Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The sex cases’ by-elections are to be held on June 23rd – politicalbetting.com

13567

Comments

  • mr-claypolemr-claypole Posts: 215
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Can we place an administrative border round HY's house? Would make life a lot easier for the rest of us.

    "Just redraw the boundaries"

    On his logic, we could take it seriously only if he started a terrorist campaign. Or am I misynderstanding it?
    He is waging a terrorist war against fact. And logic. And rational argument.

    BUILD THE WALL
    Northern Ireland was only created in the first place as Carson had gathered 100,000 armed Protestant volunteers threatening civil war in Ireland if it wasn't.
    Carson was a Dubliner who said "I was only a puppet, and so was Ulster, and so was Ireland, in the political game that was to get the Conservative Party into power."
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,642

    TOPPING said:

    Which is precisely why we need to use every bit of 'the rules' that suits our interests in a maximalist way to force them to compromise.

    That means using legislation in the Commons, Article 16 or any other tools at our disposal to give them no choice but to co-operate.

    Because the notion of "compromise" or "trust" otherwise is for the fairies or the naive.

    It was trumpeted by the UK Govt as being a fantastic deal. My concern is not with pragmatism in amending a deal but with the sheer idiocy of agreeing one, each element of which (checks on intra-UK ham sandwiches, for example) small children in Hartlepool could have explained to you, and then less than 18 months later saying that precisely those parts of the deal which were agreed are all of a sudden intolerable.

    It is the sheer imbecility of Boris and his govt who so transparently agreed something on the spur of the moment, and either did not understand or did but were dishonest about the effects of it and now we are where we are.

    You applaud them reneging on a deal they agreed months ago; I think it a sign of incompetence and/or disingenuousness.
    Utter bullshit, bollocks and codswallop.

    A deal was needed to get Brexit done and get us out of the Article 50 quagmire, that's been achieved. Now its time for the deal to be renegotiated. That was the plan all along. It was always said that the Irish issue could be revisited once we had a trade deal, so to revisit it now is the system working as designed its not a failure.
    As I say you applaud it all. Agree a deal and then, precisely because of the terms of the deal you have just agreed, decide you want to renege on the deal.

    In your world that is a good way to run the country. No point me arguing with that.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,854

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Can we place an administrative border round HY's house? Would make life a lot easier for the rest of us.

    "Just redraw the boundaries"

    On his logic, we could take it seriously only if he started a terrorist campaign. Or am I misynderstanding it?
    He is waging a terrorist war against fact. And logic. And rational argument.

    BUILD THE WALL
    Northern Ireland was only created in the first place as Carson had gathered 100,000 armed Protestant volunteers threatening civil war in Ireland if it wasn't.
    Carson was a Dubliner who said "I was only a puppet, and so was Ulster, and so was Ireland, in the political game that was to get the Conservative Party into power."
    Which is all that HYUFD cares about, so the circle is squared.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,493
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/20144208.stirling-council-labour-strikes-grubby-deal-tories-lock-snp/

    Labour-Tory deal in Stirling Council. Not a formal alliance, but not exactly the impression Mr Sarwar gave before the election of no coalitions with other parties.

    However, in the wider scope of things suich deals are unremarkable - except, as noted above, in Mr Sarwar's overt opposotion.

    Labour and the Tories are both Unionist parties, it makes sense they would work together if they can keep out the Nationalist SNP
    You keep telling us Labour is a socialist party, though ...
    It was under Corbyn under Starmer social democrat like the SNP but Unionist like the Tories but unlike the SNP
    You said the other day Liverpool is socialist cos it has Labour MPs right now. You can't change your mind just like that *snaps fingers* and expect to ibe treated as a serious and rigorous discutant.
    Yes Liverpool is socialist as every MP it elected in 2019 was Labour when Labour was a socialist party under Corbyn.

    Corbyn has now been replaced as Labour leader by the social democrat Labour leader Starmer but that does not change the fact Liverpool is a socialist city at all as it voted for Corbyn unlike the UK
    It had a LibDem council for the 12 years to 2010. You don't elect LibDems year after year in preference over Liverpool's trot-leaning brand of Labourite if you are socialists.

    I know you keep posting "Liverpool is the most socialist city". But as it is patently not true you just make yourself look even more buffoonish every time. I know that is a badge of honour in Bonzo the Clown's Tory Party but even so, have some dignity man.
    And as I told you on Sunday the only reason it had a LD council in the New Labour years was because Charles Kennedy positioned the LDs to the left of New Labour. It did not go Tory in the Blair years, it went to the LDs who were then to the left of Labour.

    Throughout most of the 1980s and early 1990s Liverpool elected Trotskyite Labour councils, even with Derek Hatton as Deputy Leader who was too leftwing even for Kinnock as it is a socialist city. The fact it has elected Labour controlled councils again ever since Blair left as Labour leader and PM only confirms that.
    What you told me was bollocks. Laughable, pitiful bollocks.

    Do you know what a socialist is? They do not vote LibDem for 12 years. Regardless of who the Labour party leader is. Seriously, you do make an utter tit of yourself.
    Blair was not a socialist and right of Charles Kennedy, Liverpool rejected Blair not Labour hence it had Labour councils before Blair and once Blair left as PM and Labour leader
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/20144208.stirling-council-labour-strikes-grubby-deal-tories-lock-snp/

    Labour-Tory deal in Stirling Council. Not a formal alliance, but not exactly the impression Mr Sarwar gave before the election of no coalitions with other parties.

    However, in the wider scope of things suich deals are unremarkable - except, as noted above, in Mr Sarwar's overt opposotion.

    Labour and the Tories are both Unionist parties, it makes sense they would work together if they can keep out the Nationalist SNP
    You keep telling us Labour is a socialist party, though ...
    It was under Corbyn under Starmer social democrat like the SNP but Unionist like the Tories but unlike the SNP
    You said the other day Liverpool is socialist cos it has Labour MPs right now. You can't change your mind just like that *snaps fingers* and expect to ibe treated as a serious and rigorous discutant.
    Yes Liverpool is socialist as every MP it elected in 2019 was Labour when Labour was a socialist party under Corbyn.

    Corbyn has now been replaced as Labour leader by the social democrat Labour leader Starmer but that does not change the fact Liverpool is a socialist city at all as it voted for Corbyn unlike the UK
    It had a LibDem council for the 12 years to 2010. You don't elect LibDems year after year in preference over Liverpool's trot-leaning brand of Labourite if you are socialists.

    I know you keep posting "Liverpool is the most socialist city". But as it is patently not true you just make yourself look even more buffoonish every time. I know that is a badge of honour in Bonzo the Clown's Tory Party but even so, have some dignity man.
    And as I told you on Sunday the only reason it had a LD council in the New Labour years was because Charles Kennedy positioned the LDs to the left of New Labour. It did not go Tory in the Blair years, it went to the LDs who were then to the left of Labour.

    Throughout most of the 1980s and early 1990s Liverpool elected Trotskyite Labour councils, even with Derek Hatton as Deputy Leader who was too leftwing even for Kinnock as it is a socialist city. The fact it has elected Labour controlled councils again ever since Blair left as Labour leader and PM only confirms that.
    What you told me was bollocks. Laughable, pitiful bollocks.

    Do you know what a socialist is? They do not vote LibDem for 12 years. Regardless of who the Labour party leader is. Seriously, you do make an utter tit of yourself.
    Blair was not a socialist and right of Charles Kennedy, Liverpool rejected Blair not Labour hence it had Labour councils before Blair and once Blair left as PM and Labour leader
    So when the LDs campaigned against Labour in Liverpool portraying them as being left wing how did that work if you are right and the LDs were more left wing? You do talk nonsense. How you think it appropriate to actually argue with people who were actually involved when you even admit you have no background in it whatsoever baffles me.
    It has got nothing to do with background. Liverpool elected a Trotskyite Labour Council for many years, including under Deputy Leader Derek Hatton and elected 100% Labour MPs when Corbyn was Labour leader in 2017 and 2019 as it is a socialist city.

    The only reason it voted LD locally was because Blair was too right-wing for Liverpool
    62% of Liverpool voted Liberal (33%) or Tory (29%) in 1980. Indeed the two parties regularly polled above 50% combined in the 1980s. Liverpool voted 60% Tory in 1969. Lib Dems drew level with Labour in 1994 after being pretty close for a long while - and that was with John Smith as Labour leader, not Blair.

    How does this all fit with your narrative of a fundamentally Trotskyite Liverpool that only departs from them to steer them back to the far left?

    I'm afraid you're talking total balls and repeating it ad infinitum just makes you look silly.
    The Tories often elected MPs in Liverpool in much of the pre 1980s period last century. Liverpool was at one stage quite a wealthy trading port.

    I never said Liverpool was always a socialist city, however it certainly is a socialist city now and has been since the mid 1980s
    Panem Now. Panem Forever.

    I think those armed protestant terrorists you are so enamoured with have taken our brain hostage.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,296
    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    AS

    Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    Despite the endless commentary on here, I strongly suspect that the typical mainland voter is disengaged from the battle over the NI protocol, and it won't swing more than a handful of votes whatever happens.

    Unless serious violence breaks out in NI. Then there would be a concerted attempt by the government to blame the EU. However, I'm not convinced that would work. People may be more inclined to blame the government whose doorstep the violence erupts on.

    Yes, agreed. Northern Ireland is a distant country of which we know little, I'm afraid. Arguments over its future will be seen by Leavers as proof the untrustworthiness of the EU and by Remainers as proof of the awfulness of Boris, but if the province were to secede and join the ROI or just quietly go away the vast majority on the mainland would neither notice nor care.
    The Scots would notice, for sure.
    I wonder in the event of a united Ireland if the loyalists would become more virulently enthusiastic about displaying their ‘kultur’?

    Horrid thought, they may pop over even more frequently to Scotland for such displays. Worse, they may just cut their losses and move here. I think Arlene has said as much.

    No, there won't be a united Ireland
    As you repeatedly tell us that the monarchy will last another 1000 years then I will use the same argument back at you.

    Of course there will be a united Ireland. One day.
    There won't, you cannot force loyalist Protestant areas of Northern Ireland like Antrim and Lagan Valley and East Londonderry into the Republic of Ireland against their will without loyalist paramilitary terrorism in Ireland and a return to the Troubles.

    It would be no different to the IRA terrorist violence in Northern Ireland and GB when Roman Catholic areas of Northern Ireland faced direct rule from London
    As someone who went to school in NI a few years before the Troubles, I tend to agree. This is something that was foreseeable and foreseen during the referendum. In fact something I posted about at the time.
    However, attitudes change and maybe if Eire pulls ahead of the UK economically by remaining in the EU the younger Prods may see advantages in a united Ireland.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,177

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Can we place an administrative border round HY's house? Would make life a lot easier for the rest of us.

    "Just redraw the boundaries"

    On his logic, we could take it seriously only if he started a terrorist campaign. Or am I misynderstanding it?
    He is waging a terrorist war against fact. And logic. And rational argument.

    BUILD THE WALL
    Northern Ireland was only created in the first place as Carson had gathered 100,000 armed Protestant volunteers threatening civil war in Ireland if it wasn't.
    Carson was a Dubliner who said "I was only a puppet, and so was Ulster, and so was Ireland, in the political game that was to get the Conservative Party into power."
    Yes; I think he rather regretted some of his actions in later life.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,913

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Can we place an administrative border round HY's house? Would make life a lot easier for the rest of us.

    "Just redraw the boundaries"

    On his logic, we could take it seriously only if he started a terrorist campaign. Or am I misynderstanding it?
    He is waging a terrorist war against fact. And logic. And rational argument.

    BUILD THE WALL
    Northern Ireland was only created in the first place as Carson had gathered 100,000 armed Protestant volunteers threatening civil war in Ireland if it wasn't.
    Feelings ran very high.
    I used to know a man who claimed that his father had signed the Ulster Covenant in his own blood.
    That was actually channelling the two Scottish Covenants of the C17, of course. Ironically against the Stuart dynasty's imposition of the C of E model and divine right theory.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,854
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Which is precisely why we need to use every bit of 'the rules' that suits our interests in a maximalist way to force them to compromise.

    That means using legislation in the Commons, Article 16 or any other tools at our disposal to give them no choice but to co-operate.

    Because the notion of "compromise" or "trust" otherwise is for the fairies or the naive.

    It was trumpeted by the UK Govt as being a fantastic deal. My concern is not with pragmatism in amending a deal but with the sheer idiocy of agreeing one, each element of which (checks on intra-UK ham sandwiches, for example) small children in Hartlepool could have explained to you, and then less than 18 months later saying that precisely those parts of the deal which were agreed are all of a sudden intolerable.

    It is the sheer imbecility of Boris and his govt who so transparently agreed something on the spur of the moment, and either did not understand or did but were dishonest about the effects of it and now we are where we are.

    You applaud them reneging on a deal they agreed months ago; I think it a sign of incompetence and/or disingenuousness.
    Utter bullshit, bollocks and codswallop.

    A deal was needed to get Brexit done and get us out of the Article 50 quagmire, that's been achieved. Now its time for the deal to be renegotiated. That was the plan all along. It was always said that the Irish issue could be revisited once we had a trade deal, so to revisit it now is the system working as designed its not a failure.
    As I say you applaud it all. Agree a deal and then, precisely because of the terms of the deal you have just agreed, decide you want to renege on the deal.

    In your world that is a good way to run the country. No point me arguing with that.
    Who said anything about reneging on it? Not me. I have repeatedly said we should invoke Article 16 of the deal which is quite literally a part of the deal and operate unilaterally within its confines, until a new deal can be agreed as per Article 15 of the deal.

