ireland - why should the EU fix it?
Because it doesn't matter who created the problem. If they want it fixing, they need to fix it. That's realpolitik.
If we simply say "oh well, no border anywhere, life goes on" and diverge and do our own thing then what are they going to do about it? If nothing because its not their problem, then its not ours either. If they do something then they're acknowledging they need to be part of the solution.
The EU doesn't want to fix it - it's not in their interest to.
Going back to if this was a former customer of mine, I would be sitting back and watching the disaster unfold. As that would ensure future companies would have an example to ensure they didn't make the same mistake (yes it's cruel but there are only so many hours in a week).
How many other EU nations have an issue like NI?
Anyway that demonstrates why the UK play needs to be to get rid of GB-NI checks, it forces the ball into the EU's court. Either they blow it all up (moving NI back into the UK's customs territory, with a hard border on Ireland), or accept a small fudge of e-borders between GB-NI and NI-RoI.
Precisely!
This was always the end-game and Boris has played this game of chess brilliantly.
I'd rather not derail this thread on Ireland, which generates more heat than light.
And I'm certainly not an expert on trade.
But the vast bulk of trade can be managed through a trusted trader / self-decleration / spot-check system. And you can use intelligence led monitoring to cover the rest.
The free movement of people is already covered by the CTA.
And yet such an easy solution eludes us - because it isn't based in reality. The bulk of Irish trade is food. We need to completely align our SPS standards with the EU and do a deal to remove the checks. Our standards ARE completely aligned, but apparently we can't agree a deal because at some point in the future the EU may increase their standards just to spite us.
Even outside of food, there are naysayers on this forum including your good self decrying the idea of agreed alignment which is the basis for trusted trader / self-declaration systems.
There is plenty of relevance to Scotland though - England thinking that it can drag savage appendages like NI and Scotland around to do something stupid against their will. The big push towards another independence vote up here is largely thanks to Brexit (and the Boris corrupt organisation), and they are literally rioting in NI.
"Respect democracy" doesn't work when its imposed destruction.
We don't "need" to align our SPS with the EU.
It would be entirely possible to diverge with the EU but to recognise each others's SPS as "equivalent" and remove the need for checks etc . That may affect the "integrity" of the Single Market but so be it, we would be making the same compromise in return. That is a genuine compromise, not chaining one party to another like a slave.
Mate, you keep dancing on this same pinhead. If our standards are "equivalent" then it means they are close enough to the required standard. Which they are now. And will be in the future as we declare that standards will only ever be increased. So we could do this as you suggest, but it is declaring that our standards will different *but directly comparable* to EU ones. Which you won't accept.
We can't wildly diverge our standards and recognise an equivalence which isn't there.
Yes we can. We can recognise our standards as currently equivalent but not commit to alignment, with a dispute system if divergence occurs in the future.
No commitments then, and if divergence leads to issues in the future you cross that bridge when you get there. If it doesn't, there's no issue.
We can do whatever we want - the issue is so can the EU and because we won't agree to the EU's terms the EU are imposing the WTO rules they impose on imports from all third party countries.
Indeed.
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I don't think we have any checks on our side of the Irish sea. But how do you propose to remove the checks in Dublin or (for that matter) Belfast.
Belfast is part of the UK, it is on our side of the Irish sea. We simply stop doing any checks whatsoever in Belfast.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
Extraordinary cakeism!
Now everyone knew an ERG Brexit would have ramifications for the GFA.
Now, as a former Remainer I accept Richard Tyndall's argument that Brexit was all about the "sovereignty" and we would have to live with any collateral consequences. He accepts that for "sovereignty" to be regained bad things would happen and it was a price worth paying
Your (and Boris Johnson's) argument is an out and out lie. You claim we regained our mystical "sovereignty", and there are no consequences, only those imposed on a Sovereign England by foreigners interfering with England's sovereignty.
Of course its cakeism!
So is the EU's notion that they can have peace in NI and their definition of "integrity of the Single Market". That is cakeism and it has failed, its their problem to fix.
If we refuse to do any checks in Belfast then I accept our decisions may have consequences in our relations with them, that's up to them to impose if they choose to do so. If they choose to erect border posts along the Irish land border that's their choice, we can't stop them doing that if they choose to do so. I don't think they will though, do you?
In my job - I will tell people that their decision is likely to result in an issue and highlight how to avoid or mitigate the issue.