    That is completely acting within the rules of the deal, it isn't going against it.

    The deal was always meant to be temporary and evolved over time and subject to safeguarding, that is why Articles 15 and 16 were agreed. Using them isn't problematic or dishonest or a bad way to run a country, it is a perfectly good way to run a country.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508
    I have written tomorrows front pages, the journalists might as well knock off and have a BBQ now 🙂

    Daily Mail
    After Truss fires first shots in the Great Patriotic War:
    “EU says it will respond 'with all measures at its disposal”
    There was EU and Remainer anger yesterday as UK Govt used perfectly legal mechanisms as defined within the Northern Ireland Protocol to unilaterally change parts of the Brexit agreement with the EU. In a cool and persuasive Commons address to delighted Tory Benches, Foreign Secretary Liz Truss brought sanity back to Northern Ireland - Mainland UK trade at last, declaring UK “are fully entitled to do so as the agreement states, it's not fixed in stone and can be amended, this action is strictly lawful.”
    A senior cabinet source told The Mail “Boris knows this is one battle with the EU Britain cannot afford to lose, and is working extremely hard behind the scenes to secure victory for the UK.”
    inside ‘Big Dog makes EU Sweat and Squirm” pages 4-12.

    And The Sun.
    UKs EU FO OVER MAYS REMAINER NIP.

    The Express
    WE WILL FIGHT & WIN TO MAKE UK WHOLE AGAIN, VOWS ATOMIC KITTEN BORIS

    The Star
    16 HEATWAVES IN FIRST 14 DAYS OF FLAMING JUNE.
    Cor Blimey as UK hotter than a phaal down the Old Kent Road.

    The i
    Keir Starmer was facing mounting pressure last night with Labour activists furious over his “remainer pick” for Red Wall Wakefield. Labour now faces a strong Labour Left challenge in the marginal Tory held seat.


    PS anyone else noticing the i owners and editorial team moving the paper week by week away from Labour and towards the Tories?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Can we place an administrative border round HY's house? Would make life a lot easier for the rest of us.

    "Just redraw the boundaries"

    On his logic, we could take it seriously only if he started a terrorist campaign. Or am I misynderstanding it?
    He is waging a terrorist war against fact. And logic. And rational argument.

    BUILD THE WALL
    Northern Ireland was only created in the first place as Carson had gathered 100,000 armed Protestant volunteers threatening civil war in Ireland if it wasn't.
    Carson was a Dubliner who said "I was only a puppet, and so was Ulster, and so was Ireland, in the political game that was to get the Conservative Party into power."
    It was Lloyd George, a Liberal PM not a Tory, who created Northern Ireland rather than force it into the new Irish Free State against its will with the resultant Protestant violence and civil war in the North
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,147

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Truss just explicitly said in the Commons that the Protocol was never intended to be set in stone.

    Nor should it be. Evolution works. The Protocol in its 15th Article says how the Protocol can be changed by negotiations and in its 16th provides Safeguards to overwrite parts too. Both are entirely appropriate to use.

    Its quite amusing to me how many people who deny my notion that post-Brexit Britain can be more nimble and less sclerotic are being horrified at post-Brexit Britain being nimble and not sclerotic.

    It's the dishonesty and lack of trustworthiness that are the problem.
    Dishonesty is putting up sanctions on Russia and then creating financial mechanisms to break them. The idea that the EU is some virtuous and completely honest organisation is completely ridiculous.
    Siri, provide me with a textbook example of whataboutery.
    But you want the UK to trust an inherently untrustworthy organisation. They have proven they are willing to stab Ukraine in the back so Germany can keep selling dishwashers. The evidence is clear that the EU can't be trusted and neither can we.

    All along I've said that the UK-EU relationship needs to be a tightly defined set of rules. Trust, doing the other one a favour, or expecting a favour from either party is not going to happen, they are not an informal ally who we can rely on to help us when we need it. This isn't New Zealand and Canada loaning up a few hundred trade negotiators in 2017 and 2018, the EU is ultimately a formal ally with whom we have a trade deal and not a lot else.

    Everyone needs to see our relationship with the EU through this lens and give up on the fanciful idea that if we do them a favour they might respond in kind. It's not going to happen.
    The EU aren't the ones about to tear up an agreement they signed up to just three years ago. Whether the EU is a paragon of virtue or the epitome of evil (a question on which I have ventured no opinion) is irrelevant to the issue of whether the UK should be in the business of signing international treaties with its fingers crossed behind its back. It's a bad look for us and damaging to our ability to operate effectively in international affairs.
    No, they're just tearing up the sanctions they agreed on Russia a few weeks ago. So maybe neither country is to be trusted.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Can we place an administrative border round HY's house? Would make life a lot easier for the rest of us.

    "Just redraw the boundaries"

    On his logic, we could take it seriously only if he started a terrorist campaign. Or am I misynderstanding it?
    He is waging a terrorist war against fact. And logic. And rational argument.

    BUILD THE WALL
    Northern Ireland was only created in the first place as Carson had gathered 100,000 armed Protestant volunteers threatening civil war in Ireland if it wasn't.
    Feelings ran very high.
    I used to know a man who claimed that his father had signed the Ulster Covenant in his own blood.
    Wiki is sceptical of that theory (assuming it's the same signature in question): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Covenant#Signed-in-blood_dispute
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,913

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    AS

    Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    Despite the endless commentary on here, I strongly suspect that the typical mainland voter is disengaged from the battle over the NI protocol, and it won't swing more than a handful of votes whatever happens.

    Unless serious violence breaks out in NI. Then there would be a concerted attempt by the government to blame the EU. However, I'm not convinced that would work. People may be more inclined to blame the government whose doorstep the violence erupts on.

    Yes, agreed. Northern Ireland is a distant country of which we know little, I'm afraid. Arguments over its future will be seen by Leavers as proof the untrustworthiness of the EU and by Remainers as proof of the awfulness of Boris, but if the province were to secede and join the ROI or just quietly go away the vast majority on the mainland would neither notice nor care.
    The Scots would notice, for sure.
    I wonder in the event of a united Ireland if the loyalists would become more virulently enthusiastic about displaying their ‘kultur’?

    Horrid thought, they may pop over even more frequently to Scotland for such displays. Worse, they may just cut their losses and move here. I think Arlene has said as much.

    No, there won't be a united Ireland
    As you repeatedly tell us that the monarchy will last another 1000 years then I will use the same argument back at you.

    Of course there will be a united Ireland. One day.
    There won't, you cannot force loyalist Protestant areas of Northern Ireland like Antrim and Lagan Valley and East Londonderry into the Republic of Ireland against their will without loyalist paramilitary terrorism in Ireland and a return to the Troubles.

    It would be no different to the IRA terrorist violence in Northern Ireland and GB when Roman Catholic areas of Northern Ireland faced direct rule from London
    You're not altogether 'up' on NI are you?

    If you left the province alone for 100 years, let alone 1000, the RC's will have an overwhelming majority.
    So what, the loyalist Protestant areas of Antrim, East Londonderry and Lagan Valley would still have Protestant and Unionist majorities even if the rest of Northern Ireland didn't in 100 years.

    The loyalist paramilitaries, led by the UVF, would then pursue a terrorist campaign across Ireland if forced into the Republic against their will
    The 'loyalists' agreed to letting any possible future reunification to be agreed democratically.

    If they went back on that, they'd find themselves absolutely friendless. England would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland if that's what they democratically choose and nobody would be funnelling weaponry or money to any murderous terrorists who'd deserve to be arrested and imprisoned if they chose to do something so utterly futile.
    No they didn't. The UUP did when they were largest Unionist party and backed the GFA. The DUP opposed the GFA in 1998 as did the UVF.

    The UVF are already threatening terrorist attacks on Irish leaders in the Republic until the Sea border is removed let alone if forced into a united Ireland against their will.

    https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/uvf-is-actively-planning-to-target-more-irish-politicians-41492302.html

    As a British Tory I would certainly support keeping loyalist areas of Northern Ireland in the UK if they wish to remain so, even if I would not support a terrorist campaign
    You aren't a British Tory - just an English one. In Wales you are a Plaid Cymru voting nationalist.

    Anyway, the problem with your "Panem Now, Panem Forever" approach is that the "loyalist areas" are shrinking. Was the 6 counties a century ago, now pockets inside those counties. You can't administer odd towns, or parts of towns. Unionism is dying out - literally. If the DUP weren't so pious they should be launching a "Shag for Britain" campaign to out-breed the catholics.

    Its their only chance.
    In Antrim and Lagan Valley etc Protestants comfortably still outnumber Roman Catholics
    And how do you make these pockets of loyalists into a working administrative area?

    It doesn't matter if Antrim and Lagan Valley want to stay in the Union if they are outvoted by the people not in Antrim and Lagan Valley.
    Yes it does, you can keep them in the UK and send the rest off Northern Ireland to the Republic. Just redraw the boundaries.

    Northern Ireland was created 100 years ago after the threat of loyalist violence from the Ulster Volunteer Force if they were forced into the new Irish Free State after the Irish War of Independence and the Sinn Fein win in the rest of Ireland in the 1918 general election.

    Little has changed on that point a century later
    'send the rest off NI to the republic'. I hope you aren't talkiing about ethnic cleansing.
    Of course the GFA ceded the future of NI to the people of Ireland. It became part of the constitution of two countries - the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Amongst other things it led to the revocation of the government of Ireland act. The agreement reached was that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, and would remain so until a majority of the people both of Northern Ireland and of the Republic of Ireland wished otherwise. Should that happen, then the British and Irish governments are under "a binding obligation" to implement that choice. So no option to declare Ballymena independent- not just by internal law but by international treaty which was guaranteed by the US. The GFA remains a rare consensus point in US politics. No winding the clock back on that one.
    That's very interesting. It would give 'pandering to terrorism' a whole new implication.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Can we place an administrative border round HY's house? Would make life a lot easier for the rest of us.

    "Just redraw the boundaries"

    On his logic, we could take it seriously only if he started a terrorist campaign. Or am I misynderstanding it?
    He is waging a terrorist war against fact. And logic. And rational argument.

    BUILD THE WALL
    Northern Ireland was only created in the first place as Carson had gathered 100,000 armed Protestant volunteers threatening civil war in Ireland if it wasn't.
    Feelings ran very high.
    I used to know a man who claimed that his father had signed the Ulster Covenant in his own blood.
    That was actually channelling the two Scottish Covenants of the C17, of course. Ironically against the Stuart dynasty's imposition of the C of E model and divine right theory.
    The DUP are Presbyterian still, most Northern Irish Anglicans vote UUP
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,437
    Oregon Primary - Election-day postmarks count for Tuesday’s primary [via Portland Tribune]
    [OR] Secretary of state says voters should be aware of mail pickup times as Oregon shifts deadline for ballots

    Secretary of State Shemia Fagan says voters should keep Oregon’s new postmark-deadline law in mind when they return their mail ballots for Tuesday’s primary election.

    The election is Oregon’s first statewide in which ballots postmarked by election day will count, if county elections offices receive them no later than seven days after the election (on May 24). The change was made by the 2021 Legislature, which sought to eliminate confusion about when voters should mail ballots. Under previous law, ballots had to be in the hands of county elections officials — including official drop boxes — by 8 p.m. on election day. . . .

    Oregon has had a closed primary for more than a century. Only registered Democratic voters can nominate Democratic candidates, and only Republican voters can choose Republican candidates. The major parties can allow nonaffiliated voters to participate under a 1989 law, but neither party did so for this primary.

    All voters, including those not affiliated with any party, can decide on nonpartisan offices such as the state Bureau of Labor and Industries commissioner, judgeships and city and some county offices, plus ballot measures. There are no statewide ballot measures in Tuesday’s election.

    According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Oregon’s move to election-day postmarks aligns it with Washington, California, Nevada and 14 other states, plus Washington, D.C. Oregon and California share a seven-day deadline after the election for ballots to be received; Nevada sets four days; Washington has no specified deadline.

    The secretary of state is the chief elections officer, but officials in Oregon’s 36 counties conduct the actual elections. In addition to county elections offices, most counties have multiple locations for drop boxes; ballots are due by 8 p.m. Tuesday. . . .

    SSI - story goes on to document low ballot return rates (compared to previous elections) as of last week, however there's been a late surge so turnout may actually exceed recent levels for gubernatorial elections. In this context, note that Democratic incument Gov. Kate Brown is term-limited, thus it's open-seat race to replace her. That plus other contested races, including for new 6th congessional district seat, will have slowed down many voters who wanted to do basic research (such as reading state voter's pamphlet) before marking & returning their ballots.

    https://www.koin.com/news/politics/election-day-postmarks-count-for-tuesdays-primary/
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,472
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    AS

    Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    Despite the endless commentary on here, I strongly suspect that the typical mainland voter is disengaged from the battle over the NI protocol, and it won't swing more than a handful of votes whatever happens.

    Unless serious violence breaks out in NI. Then there would be a concerted attempt by the government to blame the EU. However, I'm not convinced that would work. People may be more inclined to blame the government whose doorstep the violence erupts on.

    Yes, agreed. Northern Ireland is a distant country of which we know little, I'm afraid. Arguments over its future will be seen by Leavers as proof the untrustworthiness of the EU and by Remainers as proof of the awfulness of Boris, but if the province were to secede and join the ROI or just quietly go away the vast majority on the mainland would neither notice nor care.
    The Scots would notice, for sure.
    I wonder in the event of a united Ireland if the loyalists would become more virulently enthusiastic about displaying their ‘kultur’?

    Horrid thought, they may pop over even more frequently to Scotland for such displays. Worse, they may just cut their losses and move here. I think Arlene has said as much.

    No, there won't be a united Ireland
    As you repeatedly tell us that the monarchy will last another 1000 years then I will use the same argument back at you.

    Of course there will be a united Ireland. One day.
    There won't, you cannot force loyalist Protestant areas of Northern Ireland like Antrim and Lagan Valley and East Londonderry into the Republic of Ireland against their will without loyalist paramilitary terrorism in Ireland and a return to the Troubles.

    It would be no different to the IRA terrorist violence in Northern Ireland and GB when Roman Catholic areas of Northern Ireland faced direct rule from London
    You're not altogether 'up' on NI are you?

    If you left the province alone for 100 years, let alone 1000, the RC's will have an overwhelming majority.
    So what, the loyalist Protestant areas of Antrim, East Londonderry and Lagan Valley would still have Protestant and Unionist majorities even if the rest of Northern Ireland didn't in 100 years.

    The loyalist paramilitaries, led by the UVF, would then pursue a terrorist campaign across Ireland if forced into the Republic against their will
    The 'loyalists' agreed to letting any possible future reunification to be agreed democratically.

    If they went back on that, they'd find themselves absolutely friendless. England would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland if that's what they democratically choose and nobody would be funnelling weaponry or money to any murderous terrorists who'd deserve to be arrested and imprisoned if they chose to do something so utterly futile.
    No they didn't. The UUP did when they were largest Unionist party and backed the GFA. The DUP opposed the GFA in 1998 and are now largest Unionist party.

    The UVF are already threatening terrorist attacks on Irish leaders in the Republic until the Sea border is removed let alone if forced into a united Ireland against their will.

    https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/uvf-is-actively-planning-to-target-more-irish-politicians-41492302.html

    As a British Tory I would certainly support keeping loyalist areas of Northern Ireland in the UK if they wish to remain so, even if I would not support a terrorist campaign
    As a Tory you should be aware that the Windsors are up to something in Ireland.

    The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall have been on three multi-day trips to Ireland in recent years: June 2018, May 2019, March 2022. The Cambridges were similarly deployed to Ireland in March 2020. If the pandemic hadn't intervened there would doubtless have been more visits.

    Sensible Irish politicians know that they will have to compromise on symbols to mollify moderate Unionists, and therefore isolate extreme Unionists, if they want to achieve a United Ireland.

    Everyone is expecting Charles to be a dreadful King, but suppose he manages to bring Ireland into the Commonwealth and thereby help to ease a peaceful reunification of the island of Ireland? That would be quite the achievement. Maybe he will surprise us.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,873
    I'm really struggling with @hyufd's logic here so I may need correcting but I think it is something like this:

    If you lose an election or a referendum you have to suck it up. No compromise to the losing side no matter how close the result is. Implement to the extreme and any disobedience put down with the utmost force.

    If you lose an election or referendum, but happen to be a Tory, Unionist, Right Wing or whatever then your views have to be taken into account even if that means forming an unviable enclave and you must give way to any threat of violence.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,642

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Which is precisely why we need to use every bit of 'the rules' that suits our interests in a maximalist way to force them to compromise.

    That means using legislation in the Commons, Article 16 or any other tools at our disposal to give them no choice but to co-operate.

    Because the notion of "compromise" or "trust" otherwise is for the fairies or the naive.

    It was trumpeted by the UK Govt as being a fantastic deal. My concern is not with pragmatism in amending a deal but with the sheer idiocy of agreeing one, each element of which (checks on intra-UK ham sandwiches, for example) small children in Hartlepool could have explained to you, and then less than 18 months later saying that precisely those parts of the deal which were agreed are all of a sudden intolerable.

    It is the sheer imbecility of Boris and his govt who so transparently agreed something on the spur of the moment, and either did not understand or did but were dishonest about the effects of it and now we are where we are.

    You applaud them reneging on a deal they agreed months ago; I think it a sign of incompetence and/or disingenuousness.
    Utter bullshit, bollocks and codswallop.

    A deal was needed to get Brexit done and get us out of the Article 50 quagmire, that's been achieved. Now its time for the deal to be renegotiated. That was the plan all along. It was always said that the Irish issue could be revisited once we had a trade deal, so to revisit it now is the system working as designed its not a failure.
    As I say you applaud it all. Agree a deal and then, precisely because of the terms of the deal you have just agreed, decide you want to renege on the deal.

    In your world that is a good way to run the country. No point me arguing with that.
    Who said anything about reneging on it? Not me. I have repeatedly said we should invoke Article 16 of the deal which is quite literally a part of the deal and operate unilaterally within its confines, until a new deal can be agreed as per Article 15 of the deal.

    That is completely acting within the rules of the deal, it isn't going against it.

    The deal was always meant to be temporary and evolved over time and subject to safeguarding, that is why Articles 15 and 16 were agreed. Using them isn't problematic or dishonest or a bad way to run a country, it is a perfectly good way to run a country.
    UK Govt: We have a fantastic deal which will result in checks on ham sandwiches within the UK.
    UK Govt 18 months later: Because it is intolerable to have checks on ham sandwiches within the UK we must renege on our deal.

    That is a masterstroke in your mind. Fair enough.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 3,679

    "Should the UK decide to move ahead with a bill disapplying constitutive elements of the Protocol as announced today by the UK government, the EU will need to respond with all measures at its disposal"

    That last part does sound a bit like Vlad's thinly veiled nuke threats.

    @lisaocarroll
    NEW: EU has power to impose sanctions within seven days of any Brexit law - explainer
    Three options outlined here including nuclear option
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/17/three-ways-eu-could-respond-to-uk-ditching-northern-ireland-protocol
    https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1526549880965058561
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,129
    edited May 17
    Applicant said:

    One for the PB brains trust, as I'm sure someone will know...

    What is it with this modern thing with logging into websites where you have to put your email address in on one page and then the password on a separate page, instead of just putting both in together? Is it really that much more secure that justifies the extra irritation?

    My understanding is that it this tends to happen when you want/need to support multiple sign-in systems & you don’t know which to offer until the user has entered their username.

    Some users might be legally required to use a different login flow, or a subset of users mightcome from a corporate acquisition where the authentication back-end has yet to be merged into the central system, or you might have a subset of users using a single-sign-on system via Google, or some other third party where you have to do a complete redirect login bounce via that third party website for those users.

    Any of the above would necessitate seperating username from password entry, or at least having some kind of reactive login page that picks up on the username & edits the login page on the fly to match the user. Seperate pages is the simplest solution tbh.

    (Note that if you don’t do this & you have a large corporate client who uses this kind of third party authentication system to authenticate their users on your site, what happens is that their users enter their corporate username + corporate password on your site, leaking their sign-on credentials to you. Then your large corporate customer’s security people get very unhappy with you & start making pointed comments about contract terms until you fix it.)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,913


    This chap (as the Graunb feed notes) is spotting some prettu massive inconsistencies in Ms Truss's output (or the output given to her to emit).

    https://twitter.com/AntonSpisak/status/1526533688988688389
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,854
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Which is precisely why we need to use every bit of 'the rules' that suits our interests in a maximalist way to force them to compromise.

    That means using legislation in the Commons, Article 16 or any other tools at our disposal to give them no choice but to co-operate.

    Because the notion of "compromise" or "trust" otherwise is for the fairies or the naive.

    It was trumpeted by the UK Govt as being a fantastic deal. My concern is not with pragmatism in amending a deal but with the sheer idiocy of agreeing one, each element of which (checks on intra-UK ham sandwiches, for example) small children in Hartlepool could have explained to you, and then less than 18 months later saying that precisely those parts of the deal which were agreed are all of a sudden intolerable.

    It is the sheer imbecility of Boris and his govt who so transparently agreed something on the spur of the moment, and either did not understand or did but were dishonest about the effects of it and now we are where we are.

    You applaud them reneging on a deal they agreed months ago; I think it a sign of incompetence and/or disingenuousness.
    Utter bullshit, bollocks and codswallop.

    A deal was needed to get Brexit done and get us out of the Article 50 quagmire, that's been achieved. Now its time for the deal to be renegotiated. That was the plan all along. It was always said that the Irish issue could be revisited once we had a trade deal, so to revisit it now is the system working as designed its not a failure.
    As I say you applaud it all. Agree a deal and then, precisely because of the terms of the deal you have just agreed, decide you want to renege on the deal.

    In your world that is a good way to run the country. No point me arguing with that.
    Who said anything about reneging on it? Not me. I have repeatedly said we should invoke Article 16 of the deal which is quite literally a part of the deal and operate unilaterally within its confines, until a new deal can be agreed as per Article 15 of the deal.

    That is completely acting within the rules of the deal, it isn't going against it.

    The deal was always meant to be temporary and evolved over time and subject to safeguarding, that is why Articles 15 and 16 were agreed. Using them isn't problematic or dishonest or a bad way to run a country, it is a perfectly good way to run a country.
    UK Govt: We have a fantastic deal which will result in checks on ham sandwiches within the UK.
    UK Govt 18 months later: Because it is intolerable to have checks on ham sandwiches within the UK we must renege on our deal.

    That is a masterstroke in your mind. Fair enough.
    Apart from the fact that neither claim is true.

    In 2019 the deal did not "result in checks on ham sandwiches within the UK" - if the EU had operated in good faith the ham sandwiches would have been approved by the Joint Committee as being not a risk so would have had no checks.

    18 months later since the EU haven't shown good faith the proposal is to change the deal with negotiations or actions that are permitted by the deal, not to renege on the deal.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,913

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    AS

    Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    Despite the endless commentary on here, I strongly suspect that the typical mainland voter is disengaged from the battle over the NI protocol, and it won't swing more than a handful of votes whatever happens.

    Unless serious violence breaks out in NI. Then there would be a concerted attempt by the government to blame the EU. However, I'm not convinced that would work. People may be more inclined to blame the government whose doorstep the violence erupts on.

    Yes, agreed. Northern Ireland is a distant country of which we know little, I'm afraid. Arguments over its future will be seen by Leavers as proof the untrustworthiness of the EU and by Remainers as proof of the awfulness of Boris, but if the province were to secede and join the ROI or just quietly go away the vast majority on the mainland would neither notice nor care.
    The Scots would notice, for sure.
    I wonder in the event of a united Ireland if the loyalists would become more virulently enthusiastic about displaying their ‘kultur’?

    Horrid thought, they may pop over even more frequently to Scotland for such displays. Worse, they may just cut their losses and move here. I think Arlene has said as much.

    No, there won't be a united Ireland
    As you repeatedly tell us that the monarchy will last another 1000 years then I will use the same argument back at you.

    Of course there will be a united Ireland. One day.
    There won't, you cannot force loyalist Protestant areas of Northern Ireland like Antrim and Lagan Valley and East Londonderry into the Republic of Ireland against their will without loyalist paramilitary terrorism in Ireland and a return to the Troubles.

    It would be no different to the IRA terrorist violence in Northern Ireland and GB when Roman Catholic areas of Northern Ireland faced direct rule from London
    You're not altogether 'up' on NI are you?

    If you left the province alone for 100 years, let alone 1000, the RC's will have an overwhelming majority.
    So what, the loyalist Protestant areas of Antrim, East Londonderry and Lagan Valley would still have Protestant and Unionist majorities even if the rest of Northern Ireland didn't in 100 years.

    The loyalist paramilitaries, led by the UVF, would then pursue a terrorist campaign across Ireland if forced into the Republic against their will
    The 'loyalists' agreed to letting any possible future reunification to be agreed democratically.

    If they went back on that, they'd find themselves absolutely friendless. England would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland if that's what they democratically choose and nobody would be funnelling weaponry or money to any murderous terrorists who'd deserve to be arrested and imprisoned if they chose to do something so utterly futile.
    No they didn't. The UUP did when they were largest Unionist party and backed the GFA. The DUP opposed the GFA in 1998 and are now largest Unionist party.

    The UVF are already threatening terrorist attacks on Irish leaders in the Republic until the Sea border is removed let alone if forced into a united Ireland against their will.

    https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/uvf-is-actively-planning-to-target-more-irish-politicians-41492302.html

    As a British Tory I would certainly support keeping loyalist areas of Northern Ireland in the UK if they wish to remain so, even if I would not support a terrorist campaign
    As a Tory you should be aware that the Windsors are up to something in Ireland.

    The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall have been on three multi-day trips to Ireland in recent years: June 2018, May 2019, March 2022. The Cambridges were similarly deployed to Ireland in March 2020. If the pandemic hadn't intervened there would doubtless have been more visits.

    Sensible Irish politicians know that they will have to compromise on symbols to mollify moderate Unionists, and therefore isolate extreme Unionists, if they want to achieve a United Ireland.

    Everyone is expecting Charles to be a dreadful King, but suppose he manages to bring Ireland into the Commonwealth and thereby help to ease a peaceful reunification of the island of Ireland? That would be quite the achievement. Maybe he will surprise us.
    How have SF reacted to the influx of royals?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,177
    edited May 17
    Applicant said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Can we place an administrative border round HY's house? Would make life a lot easier for the rest of us.

    "Just redraw the boundaries"

    On his logic, we could take it seriously only if he started a terrorist campaign. Or am I misynderstanding it?
    He is waging a terrorist war against fact. And logic. And rational argument.