It is, however, not my job to fix an issue their decision created and nor is it the EUs...
The UK has nothing to fix. We don't want a sea border or a land border, so we say we will not operate either.
If the EU reciprocate, problem solved. If they don't, they need to come up with a fix.
What is there for us to fix?
So the UK has created a problem in Northern Ireland - why should the EU fix it?
Well for one the death threats by credible terrorist groups against an EU leader. However more broadly, no-one is suggesting that the EU fixes anything, indeed the best think it could do it continue not to care.
Exactly. We have created a problem and the EU are correctly going to leave us to fix it
The only problem the UK / Boris has is that he can't fix it without compromising on something that he won't / can't compromise on.
Cool. Abolish Belfast checks.
Then its fixed. Life goes on.
Glad we can be agreed. 👍
How do you do that then given that we are allowing the EU to do them? I await your solution.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-55690643
If RT's Tories and Abolish combined got over 50% and RT became FM with Abolish support they would arguably have a mandate to scrap the Senedd
So our choice is to remove all Irish Sea border checks and then let the EU come up with a solution. If they impose checks on the Irish land border that's their choice. If they don't, then the problem is solved - NI is in UK and NI has open border with the EU.
Either way we do nothing and let the EU act or blink.
I fully support the patriots of Antrim who wish to stay part of our UK and always will
Independence is mentioned often to change the topic of conversation from another screwup while (usually successfully) moving the blame for the actual issue from the SNP towards Westminster.
Boris decides as UK PM then, he would gladly agree to scrap the Senedd if most Welsh voters voted for that as he would have more power over Wales, he would not allow his power over Scotland to be lost though
Have a good morning. Enjoy the County Championship opening rounds.
FTFU.
As for me being "bizarrely favourable" I am just saying what I see. I am (or will be once the snow clears) campaigning for the LibDems so I have no truck for Nippie. But it is what it is. She will win a majority and the Tories are heading to lose seats.
8.5 million under 30s haven't received a vaccination yet. UK 30-18 (ONS 2019) is 10,161,904.
So 1.6 million 30-18 have already been vaccinated.
If the Republic wants to do checks in Dublin that's their prerogative, let them do that and own the consequences.
His parents gave up that fantastic life opportunity and moved him to Stockport/Manchester.
I suspect Martin has the ability to work this differently. He considers himself, as most politicians down south do, as an avowed nationalist but he has been involved from way back with things up here so knows the picture. Over the last few of years there has been the odd intervention of senior Fianna Fail figures who were involved in the political negotiations up back in the 90s & 2000s here warning the Varadkar led government that you had to bring unionism along.
They made those interventions because they saw Varadkar was being too arrogant about it.
The protocol is a problem less because of the principle which I suspect could have been got away with if it it didn't have such a visible impact. The practicalities of it have been absurd and the EU, London & Dublin should have caught themselves on . Get a bit pragmatic they could have dealt with it, but they didn't and now we are where we are.
What, however, has really tipped it over is the failure to sanction those people who turned up at Bobby Storeys funeral in about as blatant a break of Covid regulations as you could get. The inescapable conclusion is that they police didn't want to put up in court or fine (which would have been the logical move) the Sinn Fein Deputy First Minister & other Sinn Fein politicians because of exactly who they were. I know enough people in well informed positions who know they bottled it. And just as note every other major political party here apart from Sinn Fein was pissed off about it because they could see exactly what the implication was, impunity.
Then we reach the only sustainable outcome for NI - a largely free border with both the UK and RoI, with some smuggling happening. The key to reaching that is keeping the EU utterly disinterested, while the parties with skin in the game find a workable solution.
It has been the obvious and only solution all along.
Sadly some people are so far up the EU's backside that they actually convince themselves that the UK must align with the EU as a real solution, as opposed to this.
Johnson has been too soft on this issue. He needs to harden up.
Northern Ireland is closer to England politically than Scotland is certainly still, it had a bigger Leave vote than Scotland and the DUP and UUP combined get a higher voteshare in Northern Ireland than the Tories do in Scotland
If the EU come up with nothing then that is an alternative solution. There's no checks in the UK, none on the Irish Border, problem solved life goes on. This is their problem to fix, not ours.
Now everyone knew an ERG Brexit would have ramifications for the GFA.