    BUILD THE WALL
    Northern Ireland was only created in the first place as Carson had gathered 100,000 armed Protestant volunteers threatening civil war in Ireland if it wasn't.
    Feelings ran very high.
    I used to know a man who claimed that his father had signed the Ulster Covenant in his own blood.
    Wiki is sceptical of that theory (assuming it's the same signature in question): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Covenant#Signed-in-blood_dispute
    As I said, the chap claimed. I never actually saw the (dried) bloody signature!
    Although the man I knew, and his brother were very strongly Unionist.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    edited May 17

    "Should the UK decide to move ahead with a bill disapplying constitutive elements of the Protocol as announced today by the UK government, the EU will need to respond with all measures at its disposal"

    That last part does sound a bit like Vlad's thinly veiled nuke threats.

    @lisaocarroll
    NEW: EU has power to impose sanctions within seven days of any Brexit law - explainer
    Three options outlined here including nuclear option
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/17/three-ways-eu-could-respond-to-uk-ditching-northern-ireland-protocol
    https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1526549880965058561
    Can the EU's constituent governments get involved at all?

    I was wondering whether countries such as Poland and the Baltics might not want a key ally like Britain punished too heavily...?

    Unless we are not really such a key ally....
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,437

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    AS

    Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    Despite the endless commentary on here, I strongly suspect that the typical mainland voter is disengaged from the battle over the NI protocol, and it won't swing more than a handful of votes whatever happens.

    Unless serious violence breaks out in NI. Then there would be a concerted attempt by the government to blame the EU. However, I'm not convinced that would work. People may be more inclined to blame the government whose doorstep the violence erupts on.

    Yes, agreed. Northern Ireland is a distant country of which we know little, I'm afraid. Arguments over its future will be seen by Leavers as proof the untrustworthiness of the EU and by Remainers as proof of the awfulness of Boris, but if the province were to secede and join the ROI or just quietly go away the vast majority on the mainland would neither notice nor care.
    The Scots would notice, for sure.
    I wonder in the event of a united Ireland if the loyalists would become more virulently enthusiastic about displaying their ‘kultur’?

    Horrid thought, they may pop over even more frequently to Scotland for such displays. Worse, they may just cut their losses and move here. I think Arlene has said as much.

    No, there won't be a united Ireland
    As you repeatedly tell us that the monarchy will last another 1000 years then I will use the same argument back at you.

    Of course there will be a united Ireland. One day.
    There won't, you cannot force loyalist Protestant areas of Northern Ireland like Antrim and Lagan Valley and East Londonderry into the Republic of Ireland against their will without loyalist paramilitary terrorism in Ireland and a return to the Troubles.

    It would be no different to the IRA terrorist violence in Northern Ireland and GB when Roman Catholic areas of Northern Ireland faced direct rule from London
    You're not altogether 'up' on NI are you?

    If you left the province alone for 100 years, let alone 1000, the RC's will have an overwhelming majority.
    So what, the loyalist Protestant areas of Antrim, East Londonderry and Lagan Valley would still have Protestant and Unionist majorities even if the rest of Northern Ireland didn't in 100 years.

    The loyalist paramilitaries, led by the UVF, would then pursue a terrorist campaign across Ireland if forced into the Republic against their will
    The 'loyalists' agreed to letting any possible future reunification to be agreed democratically.

    If they went back on that, they'd find themselves absolutely friendless. England would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland if that's what they democratically choose and nobody would be funnelling weaponry or money to any murderous terrorists who'd deserve to be arrested and imprisoned if they chose to do something so utterly futile.
    No they didn't. The UUP did when they were largest Unionist party and backed the GFA. The DUP opposed the GFA in 1998 as did the UVF.

    The UVF are already threatening terrorist attacks on Irish leaders in the Republic until the Sea border is removed let alone if forced into a united Ireland against their will.

    https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/uvf-is-actively-planning-to-target-more-irish-politicians-41492302.html

    As a British Tory I would certainly support keeping loyalist areas of Northern Ireland in the UK if they wish to remain so, even if I would not support a terrorist campaign
    You aren't a British Tory - just an English one. In Wales you are a Plaid Cymru voting nationalist.

    Anyway, the problem with your "Panem Now, Panem Forever" approach is that the "loyalist areas" are shrinking. Was the 6 counties a century ago, now pockets inside those counties. You can't administer odd towns, or parts of towns. Unionism is dying out - literally. If the DUP weren't so pious they should be launching a "Shag for Britain" campaign to out-breed the catholics.

    Its their only chance.
    In Antrim and Lagan Valley etc Protestants comfortably still outnumber Roman Catholics
    And how do you make these pockets of loyalists into a working administrative area?

    It doesn't matter if Antrim and Lagan Valley want to stay in the Union if they are outvoted by the people not in Antrim and Lagan Valley.
    Yes it does, you can keep them in the UK and send the rest off Northern Ireland to the Republic. Just redraw the boundaries.

    Northern Ireland was created 100 years ago after the threat of loyalist violence from the Ulster Volunteer Force if they were forced into the new Irish Free State after the Irish War of Independence and the Sinn Fein win in the rest of Ireland in the 1918 general election.

    Little has changed on that point a century later
    'send the rest off NI to the republic'. I hope you aren't talkiing about ethnic cleansing.
    Of course the GFA ceded the future of NI to the people of Ireland. It became part of the constitution of two countries - the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Amongst other things it led to the revocation of the government of Ireland act. The agreement reached was that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, and would remain so until a majority of the people both of Northern Ireland and of the Republic of Ireland wished otherwise. Should that happen, then the British and Irish governments are under "a binding obligation" to implement that choice. So no option to declare Ballymena independent- not just by internal law but by international treaty which was guaranteed by the US. The GFA remains a rare consensus point in US politics. No winding the clock back on that one.
    Seems that Boris Johnson and his "true" Conservative and (Dis)Unionist Party have as much respect for international law, esp. treaties, as . . . wait for it . . . Valdmir Putin and his "United" Russia Party.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508
    Roger said:

    I wonder if the Tories have got some intelligence that Sir Keir will be exonerated by Durham police. If so then a trade war with the EU might be a good distraction from the contrast with Boris. Ultimate dead-cat manoeuvre?

    I think you are absolutely right, starkers.

    When in power it gives you some control over resetting the narrative to suit you, which is what the Tories are doing, choosing precise time and issue to control the narrative. Even hating Boris and wishing Tories ill, you gave to concede what is actually happening and how it likely plays out, so many posters can’t/won’t do this.

    There will be some sort of deal? Of course it will end in a deal very similar to the UK governments proposals.

    Will UK government get boost soon as the deal agreed? Of course they will, and we will know because Big G and HY in unison will remind us of this fact soon as deal agreed. St Bart Robert will also get a big boost because the government win with a solution they have pushed on PB for last 5 years (allegedly, I havn’t been around a year yet).

    meanwhile the Great Patriotic War puts Labour on back foot now the commons is back in action? Yep, that’s that’s the beautiful timing of the Great Patriotic War.

    And it obscures what’s going on in partygate, just as you said! Which will Boris red wallers care about more - supporting Boris in fight with EU or moan at him over Partygate?
    Did you vote to Brexit?
    I answered that Roger in a reply to a post from you on last thread! Where you shared your knowledge on chambermaids.

    And I got a like.

    By all means copy and reply back here if you got something to say about it. 🙂
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,642

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Which is precisely why we need to use every bit of 'the rules' that suits our interests in a maximalist way to force them to compromise.

    That means using legislation in the Commons, Article 16 or any other tools at our disposal to give them no choice but to co-operate.

    Because the notion of "compromise" or "trust" otherwise is for the fairies or the naive.

    It was trumpeted by the UK Govt as being a fantastic deal. My concern is not with pragmatism in amending a deal but with the sheer idiocy of agreeing one, each element of which (checks on intra-UK ham sandwiches, for example) small children in Hartlepool could have explained to you, and then less than 18 months later saying that precisely those parts of the deal which were agreed are all of a sudden intolerable.

    It is the sheer imbecility of Boris and his govt who so transparently agreed something on the spur of the moment, and either did not understand or did but were dishonest about the effects of it and now we are where we are.

    You applaud them reneging on a deal they agreed months ago; I think it a sign of incompetence and/or disingenuousness.
    Utter bullshit, bollocks and codswallop.

    A deal was needed to get Brexit done and get us out of the Article 50 quagmire, that's been achieved. Now its time for the deal to be renegotiated. That was the plan all along. It was always said that the Irish issue could be revisited once we had a trade deal, so to revisit it now is the system working as designed its not a failure.
    As I say you applaud it all. Agree a deal and then, precisely because of the terms of the deal you have just agreed, decide you want to renege on the deal.

    In your world that is a good way to run the country. No point me arguing with that.
    Who said anything about reneging on it? Not me. I have repeatedly said we should invoke Article 16 of the deal which is quite literally a part of the deal and operate unilaterally within its confines, until a new deal can be agreed as per Article 15 of the deal.

    That is completely acting within the rules of the deal, it isn't going against it.

    The deal was always meant to be temporary and evolved over time and subject to safeguarding, that is why Articles 15 and 16 were agreed. Using them isn't problematic or dishonest or a bad way to run a country, it is a perfectly good way to run a country.
    UK Govt: We have a fantastic deal which will result in checks on ham sandwiches within the UK.
    UK Govt 18 months later: Because it is intolerable to have checks on ham sandwiches within the UK we must renege on our deal.

    That is a masterstroke in your mind. Fair enough.
    Apart from the fact that neither claim is true.

    In 2019 the deal did not "result in checks on ham sandwiches within the UK" - if the EU had operated in good faith the ham sandwiches would have been approved by the Joint Committee as being not a risk so would have had no checks.

    18 months later since the EU haven't shown good faith the proposal is to change the deal with negotiations or actions that are permitted by the deal, not to renege on the deal.
    "good faith" = not doing something stipulated within the deal because you don't like it.

    Agree a different deal, then, if you are so reliant on the good faith we have all agreed no party to a deal ever has.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,493
    edited May 17

    Applicant said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Can we place an administrative border round HY's house? Would make life a lot easier for the rest of us.

    "Just redraw the boundaries"

    On his logic, we could take it seriously only if he started a terrorist campaign. Or am I misynderstanding it?
    He is waging a terrorist war against fact. And logic. And rational argument.

    BUILD THE WALL
    Northern Ireland was only created in the first place as Carson had gathered 100,000 armed Protestant volunteers threatening civil war in Ireland if it wasn't.
    Feelings ran very high.
    I used to know a man who claimed that his father had signed the Ulster Covenant in his own blood.
    Wiki is sceptical of that theory (assuming it's the same signature in question): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Covenant#Signed-in-blood_dispute
    As I said, the chap claimed. I never actually saw the (dried) bloody signature!
    Although the man I knew, and his brother were very strongly Unionist.
    I doubt that. We all know that HY is the only gay Tory Unionist in the village.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,177
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    AS

    Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    Despite the endless commentary on here, I strongly suspect that the typical mainland voter is disengaged from the battle over the NI protocol, and it won't swing more than a handful of votes whatever happens.

    Unless serious violence breaks out in NI. Then there would be a concerted attempt by the government to blame the EU. However, I'm not convinced that would work. People may be more inclined to blame the government whose doorstep the violence erupts on.

    Yes, agreed. Northern Ireland is a distant country of which we know little, I'm afraid. Arguments over its future will be seen by Leavers as proof the untrustworthiness of the EU and by Remainers as proof of the awfulness of Boris, but if the province were to secede and join the ROI or just quietly go away the vast majority on the mainland would neither notice nor care.
    The Scots would notice, for sure.
    I wonder in the event of a united Ireland if the loyalists would become more virulently enthusiastic about displaying their ‘kultur’?

    Horrid thought, they may pop over even more frequently to Scotland for such displays. Worse, they may just cut their losses and move here. I think Arlene has said as much.

    No, there won't be a united Ireland
    As you repeatedly tell us that the monarchy will last another 1000 years then I will use the same argument back at you.

    Of course there will be a united Ireland. One day.
    There won't, you cannot force loyalist Protestant areas of Northern Ireland like Antrim and Lagan Valley and East Londonderry into the Republic of Ireland against their will without loyalist paramilitary terrorism in Ireland and a return to the Troubles.

    It would be no different to the IRA terrorist violence in Northern Ireland and GB when Roman Catholic areas of Northern Ireland faced direct rule from London
    You're not altogether 'up' on NI are you?

    If you left the province alone for 100 years, let alone 1000, the RC's will have an overwhelming majority.
    So what, the loyalist Protestant areas of Antrim, East Londonderry and Lagan Valley would still have Protestant and Unionist majorities even if the rest of Northern Ireland didn't in 100 years.

    The loyalist paramilitaries, led by the UVF, would then pursue a terrorist campaign across Ireland if forced into the Republic against their will
    The 'loyalists' agreed to letting any possible future reunification to be agreed democratically.

    If they went back on that, they'd find themselves absolutely friendless. England would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland if that's what they democratically choose and nobody would be funnelling weaponry or money to any murderous terrorists who'd deserve to be arrested and imprisoned if they chose to do something so utterly futile.
    No they didn't. The UUP did when they were largest Unionist party and backed the GFA. The DUP opposed the GFA in 1998 and are now largest Unionist party.

    The UVF are already threatening terrorist attacks on Irish leaders in the Republic until the Sea border is removed let alone if forced into a united Ireland against their will.

    https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/uvf-is-actively-planning-to-target-more-irish-politicians-41492302.html

    As a British Tory I would certainly support keeping loyalist areas of Northern Ireland in the UK if they wish to remain so, even if I would not support a terrorist campaign
    As a Tory you should be aware that the Windsors are up to something in Ireland.

    The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall have been on three multi-day trips to Ireland in recent years: June 2018, May 2019, March 2022. The Cambridges were similarly deployed to Ireland in March 2020. If the pandemic hadn't intervened there would doubtless have been more visits.

    Sensible Irish politicians know that they will have to compromise on symbols to mollify moderate Unionists, and therefore isolate extreme Unionists, if they want to achieve a United Ireland.

    Everyone is expecting Charles to be a dreadful King, but suppose he manages to bring Ireland into the Commonwealth and thereby help to ease a peaceful reunification of the island of Ireland? That would be quite the achievement. Maybe he will surprise us.
    How have SF reacted to the influx of royals?
    The way the Irish greet most tourists. Welcome.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,854

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    AS

    Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    Despite the endless commentary on here, I strongly suspect that the typical mainland voter is disengaged from the battle over the NI protocol, and it won't swing more than a handful of votes whatever happens.

    Unless serious violence breaks out in NI. Then there would be a concerted attempt by the government to blame the EU. However, I'm not convinced that would work. People may be more inclined to blame the government whose doorstep the violence erupts on.

    Yes, agreed. Northern Ireland is a distant country of which we know little, I'm afraid. Arguments over its future will be seen by Leavers as proof the untrustworthiness of the EU and by Remainers as proof of the awfulness of Boris, but if the province were to secede and join the ROI or just quietly go away the vast majority on the mainland would neither notice nor care.
    The Scots would notice, for sure.
    I wonder in the event of a united Ireland if the loyalists would become more virulently enthusiastic about displaying their ‘kultur’?

    Horrid thought, they may pop over even more frequently to Scotland for such displays. Worse, they may just cut their losses and move here. I think Arlene has said as much.

    No, there won't be a united Ireland
    As you repeatedly tell us that the monarchy will last another 1000 years then I will use the same argument back at you.

    Of course there will be a united Ireland. One day.
    There won't, you cannot force loyalist Protestant areas of Northern Ireland like Antrim and Lagan Valley and East Londonderry into the Republic of Ireland against their will without loyalist paramilitary terrorism in Ireland and a return to the Troubles.

    It would be no different to the IRA terrorist violence in Northern Ireland and GB when Roman Catholic areas of Northern Ireland faced direct rule from London
    You're not altogether 'up' on NI are you?

    If you left the province alone for 100 years, let alone 1000, the RC's will have an overwhelming majority.
    So what, the loyalist Protestant areas of Antrim, East Londonderry and Lagan Valley would still have Protestant and Unionist majorities even if the rest of Northern Ireland didn't in 100 years.

    The loyalist paramilitaries, led by the UVF, would then pursue a terrorist campaign across Ireland if forced into the Republic against their will
    The 'loyalists' agreed to letting any possible future reunification to be agreed democratically.

    If they went back on that, they'd find themselves absolutely friendless. England would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland if that's what they democratically choose and nobody would be funnelling weaponry or money to any murderous terrorists who'd deserve to be arrested and imprisoned if they chose to do something so utterly futile.
    No they didn't. The UUP did when they were largest Unionist party and backed the GFA. The DUP opposed the GFA in 1998 and are now largest Unionist party.

    The UVF are already threatening terrorist attacks on Irish leaders in the Republic until the Sea border is removed let alone if forced into a united Ireland against their will.

    https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/uvf-is-actively-planning-to-target-more-irish-politicians-41492302.html

    As a British Tory I would certainly support keeping loyalist areas of Northern Ireland in the UK if they wish to remain so, even if I would not support a terrorist campaign
    As a Tory you should be aware that the Windsors are up to something in Ireland.

    The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall have been on three multi-day trips to Ireland in recent years: June 2018, May 2019, March 2022. The Cambridges were similarly deployed to Ireland in March 2020. If the pandemic hadn't intervened there would doubtless have been more visits.

    Sensible Irish politicians know that they will have to compromise on symbols to mollify moderate Unionists, and therefore isolate extreme Unionists, if they want to achieve a United Ireland.

    Everyone is expecting Charles to be a dreadful King, but suppose he manages to bring Ireland into the Commonwealth and thereby help to ease a peaceful reunification of the island of Ireland? That would be quite the achievement. Maybe he will surprise us.
    That seems extremely unlikely but would be a great achievement were that to happen.

    Independent nations like India are happy to be in the Commonwealth so if Ireland were to opt to join and reunify on that basis that would be quite impressive.

    But I absolutely do not see it happening. Seems more like a hell freezing over kind of event.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,147

    "Should the UK decide to move ahead with a bill disapplying constitutive elements of the Protocol as announced today by the UK government, the EU will need to respond with all measures at its disposal"

    That last part does sound a bit like Vlad's thinly veiled nuke threats.

    @lisaocarroll
    NEW: EU has power to impose sanctions within seven days of any Brexit law - explainer
    Three options outlined here including nuclear option
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/17/three-ways-eu-could-respond-to-uk-ditching-northern-ireland-protocol
    https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1526549880965058561
    "The kind of action that makes us reconsider our security commitment to our supposed ally".
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,472
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    AS

    Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    Despite the endless commentary on here, I strongly suspect that the typical mainland voter is disengaged from the battle over the NI protocol, and it won't swing more than a handful of votes whatever happens.

    Unless serious violence breaks out in NI. Then there would be a concerted attempt by the government to blame the EU. However, I'm not convinced that would work. People may be more inclined to blame the government whose doorstep the violence erupts on.

    Yes, agreed. Northern Ireland is a distant country of which we know little, I'm afraid. Arguments over its future will be seen by Leavers as proof the untrustworthiness of the EU and by Remainers as proof of the awfulness of Boris, but if the province were to secede and join the ROI or just quietly go away the vast majority on the mainland would neither notice nor care.
    The Scots would notice, for sure.
    I wonder in the event of a united Ireland if the loyalists would become more virulently enthusiastic about displaying their ‘kultur’?

    Horrid thought, they may pop over even more frequently to Scotland for such displays. Worse, they may just cut their losses and move here. I think Arlene has said as much.

    No, there won't be a united Ireland
    As you repeatedly tell us that the monarchy will last another 1000 years then I will use the same argument back at you.

    Of course there will be a united Ireland. One day.
    There won't, you cannot force loyalist Protestant areas of Northern Ireland like Antrim and Lagan Valley and East Londonderry into the Republic of Ireland against their will without loyalist paramilitary terrorism in Ireland and a return to the Troubles.

    It would be no different to the IRA terrorist violence in Northern Ireland and GB when Roman Catholic areas of Northern Ireland faced direct rule from London
    You're not altogether 'up' on NI are you?

    If you left the province alone for 100 years, let alone 1000, the RC's will have an overwhelming majority.
    So what, the loyalist Protestant areas of Antrim, East Londonderry and Lagan Valley would still have Protestant and Unionist majorities even if the rest of Northern Ireland didn't in 100 years.

    The loyalist paramilitaries, led by the UVF, would then pursue a terrorist campaign across Ireland if forced into the Republic against their will
    The 'loyalists' agreed to letting any possible future reunification to be agreed democratically.

    If they went back on that, they'd find themselves absolutely friendless. England would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland if that's what they democratically choose and nobody would be funnelling weaponry or money to any murderous terrorists who'd deserve to be arrested and imprisoned if they chose to do something so utterly futile.
    No they didn't. The UUP did when they were largest Unionist party and backed the GFA. The DUP opposed the GFA in 1998 and are now largest Unionist party.

    The UVF are already threatening terrorist attacks on Irish leaders in the Republic until the Sea border is removed let alone if forced into a united Ireland against their will.

    https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/uvf-is-actively-planning-to-target-more-irish-politicians-41492302.html

    As a British Tory I would certainly support keeping loyalist areas of Northern Ireland in the UK if they wish to remain so, even if I would not support a terrorist campaign
    As a Tory you should be aware that the Windsors are up to something in Ireland.

    The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall have been on three multi-day trips to Ireland in recent years: June 2018, May 2019, March 2022. The Cambridges were similarly deployed to Ireland in March 2020. If the pandemic hadn't intervened there would doubtless have been more visits.

    Sensible Irish politicians know that they will have to compromise on symbols to mollify moderate Unionists, and therefore isolate extreme Unionists, if they want to achieve a United Ireland.

    Everyone is expecting Charles to be a dreadful King, but suppose he manages to bring Ireland into the Commonwealth and thereby help to ease a peaceful reunification of the island of Ireland? That would be quite the achievement. Maybe he will surprise us.
    How have SF reacted to the influx of royals?
    SF leaders have met the Royals on the visits. They're opposed to any concessions at present, but they may find that it can work for them in the future too, as a way to demonstrate they've left the worst of their past behind.

    There's more than the protocol going on in the relationship between Britain and Ireland.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,854
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Which is precisely why we need to use every bit of 'the rules' that suits our interests in a maximalist way to force them to compromise.

    That means using legislation in the Commons, Article 16 or any other tools at our disposal to give them no choice but to co-operate.

    Because the notion of "compromise" or "trust" otherwise is for the fairies or the naive.

    It was trumpeted by the UK Govt as being a fantastic deal. My concern is not with pragmatism in amending a deal but with the sheer idiocy of agreeing one, each element of which (checks on intra-UK ham sandwiches, for example) small children in Hartlepool could have explained to you, and then less than 18 months later saying that precisely those parts of the deal which were agreed are all of a sudden intolerable.

    It is the sheer imbecility of Boris and his govt who so transparently agreed something on the spur of the moment, and either did not understand or did but were dishonest about the effects of it and now we are where we are.

    You applaud them reneging on a deal they agreed months ago; I think it a sign of incompetence and/or disingenuousness.
    Utter bullshit, bollocks and codswallop.

    A deal was needed to get Brexit done and get us out of the Article 50 quagmire, that's been achieved. Now its time for the deal to be renegotiated. That was the plan all along. It was always said that the Irish issue could be revisited once we had a trade deal, so to revisit it now is the system working as designed its not a failure.
    As I say you applaud it all. Agree a deal and then, precisely because of the terms of the deal you have just agreed, decide you want to renege on the deal.

    In your world that is a good way to run the country. No point me arguing with that.
    Who said anything about reneging on it? Not me. I have repeatedly said we should invoke Article 16 of the deal which is quite literally a part of the deal and operate unilaterally within its confines, until a new deal can be agreed as per Article 15 of the deal.

    That is completely acting within the rules of the deal, it isn't going against it.

    The deal was always meant to be temporary and evolved over time and subject to safeguarding, that is why Articles 15 and 16 were agreed. Using them isn't problematic or dishonest or a bad way to run a country, it is a perfectly good way to run a country.
    UK Govt: We have a fantastic deal which will result in checks on ham sandwiches within the UK.
    UK Govt 18 months later: Because it is intolerable to have checks on ham sandwiches within the UK we must renege on our deal.

    That is a masterstroke in your mind. Fair enough.
    Apart from the fact that neither claim is true.

    In 2019 the deal did not "result in checks on ham sandwiches within the UK" - if the EU had operated in good faith the ham sandwiches would have been approved by the Joint Committee as being not a risk so would have had no checks.

    18 months later since the EU haven't shown good faith the proposal is to change the deal with negotiations or actions that are permitted by the deal, not to renege on the deal.
    "good faith" = not doing something stipulated within the deal because you don't like it.

    Agree a different deal, then, if you are so reliant on the good faith we have all agreed no party to a deal ever has.
    Agreeing a different deal is the proposal now.

    The original deal was always meant to be based upon both sides operating in good faith with the Joint Committee and the Protocol itself was always supposed to be subject to replacement or amendment (as per Article 15 of the Protocol) or Safeguarding if required (as per Article 16).

    Exercising the 15th or 16th Articles of the Protocol is neither reneging nor a failure, it is precisely why those Articles were negotiated in the first place.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,177

    Applicant said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Can we place an administrative border round HY's house? Would make life a lot easier for the rest of us.

    "Just redraw the boundaries"

    On his logic, we could take it seriously only if he started a terrorist campaign. Or am I misynderstanding it?
    He is waging a terrorist war against fact. And logic. And rational argument.

    BUILD THE WALL
    Northern Ireland was only created in the first place as Carson had gathered 100,000 armed Protestant volunteers threatening civil war in Ireland if it wasn't.
    Feelings ran very high.
    I used to know a man who claimed that his father had signed the Ulster Covenant in his own blood.
    Wiki is sceptical of that theory (assuming it's the same signature in question): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Covenant#Signed-in-blood_dispute
    As I said, the chap claimed. I never actually saw the (dried) bloody signature!
    Although the man I knew, and his brother were very strongly Unionist.
    I doubt that. We all know that HY is the only gay Tory Unionist in the village.
    There's story about the time I met the brother, but I've other things to do, I'm afraid.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,187

    Leon said:

    kamski said:



    If this is the article you are talking about (and it seems to be the only one on the guardian's website that contains the word "hepeat")
    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/may/16/hepeating-manterrupting-mansplaining-men-repeating-women-taking-credit

    aren't you somewhat misrepresenting it? it's obviously supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek article - as are all the Pass Notes series, and it doesn't seem to actually contain any examples?

    You must surely mean a completely different article that I can't find on the guardian website


    Himterrupting would be better than manterrupting.

    Wow.. Manterrupting doesn't get underlined as misspelt!
    I’d like to take credit for just this minute inventing the word “quimgument” which deftly captures the way some women seek to end a losing argument by saying “you’re bullying a woman so I am going to ignore you and also you’re wrong but don’t bother answering you awful man because remember I have ovaries”

    @Heathener does it all the time
    The other day I 'invented' a word whist talking to Mrs J about a mutual friend: "Coddult". An adult who is still coddled, and perhaps living with, their parents. A portmanteau for a coddled adult.