Now, as a former Remainer I accept Richard Tyndall's argument that Brexit was all about the "sovereignty" and we would have to live with any collateral consequences. He accepts that for "sovereignty" to be regained bad things would happen and it was a price worth paying.
Your (and Boris Johnson's) argument is an out and out lie. You claim we regained our mystical "sovereignty", and there are no consequences, only those imposed on a Sovereign England by foreigners interfering with England's sovereignty.
I think she was not even appointed Lecturer when Owen was born.
That may well be unfair, but is the overwhelming impression I get from comments from political leaders in Northern Ireland, and if it is even half right it is no good suggesting it is simply their fault, since the people seem to be totally on board with it all. If they're not, why do they constantly let their leaders get away with it?
Because the usual refrain is just 'People don't understand Northern Ireland'. Well, the leaders there seem to like it that way.
Which part of that very simple fact are you wilfully ignoring?
He is not standing on a mandate for that and it seems only you can come up with a bizarre response that would see the end of all conservatives and their mps in Wales
You have an incredibly insane attitude to both Scotland and now Wales
My only consolation is that at least I have found a conservative even more stupid that Andrew RT Davies and that says it all
So is the EU's notion that they can have peace in NI and their definition of "integrity of the Single Market". That is cakeism and it has failed, its their problem to fix.
If we refuse to do any checks in Belfast then I accept our decisions may have consequences in our relations with them, that's up to them to impose if they choose to do so. If they choose to erect border posts along the Irish land border that's their choice, we can't stop them doing that if they choose to do so. I don't think they will though, do you?
In 1997 would an exception have been made by the WTO to support the peace process? Are we really saying the GFA would have been impossible without the EU?
1. QC report came out, exonerated Sturgeon.
2. Committee report came out, found Sturgeon guilty.
3. VONC.
What actually happened
1. Committee report leaks, and this stuff is all over the news.
2. SCONS must decide whether to VONC now when it's news, or VONC later when it has been superceded by the QC report which will no doubt exonerate Sturgeon.
They made the wrong decision. They should have poured cold water on the leak, criticised the SNP members (for their minority report stunt) said that we should wait for the final report. It wouldn't have been as impactful, but might still have worked. They were played - but their decision is understandable.
It is, however, not my job to fix an issue their decision created and nor is it the EUs...
Economist in blame anyone but the EU shock
The WTO recognises NI as part of the UK's customs territory. You're wrong.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/senedd-election-2021-conservatives-abolish-20250676
The only place that EU separation meets reality is between NI and Ireland.
Remember RochdalePioneer does this for a living - your job appears to be posting rubbish on here 24/7.
Parental background and encouragement is usually much more important than schooling.
[EDIT: She was a lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University when Owen was born.]
If the EU reciprocate, problem solved. If they don't, they need to come up with a fix.
What is there for us to fix?
And a bus
The electorate had no say, oh woe Britannia
"Northern Ireland will instead remain a part of the UK's customs territory"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50079385
De jure NI is part of the UK. If we "fix" the Protocol as per Article 16, then that's the end of the matter, since Belfast is ours not Europe's. We're in charge, they'll need to come to us with a fix if they're desperate for this to be implemented.
That's not to say Boris Johnson isn't a complete idiot. But any new agreement requires the UK and EU to actually negotiate.
If we simply say "oh well, no border anywhere, life goes on" and diverge and do our own thing then what are they going to do about it? If nothing because its not their problem, then its not ours either. If they do something then they're acknowledging they need to be part of the solution.
Going back to if this was a former customer of mine, I would be sitting back and watching the disaster unfold. As that would ensure future companies would have an example to ensure they didn't make the same mistake (yes it's cruel but there are only so many hours in a week).
Of course you didn't get what you wanted because you're a minority extremist 😜
What's the problem?
They will pay a price in future investment over their recent behaviour
BoZo was told this would happen
He went ahead anyway.
Now his fanbois cannot, will not, accept the reality he has wrought...
The only problem the UK / Boris has is that he can't fix it without compromising on something that he won't / can't compromise on.
Anyway that demonstrates why the UK play needs to be to get rid of GB-NI checks, it forces the ball into the EU's court. Either they blow it all up (moving NI back into the UK's customs territory, with a hard border on Ireland), or accept a small fudge of e-borders between GB-NI and NI-RoI.
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1379783518478290945?s=20
Then its fixed. Life goes on.
Glad we can be agreed. 👍
This was always the end-game and Boris has played this game of chess brilliantly.