    A couple of years ago I also came up with 'mantage': for a montage featuring a man doing manly things, after seeing an Ant Middleton advert. Sadly I found it was already in the Urban Dictionary.
    Lots of coddults on PB, who have never bothered to learn to cook because their mummies did it for them, and drink coffee-flavoured dust for breakfast before going to play their favourite computer games, or trainspot.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    AS

    Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    Despite the endless commentary on here, I strongly suspect that the typical mainland voter is disengaged from the battle over the NI protocol, and it won't swing more than a handful of votes whatever happens.

    Unless serious violence breaks out in NI. Then there would be a concerted attempt by the government to blame the EU. However, I'm not convinced that would work. People may be more inclined to blame the government whose doorstep the violence erupts on.

    Yes, agreed. Northern Ireland is a distant country of which we know little, I'm afraid. Arguments over its future will be seen by Leavers as proof the untrustworthiness of the EU and by Remainers as proof of the awfulness of Boris, but if the province were to secede and join the ROI or just quietly go away the vast majority on the mainland would neither notice nor care.
    The Scots would notice, for sure.
    I wonder in the event of a united Ireland if the loyalists would become more virulently enthusiastic about displaying their ‘kultur’?

    Horrid thought, they may pop over even more frequently to Scotland for such displays. Worse, they may just cut their losses and move here. I think Arlene has said as much.

    No, there won't be a united Ireland
    As you repeatedly tell us that the monarchy will last another 1000 years then I will use the same argument back at you.

    Of course there will be a united Ireland. One day.
    There won't, you cannot force loyalist Protestant areas of Northern Ireland like Antrim and Lagan Valley and East Londonderry into the Republic of Ireland against their will without loyalist paramilitary terrorism in Ireland and a return to the Troubles.

    It would be no different to the IRA terrorist violence in Northern Ireland and GB when Roman Catholic areas of Northern Ireland faced direct rule from London
    You're not altogether 'up' on NI are you?

    If you left the province alone for 100 years, let alone 1000, the RC's will have an overwhelming majority.
    So what, the loyalist Protestant areas of Antrim, East Londonderry and Lagan Valley would still have Protestant and Unionist majorities even if the rest of Northern Ireland didn't in 100 years.

    The loyalist paramilitaries, led by the UVF, would then pursue a terrorist campaign across Ireland if forced into the Republic against their will
    The 'loyalists' agreed to letting any possible future reunification to be agreed democratically.

    If they went back on that, they'd find themselves absolutely friendless. England would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland if that's what they democratically choose and nobody would be funnelling weaponry or money to any murderous terrorists who'd deserve to be arrested and imprisoned if they chose to do something so utterly futile.
    No they didn't. The UUP did when they were largest Unionist party and backed the GFA. The DUP opposed the GFA in 1998 as did the UVF.

    The UVF are already threatening terrorist attacks on Irish leaders in the Republic until the Sea border is removed let alone if forced into a united Ireland against their will.

    https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/uvf-is-actively-planning-to-target-more-irish-politicians-41492302.html

    As a British Tory I would certainly support keeping loyalist areas of Northern Ireland in the UK if they wish to remain so, even if I would not support a terrorist campaign
    You aren't a British Tory - just an English one. In Wales you are a Plaid Cymru voting nationalist.

    Anyway, the problem with your "Panem Now, Panem Forever" approach is that the "loyalist areas" are shrinking. Was the 6 counties a century ago, now pockets inside those counties. You can't administer odd towns, or parts of towns. Unionism is dying out - literally. If the DUP weren't so pious they should be launching a "Shag for Britain" campaign to out-breed the catholics.

    Its their only chance.
    In Antrim and Lagan Valley etc Protestants comfortably still outnumber Roman Catholics
    And how do you make these pockets of loyalists into a working administrative area?

    It doesn't matter if Antrim and Lagan Valley want to stay in the Union if they are outvoted by the people not in Antrim and Lagan Valley.
    Yes it does, you can keep them in the UK and send the rest off Northern Ireland to the Republic. Just redraw the boundaries.

    Northern Ireland was created 100 years ago after the threat of loyalist violence from the Ulster Volunteer Force if they were forced into the new Irish Free State after the Irish War of Independence and the Sinn Fein win in the rest of Ireland in the 1918 general election.

    Little has changed on that point a century later
    'send the rest off NI to the republic'. I hope you aren't talkiing about ethnic cleansing.
    Of course the GFA ceded the future of NI to the people of Ireland. It became part of the constitution of two countries - the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Amongst other things it led to the revocation of the government of Ireland act. The agreement reached was that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, and would remain so until a majority of the people both of Northern Ireland and of the Republic of Ireland wished otherwise. Should that happen, then the British and Irish governments are under "a binding obligation" to implement that choice. So no option to declare Ballymena independent- not just by internal law but by international treaty which was guaranteed by the US. The GFA remains a rare consensus point in US politics. No winding the clock back on that one.
    Seems that Boris Johnson and his "true" Conservative and (Dis)Unionist Party have as much respect for international law, esp. treaties, as . . . wait for it . . . Valdmir Putin and his "United" Russia Party.
    Does this mean we will be offered territory for free, as Macron offered to carve up Ukraine with Putin?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,317
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Truss just explicitly said in the Commons that the Protocol was never intended to be set in stone.

    Nor should it be. Evolution works. The Protocol in its 15th Article says how the Protocol can be changed by negotiations and in its 16th provides Safeguards to overwrite parts too. Both are entirely appropriate to use.

    Its quite amusing to me how many people who deny my notion that post-Brexit Britain can be more nimble and less sclerotic are being horrified at post-Brexit Britain being nimble and not sclerotic.

    It's the dishonesty and lack of trustworthiness that are the problem.
    Dishonesty is putting up sanctions on Russia and then creating financial mechanisms to break them. The idea that the EU is some virtuous and completely honest organisation is completely ridiculous.
    Siri, provide me with a textbook example of whataboutery.
    But you want the UK to trust an inherently untrustworthy organisation. They have proven they are willing to stab Ukraine in the back so Germany can keep selling dishwashers. The evidence is clear that the EU can't be trusted and neither can we.

    All along I've said that the UK-EU relationship needs to be a tightly defined set of rules. Trust, doing the other one a favour, or expecting a favour from either party is not going to happen, they are not an informal ally who we can rely on to help us when we need it. This isn't New Zealand and Canada loaning up a few hundred trade negotiators in 2017 and 2018, the EU is ultimately a formal ally with whom we have a trade deal and not a lot else.

    Everyone needs to see our relationship with the EU through this lens and give up on the fanciful idea that if we do them a favour they might respond in kind. It's not going to happen.
    The EU aren't the ones about to tear up an agreement they signed up to just three years ago. Whether the EU is a paragon of virtue or the epitome of evil (a question on which I have ventured no opinion) is irrelevant to the issue of whether the UK should be in the business of signing international treaties with its fingers crossed behind its back. It's a bad look for us and damaging to our ability to operate effectively in international affairs.
    No, they're just tearing up the sanctions they agreed on Russia a few weeks ago. So maybe neither country is to be trusted.
    But only one is abrogating an international treaty.
    To be clear, this is not a beauty contest of UK vs EU, my contention that Brexit was a bad idea does not rest on any idea that the EU is some uniquely virtuous organisation, which is as well because I don't think it is. The question is whether signing a treaty that you don't intend to honour because you've dug yourself into a hole by lying to your voters, and then tearing up that treaty a few years later when you supposedly suddenly cotton on to the bits of the treaty that you don't like, is a sensible path of action for a country that wants to be taken seriously and prosper on the world stage.
    Endless whataboutery and diversionary assaults on the moral integrity of the EU can't distract from the absurdity of the British position.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508
    Roger said:

    Applicant said:

    Roger said:

    I wonder if the Tories have got some intelligence that Sir Keir will be exonerated by Durham police. If so then a trade war with the EU might be a good distraction from the contrast with Boris. Ultimate dead-cat manoeuvre?

    I think you are absolutely right, starkers.

    When in power it gives you some control over resetting the narrative to suit you, which is what the Tories are doing, choosing precise time and issue to control the narrative. Even hating Boris and wishing Tories ill, you gave to concede what is actually happening and how it likely plays out, so many posters can’t/won’t do this.

    There will be some sort of deal? Of course it will end in a deal very similar to the UK governments proposals.

    Will UK government get boost soon as the deal agreed? Of course they will, and we will know because Big G and HY in unison will remind us of this fact soon as deal agreed. St Bart Robert will also get a big boost because the government win with a solution they have pushed on PB for last 5 years (allegedly, I havn’t been around a year yet).

    meanwhile the Great Patriotic War puts Labour on back foot now the commons is back in action? Yep, that’s that’s the beautiful timing of the Great Patriotic War.

    And it obscures what’s going on in partygate, just as you said! Which will Boris red wallers care about more - supporting Boris in fight with EU or moan at him over Partygate?
    Did you vote to Brexit?
    She's already answered that question today.
    I must spend less time reading her posts than you. What was the answer?
    Maybe I shouldn’t have bothered typing it all in for you then. 😆
    By all means tell me what I did wrong with my vote.

    “To answer your question, how did I vote in Brexit referendum. I was (just) too young to vote in 2015 general election but old enough to vote in Brexit referendum. My mum voted staunchly leave, my dad voted staunchly remain.

    I found the long campaign full of crazy rhetorics and wild arguments from both sides, it was hard to know what to believe. It felt long and all over the news even though I went to Spain in middle of it!

    What I didn’t like was commission in Brussels of failed useless politicians on a gravy train wasting money, and it’s completely undemocratic we surrender decisions to them because we Can’t vote them out. That’s like you have surrendered your sovereignty and get less influence and democracy in return. But at same time the vote leave arguments on UK being better off didn’t convince me one iota. It felt bogus but I couldn’t explain it at the time. If you ask me today what was Brexit ref 2016 boil down as, I think it’s FOM and all immigration helps business and economy, it means not just growth but people of working age paying into government so government can afford bills, so it was odd in 2016 that FOM in EU was sold as scroungers and drag on government finance. On the other hand the country is full, housing, NHS waiting lists, building on lovely countryside green belt etc is all because of too much immigration down the years and freedom of movement, so if we aren’t going to lose growth and our government will be wealthier because we aren’t paying so much money into the EU we get that money back, then why not vote for it?

    I am pleased how I used my first ever vote, I didn’t just rush into it keen to use the vote, I wanted to understand it and not get it wrong. But I couldn’t understand which option would prove best so I didn’t vote. “
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,334
    kjh said:

    I'm really struggling with @hyufd's logic here so I may need correcting but I think it is something like this:

    If you lose an election or a referendum you have to suck it up. No compromise to the losing side no matter how close the result is. Implement to the extreme and any disobedience put down with the utmost force.

    If you lose an election or referendum, but happen to be a Tory, Unionist, Right Wing or whatever then your views have to be taken into account even if that means forming an unviable enclave and you must give way to any threat of violence.

    That always has been the policy of the Conservative & Unionist Party, hasn't it?

    Think of all the difficulty they caused for poor Mr Gladstone.

    Our young HY is always a very consistent Conservative.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,854

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Truss just explicitly said in the Commons that the Protocol was never intended to be set in stone.

    Nor should it be. Evolution works. The Protocol in its 15th Article says how the Protocol can be changed by negotiations and in its 16th provides Safeguards to overwrite parts too. Both are entirely appropriate to use.

    Its quite amusing to me how many people who deny my notion that post-Brexit Britain can be more nimble and less sclerotic are being horrified at post-Brexit Britain being nimble and not sclerotic.

    It's the dishonesty and lack of trustworthiness that are the problem.
    Dishonesty is putting up sanctions on Russia and then creating financial mechanisms to break them. The idea that the EU is some virtuous and completely honest organisation is completely ridiculous.
    Siri, provide me with a textbook example of whataboutery.
    But you want the UK to trust an inherently untrustworthy organisation. They have proven they are willing to stab Ukraine in the back so Germany can keep selling dishwashers. The evidence is clear that the EU can't be trusted and neither can we.

    All along I've said that the UK-EU relationship needs to be a tightly defined set of rules. Trust, doing the other one a favour, or expecting a favour from either party is not going to happen, they are not an informal ally who we can rely on to help us when we need it. This isn't New Zealand and Canada loaning up a few hundred trade negotiators in 2017 and 2018, the EU is ultimately a formal ally with whom we have a trade deal and not a lot else.

    Everyone needs to see our relationship with the EU through this lens and give up on the fanciful idea that if we do them a favour they might respond in kind. It's not going to happen.
    The EU aren't the ones about to tear up an agreement they signed up to just three years ago. Whether the EU is a paragon of virtue or the epitome of evil (a question on which I have ventured no opinion) is irrelevant to the issue of whether the UK should be in the business of signing international treaties with its fingers crossed behind its back. It's a bad look for us and damaging to our ability to operate effectively in international affairs.
    No, they're just tearing up the sanctions they agreed on Russia a few weeks ago. So maybe neither country is to be trusted.
    But only one is abrogating an international treaty.
    To be clear, this is not a beauty contest of UK vs EU, my contention that Brexit was a bad idea does not rest on any idea that the EU is some uniquely virtuous organisation, which is as well because I don't think it is. The question is whether signing a treaty that you don't intend to honour because you've dug yourself into a hole by lying to your voters, and then tearing up that treaty a few years later when you supposedly suddenly cotton on to the bits of the treaty that you don't like, is a sensible path of action for a country that wants to be taken seriously and prosper on the world stage.
    Endless whataboutery and diversionary assaults on the moral integrity of the EU can't distract from the absurdity of the British position.
    If we invoke the 16th Article of the Treaty, as per the Treaty that was ratified, how is that abrogating anything? That is something the Treaty explicitly permits, so surely you must view that to be perfectly reasonable and entirely within the rules?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,437
    kjh said:

    I'm really struggling with @hyufd's logic here so I may need correcting but I think it is something like this:

    If you lose an election or a referendum you have to suck it up. No compromise to the losing side no matter how close the result is. Implement to the extreme and any disobedience put down with the utmost force.

    If you lose an election or referendum, but happen to be a Tory, Unionist, Right Wing or whatever then your views have to be taken into account even if that means forming an unviable enclave and you must give way to any threat of violence.

    Might make right - and devil take the hindmost.

    No wonder "true' believers in this "philosophy" were so eager to just let Putin smash & grab Ukraine.

    With self-satisfied smirks at prospect of seeing their role model's inexorable, unstoppable advance . . .
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,873
    ClippP said:

    kjh said:

    I'm really struggling with @hyufd's logic here so I may need correcting but I think it is something like this:

    If you lose an election or a referendum you have to suck it up. No compromise to the losing side no matter how close the result is. Implement to the extreme and any disobedience put down with the utmost force.

    If you lose an election or referendum, but happen to be a Tory, Unionist, Right Wing or whatever then your views have to be taken into account even if that means forming an unviable enclave and you must give way to any threat of violence.

    That always has been the policy of the Conservative & Unionist Party, hasn't it?

    Think of all the difficulty they caused for poor Mr Gladstone.

    Our young HY is always a very consistent Conservative.
    I'm old, but I'm not that old. You might have to ask @JackW
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Truss just explicitly said in the Commons that the Protocol was never intended to be set in stone.

    Nor should it be. Evolution works. The Protocol in its 15th Article says how the Protocol can be changed by negotiations and in its 16th provides Safeguards to overwrite parts too. Both are entirely appropriate to use.

    Its quite amusing to me how many people who deny my notion that post-Brexit Britain can be more nimble and less sclerotic are being horrified at post-Brexit Britain being nimble and not sclerotic.

    It's the dishonesty and lack of trustworthiness that are the problem.
    Dishonesty is putting up sanctions on Russia and then creating financial mechanisms to break them. The idea that the EU is some virtuous and completely honest organisation is completely ridiculous.
    Siri, provide me with a textbook example of whataboutery.
    But you want the UK to trust an inherently untrustworthy organisation. They have proven they are willing to stab Ukraine in the back so Germany can keep selling dishwashers. The evidence is clear that the EU can't be trusted and neither can we.

    All along I've said that the UK-EU relationship needs to be a tightly defined set of rules. Trust, doing the other one a favour, or expecting a favour from either party is not going to happen, they are not an informal ally who we can rely on to help us when we need it. This isn't New Zealand and Canada loaning up a few hundred trade negotiators in 2017 and 2018, the EU is ultimately a formal ally with whom we have a trade deal and not a lot else.

    Everyone needs to see our relationship with the EU through this lens and give up on the fanciful idea that if we do them a favour they might respond in kind. It's not going to happen.
    The EU aren't the ones about to tear up an agreement they signed up to just three years ago. Whether the EU is a paragon of virtue or the epitome of evil (a question on which I have ventured no opinion) is irrelevant to the issue of whether the UK should be in the business of signing international treaties with its fingers crossed behind its back. It's a bad look for us and damaging to our ability to operate effectively in international affairs.
    No, they're just tearing up the sanctions they agreed on Russia a few weeks ago. So maybe neither country is to be trusted.
    But only one is abrogating an international treaty.
    To be clear, this is not a beauty contest of UK vs EU, my contention that Brexit was a bad idea does not rest on any idea that the EU is some uniquely virtuous organisation, which is as well because I don't think it is. The question is whether signing a treaty that you don't intend to honour because you've dug yourself into a hole by lying to your voters, and then tearing up that treaty a few years later when you supposedly suddenly cotton on to the bits of the treaty that you don't like, is a sensible path of action for a country that wants to be taken seriously and prosper on the world stage.
    Endless whataboutery and diversionary assaults on the moral integrity of the EU can't distract from the absurdity of the British position.
    If we invoke the 16th Article of the Treaty, as per the Treaty that was ratified, how is that abrogating anything? That is something the Treaty explicitly permits, so surely you must view that to be perfectly reasonable and entirely within the rules?
    If we invoke Article 16, we would not be in breach of anything.

    On the other hand, if the Government were to whip and pass an Act that was in clear violation of our Treaty obligations - as the DUP demands - then well... we would be.

    The problem with Article 16 is - of course - that it is entirely likely that arbitration says (basically) "in December, your government's own report to the Northern Ireland Select Committee reported progress is being made, and that no breach has yet occurred, so why have you invoked an Article meant to be used only in those circumstances?"
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,403

    Roger said:

    Applicant said:

    Roger said:

    I wonder if the Tories have got some intelligence that Sir Keir will be exonerated by Durham police. If so then a trade war with the EU might be a good distraction from the contrast with Boris. Ultimate dead-cat manoeuvre?

    I think you are absolutely right, starkers.

    When in power it gives you some control over resetting the narrative to suit you, which is what the Tories are doing, choosing precise time and issue to control the narrative. Even hating Boris and wishing Tories ill, you gave to concede what is actually happening and how it likely plays out, so many posters can’t/won’t do this.

    There will be some sort of deal? Of course it will end in a deal very similar to the UK governments proposals.

    Will UK government get boost soon as the deal agreed? Of course they will, and we will know because Big G and HY in unison will remind us of this fact soon as deal agreed. St Bart Robert will also get a big boost because the government win with a solution they have pushed on PB for last 5 years (allegedly, I havn’t been around a year yet).

    meanwhile the Great Patriotic War puts Labour on back foot now the commons is back in action? Yep, that’s that’s the beautiful timing of the Great Patriotic War.

    And it obscures what’s going on in partygate, just as you said! Which will Boris red wallers care about more - supporting Boris in fight with EU or moan at him over Partygate?
    Did you vote to Brexit?
    She's already answered that question today.
    I must spend less time reading her posts than you. What was the answer?
    Maybe I shouldn’t have bothered typing it all in for you then. 😆
    By all means tell me what I did wrong with my vote.

    “To answer your question, how did I vote in Brexit referendum. I was (just) too young to vote in 2015 general election but old enough to vote in Brexit referendum. My mum voted staunchly leave, my dad voted staunchly remain.

    I found the long campaign full of crazy rhetorics and wild arguments from both sides, it was hard to know what to believe. It felt long and all over the news even though I went to Spain in middle of it!

    What I didn’t like was commission in Brussels of failed useless politicians on a gravy train wasting money, and it’s completely undemocratic we surrender decisions to them because we Can’t vote them out. That’s like you have surrendered your sovereignty and get less influence and democracy in return. But at same time the vote leave arguments on UK being better off didn’t convince me one iota. It felt bogus but I couldn’t explain it at the time. If you ask me today what was Brexit ref 2016 boil down as, I think it’s FOM and all immigration helps business and economy, it means not just growth but people of working age paying into government so government can afford bills, so it was odd in 2016 that FOM in EU was sold as scroungers and drag on government finance. On the other hand the country is full, housing, NHS waiting lists, building on lovely countryside green belt etc is all because of too much immigration down the years and freedom of movement, so if we aren’t going to lose growth and our government will be wealthier because we aren’t paying so much money into the EU we get that money back, then why not vote for it?

    I am pleased how I used my first ever vote, I didn’t just rush into it keen to use the vote, I wanted to understand it and not get it wrong. But I couldn’t understand which option would prove best so I didn’t vote. “
    Thanks. I didn't realise you were so young. Maybe when you get more into it you'll find you have more in common with the Tories or perhaps UKIP than you have with the Lib Dems
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372
    MISTY said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    AS

    Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    Despite the endless commentary on here, I strongly suspect that the typical mainland voter is disengaged from the battle over the NI protocol, and it won't swing more than a handful of votes whatever happens.

    Unless serious violence breaks out in NI. Then there would be a concerted attempt by the government to blame the EU. However, I'm not convinced that would work. People may be more inclined to blame the government whose doorstep the violence erupts on.

    Yes, agreed. Northern Ireland is a distant country of which we know little, I'm afraid. Arguments over its future will be seen by Leavers as proof the untrustworthiness of the EU and by Remainers as proof of the awfulness of Boris, but if the province were to secede and join the ROI or just quietly go away the vast majority on the mainland would neither notice nor care.
    The Scots would notice, for sure.
    I wonder in the event of a united Ireland if the loyalists would become more virulently enthusiastic about displaying their ‘kultur’?

    Horrid thought, they may pop over even more frequently to Scotland for such displays. Worse, they may just cut their losses and move here. I think Arlene has said as much.

    No, there won't be a united Ireland
    As you repeatedly tell us that the monarchy will last another 1000 years then I will use the same argument back at you.

    Of course there will be a united Ireland. One day.
    There won't, you cannot force loyalist Protestant areas of Northern Ireland like Antrim and Lagan Valley and East Londonderry into the Republic of Ireland against their will without loyalist paramilitary terrorism in Ireland and a return to the Troubles.

    It would be no different to the IRA terrorist violence in Northern Ireland and GB when Roman Catholic areas of Northern Ireland faced direct rule from London
    You're not altogether 'up' on NI are you?

    If you left the province alone for 100 years, let alone 1000, the RC's will have an overwhelming majority.
    So what, the loyalist Protestant areas of Antrim, East Londonderry and Lagan Valley would still have Protestant and Unionist majorities even if the rest of Northern Ireland didn't in 100 years.

    The loyalist paramilitaries, led by the UVF, would then pursue a terrorist campaign across Ireland if forced into the Republic against their will
    The 'loyalists' agreed to letting any possible future reunification to be agreed democratically.

    If they went back on that, they'd find themselves absolutely friendless. England would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland if that's what they democratically choose and nobody would be funnelling weaponry or money to any murderous terrorists who'd deserve to be arrested and imprisoned if they chose to do something so utterly futile.
    No they didn't. The UUP did when they were largest Unionist party and backed the GFA. The DUP opposed the GFA in 1998 as did the UVF.

    The UVF are already threatening terrorist attacks on Irish leaders in the Republic until the Sea border is removed let alone if forced into a united Ireland against their will.

    https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/uvf-is-actively-planning-to-target-more-irish-politicians-41492302.html

    As a British Tory I would certainly support keeping loyalist areas of Northern Ireland in the UK if they wish to remain so, even if I would not support a terrorist campaign
    You aren't a British Tory - just an English one. In Wales you are a Plaid Cymru voting nationalist.

    Anyway, the problem with your "Panem Now, Panem Forever" approach is that the "loyalist areas" are shrinking. Was the 6 counties a century ago, now pockets inside those counties. You can't administer odd towns, or parts of towns. Unionism is dying out - literally. If the DUP weren't so pious they should be launching a "Shag for Britain" campaign to out-breed the catholics.

    Its their only chance.
    In Antrim and Lagan Valley etc Protestants comfortably still outnumber Roman Catholics
    And how do you make these pockets of loyalists into a working administrative area?

    It doesn't matter if Antrim and Lagan Valley want to stay in the Union if they are outvoted by the people not in Antrim and Lagan Valley.
    Yes it does, you can keep them in the UK and send the rest off Northern Ireland to the Republic. Just redraw the boundaries.

    Northern Ireland was created 100 years ago after the threat of loyalist violence from the Ulster Volunteer Force if they were forced into the new Irish Free State after the Irish War of Independence and the Sinn Fein win in the rest of Ireland in the 1918 general election.

    Little has changed on that point a century later
    'send the rest off NI to the republic'. I hope you aren't talkiing about ethnic cleansing.
    Of course the GFA ceded the future of NI to the people of Ireland. It became part of the constitution of two countries - the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Amongst other things it led to the revocation of the government of Ireland act. The agreement reached was that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, and would remain so until a majority of the people both of Northern Ireland and of the Republic of Ireland wished otherwise. Should that happen, then the British and Irish governments are under "a binding obligation" to implement that choice. So no option to declare Ballymena independent- not just by internal law but by international treaty which was guaranteed by the US. The GFA remains a rare consensus point in US politics. No winding the clock back on that one.
    Seems that Boris Johnson and his "true" Conservative and (Dis)Unionist Party have as much respect for international law, esp. treaties, as . . . wait for it . . . Valdmir Putin and his "United" Russia Party.
    Does this mean we will be offered territory for free, as Macron offered to carve up Ukraine with Putin?
    It is - of course - entirely possible that both Johnson and Macron are amoral scum.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,238
    A beautiful day on the Giro d’Italia today. Biniam Girmay of Eritrea is a superstar in the making. Astonishing sprint after such a hard day in the saddle. Historic. And big love to No. 2 Mathieu van der Poel, thumbs up! Sport is just a fantastic unifier sometimes ❤️

    Michele Scarponi R.I.P.

    🇪🇷
    🇳🇱
    🇮🇹
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,317

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Truss just explicitly said in the Commons that the Protocol was never intended to be set in stone.

    Nor should it be. Evolution works. The Protocol in its 15th Article says how the Protocol can be changed by negotiations and in its 16th provides Safeguards to overwrite parts too. Both are entirely appropriate to use.

    Its quite amusing to me how many people who deny my notion that post-Brexit Britain can be more nimble and less sclerotic are being horrified at post-Brexit Britain being nimble and not sclerotic.

    It's the dishonesty and lack of trustworthiness that are the problem.
    Dishonesty is putting up sanctions on Russia and then creating financial mechanisms to break them. The idea that the EU is some virtuous and completely honest organisation is completely ridiculous.
    Siri, provide me with a textbook example of whataboutery.
    But you want the UK to trust an inherently untrustworthy organisation. They have proven they are willing to stab Ukraine in the back so Germany can keep selling dishwashers. The evidence is clear that the EU can't be trusted and neither can we.

    All along I've said that the UK-EU relationship needs to be a tightly defined set of rules. Trust, doing the other one a favour, or expecting a favour from either party is not going to happen, they are not an informal ally who we can rely on to help us when we need it. This isn't New Zealand and Canada loaning up a few hundred trade negotiators in 2017 and 2018, the EU is ultimately a formal ally with whom we have a trade deal and not a lot else.

    Everyone needs to see our relationship with the EU through this lens and give up on the fanciful idea that if we do them a favour they might respond in kind. It's not going to happen.
    The EU aren't the ones about to tear up an agreement they signed up to just three years ago. Whether the EU is a paragon of virtue or the epitome of evil (a question on which I have ventured no opinion) is irrelevant to the issue of whether the UK should be in the business of signing international treaties with its fingers crossed behind its back. It's a bad look for us and damaging to our ability to operate effectively in international affairs.
    No, they're just tearing up the sanctions they agreed on Russia a few weeks ago. So maybe neither country is to be trusted.
    But only one is abrogating an international treaty.
    To be clear, this is not a beauty contest of UK vs EU, my contention that Brexit was a bad idea does not rest on any idea that the EU is some uniquely virtuous organisation, which is as well because I don't think it is. The question is whether signing a treaty that you don't intend to honour because you've dug yourself into a hole by lying to your voters, and then tearing up that treaty a few years later when you supposedly suddenly cotton on to the bits of the treaty that you don't like, is a sensible path of action for a country that wants to be taken seriously and prosper on the world stage.
    Endless whataboutery and diversionary assaults on the moral integrity of the EU can't distract from the absurdity of the British position.
    If we invoke the 16th Article of the Treaty, as per the Treaty that was ratified, how is that abrogating anything? That is something the Treaty explicitly permits, so surely you must view that to be perfectly reasonable and entirely within the rules?
    The government is proposing to do something different. My criticism is of the government's proposed course of action, not yours. The question of whether triggering A16 is sensible or proportionate is a different one, of course. The business community's view in NI is that the protocol is working to the province's advantage.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916
    edited May 17
    kjh said:

    I'm really struggling with @hyufd's logic here so I may need correcting but I think it is something like this:

    If you lose an election or a referendum you have to suck it up. No compromise to the losing side no matter how close the result is. Implement to the extreme and any disobedience put down with the utmost force.

    If you lose an election or referendum, but happen to be a Tory, Unionist, Right Wing or whatever then your views have to be taken into account even if that means forming an unviable enclave and you must give way to any threat of violence.

    Northern Ireland was created by the threat of violence via the armed Ulster volunteers. Loyalist paramilitaries still exist.

    I have yet to see see any significant terrorism from Scottish Nationalists over the 2014 referendum loss or Remainers over the 2016 referendum loss or indeed from unionists and Tories who were on the beaten side in the 1997 Scottish devolution referendum.

    Northern Ireland has a history of recent internal violence the rest of the UK does not so must be handled with special care
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,913
    ClippP said:

    kjh said:

    I'm really struggling with @hyufd's logic here so I may need correcting but I think it is something like this:

    If you lose an election or a referendum you have to suck it up. No compromise to the losing side no matter how close the result is. Implement to the extreme and any disobedience put down with the utmost force.

    If you lose an election or referendum, but happen to be a Tory, Unionist, Right Wing or whatever then your views have to be taken into account even if that means forming an unviable enclave and you must give way to any threat of violence.

    That always has been the policy of the Conservative & Unionist Party, hasn't it?

    Think of all the difficulty they caused for poor Mr Gladstone.

    Our young HY is always a very consistent Conservative.
    And Asquith and LG, come to think of it.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,472
    First claimed use of surface-to-surface Brimstone missiles in Ukrainian war.

    https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1526582495076024321
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,854
    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Truss just explicitly said in the Commons that the Protocol was never intended to be set in stone.

    Nor should it be. Evolution works. The Protocol in its 15th Article says how the Protocol can be changed by negotiations and in its 16th provides Safeguards to overwrite parts too. Both are entirely appropriate to use.

    Its quite amusing to me how many people who deny my notion that post-Brexit Britain can be more nimble and less sclerotic are being horrified at post-Brexit Britain being nimble and not sclerotic.

    It's the dishonesty and lack of trustworthiness that are the problem.
    Dishonesty is putting up sanctions on Russia and then creating financial mechanisms to break them. The idea that the EU is some virtuous and completely honest organisation is completely ridiculous.
    Siri, provide me with a textbook example of whataboutery.
    But you want the UK to trust an inherently untrustworthy organisation. They have proven they are willing to stab Ukraine in the back so Germany can keep selling dishwashers. The evidence is clear that the EU can't be trusted and neither can we.

    All along I've said that the UK-EU relationship needs to be a tightly defined set of rules. Trust, doing the other one a favour, or expecting a favour from either party is not going to happen, they are not an informal ally who we can rely on to help us when we need it. This isn't New Zealand and Canada loaning up a few hundred trade negotiators in 2017 and 2018, the EU is ultimately a formal ally with whom we have a trade deal and not a lot else.

    Everyone needs to see our relationship with the EU through this lens and give up on the fanciful idea that if we do them a favour they might respond in kind. It's not going to happen.
    The EU aren't the ones about to tear up an agreement they signed up to just three years ago. Whether the EU is a paragon of virtue or the epitome of evil (a question on which I have ventured no opinion) is irrelevant to the issue of whether the UK should be in the business of signing international treaties with its fingers crossed behind its back. It's a bad look for us and damaging to our ability to operate effectively in international affairs.
    No, they're just tearing up the sanctions they agreed on Russia a few weeks ago. So maybe neither country is to be trusted.
    But only one is abrogating an international treaty.
    To be clear, this is not a beauty contest of UK vs EU, my contention that Brexit was a bad idea does not rest on any idea that the EU is some uniquely virtuous organisation, which is as well because I don't think it is. The question is whether signing a treaty that you don't intend to honour because you've dug yourself into a hole by lying to your voters, and then tearing up that treaty a few years later when you supposedly suddenly cotton on to the bits of the treaty that you don't like, is a sensible path of action for a country that wants to be taken seriously and prosper on the world stage.
    Endless whataboutery and diversionary assaults on the moral integrity of the EU can't distract from the absurdity of the British position.
    If we invoke the 16th Article of the Treaty, as per the Treaty that was ratified, how is that abrogating anything? That is something the Treaty explicitly permits, so surely you must view that to be perfectly reasonable and entirely within the rules?
    If we invoke Article 16, we would not be in breach of anything.

    On the other hand, if the Government were to whip and pass an Act that was in clear violation of our Treaty obligations - as the DUP demands - then well... we would be.

    The problem with Article 16 is - of course - that it is entirely likely that arbitration says (basically) "in December, your government's own report to the Northern Ireland Select Committee reported progress is being made, and that no breach has yet occurred, so why have you invoked an Article meant to be used only in those circumstances?"
    Which is why I'd prefer A16.

    Considering that Sercovic this week essentially confirmed an agreement couldn't be reached between what the DUP demand and the EU is prepared to offer at the minute it seems to me a simple answer to your question is "progress hasn't been reached, there is a treat to social stability and so action is required until an agreement is reached".
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 1,734

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Truss just explicitly said in the Commons that the Protocol was never intended to be set in stone.

    Nor should it be. Evolution works. The Protocol in its 15th Article says how the Protocol can be changed by negotiations and in its 16th provides Safeguards to overwrite parts too. Both are entirely appropriate to use.

    Its quite amusing to me how many people who deny my notion that post-Brexit Britain can be more nimble and less sclerotic are being horrified at post-Brexit Britain being nimble and not sclerotic.

    It's the dishonesty and lack of trustworthiness that are the problem.
    Dishonesty is putting up sanctions on Russia and then creating financial mechanisms to break them. The idea that the EU is some virtuous and completely honest organisation is completely ridiculous.
    Siri, provide me with a textbook example of whataboutery.
    But you want the UK to trust an inherently untrustworthy organisation. They have proven they are willing to stab Ukraine in the back so Germany can keep selling dishwashers. The evidence is clear that the EU can't be trusted and neither can we.

    All along I've said that the UK-EU relationship needs to be a tightly defined set of rules. Trust, doing the other one a favour, or expecting a favour from either party is not going to happen, they are not an informal ally who we can rely on to help us when we need it. This isn't New Zealand and Canada loaning up a few hundred trade negotiators in 2017 and 2018, the EU is ultimately a formal ally with whom we have a trade deal and not a lot else.

    Everyone needs to see our relationship with the EU through this lens and give up on the fanciful idea that if we do them a favour they might respond in kind. It's not going to happen.
    The EU aren't the ones about to tear up an agreement they signed up to just three years ago. Whether the EU is a paragon of virtue or the epitome of evil (a question on which I have ventured no opinion) is irrelevant to the issue of whether the UK should be in the business of signing international treaties with its fingers crossed behind its back. It's a bad look for us and damaging to our ability to operate effectively in international affairs.
    No, they're just tearing up the sanctions they agreed on Russia a few weeks ago. So maybe neither country is to be trusted.
    But only one is abrogating an international treaty.
    To be clear, this is not a beauty contest of UK vs EU, my contention that Brexit was a bad idea does not rest on any idea that the EU is some uniquely virtuous organisation, which is as well because I don't think it is. The question is whether signing a treaty that you don't intend to honour because you've dug yourself into a hole by lying to your voters, and then tearing up that treaty a few years later when you supposedly suddenly cotton on to the bits of the treaty that you don't like, is a sensible path of action for a country that wants to be taken seriously and prosper on the world stage.
    Endless whataboutery and diversionary assaults on the moral integrity of the EU can't distract from the absurdity of the British position.
    Whatever the rights and wrongs it would be quite a thing for the EU to "sanction" the UK at a time when the said UK has done more than any other European country to come to the assistance of Ukraine. Interesting optics.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,854
    edited May 17

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Truss just explicitly said in the Commons that the Protocol was never intended to be set in stone.

    Nor should it be. Evolution works. The Protocol in its 15th Article says how the Protocol can be changed by negotiations and in its 16th provides Safeguards to overwrite parts too. Both are entirely appropriate to use.

    Its quite amusing to me how many people who deny my notion that post-Brexit Britain can be more nimble and less sclerotic are being horrified at post-Brexit Britain being nimble and not sclerotic.

    It's the dishonesty and lack of trustworthiness that are the problem.
    Dishonesty is putting up sanctions on Russia and then creating financial mechanisms to break them. The idea that the EU is some virtuous and completely honest organisation is completely ridiculous.
    Siri, provide me with a textbook example of whataboutery.
    But you want the UK to trust an inherently untrustworthy organisation. They have proven they are willing to stab Ukraine in the back so Germany can keep selling dishwashers. The evidence is clear that the EU can't be trusted and neither can we.

    All along I've said that the UK-EU relationship needs to be a tightly defined set of rules. Trust, doing the other one a favour, or expecting a favour from either party is not going to happen, they are not an informal ally who we can rely on to help us when we need it. This isn't New Zealand and Canada loaning up a few hundred trade negotiators in 2017 and 2018, the EU is ultimately a formal ally with whom we have a trade deal and not a lot else.

    Everyone needs to see our relationship with the EU through this lens and give up on the fanciful idea that if we do them a favour they might respond in kind. It's not going to happen.
    The EU aren't the ones about to tear up an agreement they signed up to just three years ago. Whether the EU is a paragon of virtue or the epitome of evil (a question on which I have ventured no opinion) is irrelevant to the issue of whether the UK should be in the business of signing international treaties with its fingers crossed behind its back. It's a bad look for us and damaging to our ability to operate effectively in international affairs.
    No, they're just tearing up the sanctions they agreed on Russia a few weeks ago. So maybe neither country is to be trusted.
    But only one is abrogating an international treaty.
    To be clear, this is not a beauty contest of UK vs EU, my contention that Brexit was a bad idea does not rest on any idea that the EU is some uniquely virtuous organisation, which is as well because I don't think it is. The question is whether signing a treaty that you don't intend to honour because you've dug yourself into a hole by lying to your voters, and then tearing up that treaty a few years later when you supposedly suddenly cotton on to the bits of the treaty that you don't like, is a sensible path of action for a country that wants to be taken seriously and prosper on the world stage.
    Endless whataboutery and diversionary assaults on the moral integrity of the EU can't distract from the absurdity of the British position.
    If we invoke the 16th Article of the Treaty, as per the Treaty that was ratified, how is that abrogating anything? That is something the Treaty explicitly permits, so surely you must view that to be perfectly reasonable and entirely within the rules?
    The government is proposing to do something different. My criticism is of the government's proposed course of action, not yours. The question of whether triggering A16 is sensible or proportionate is a different one, of course. The business community's view in NI is that the protocol is working to the province's advantage.
    We don't know what the government is proposing yet because they've been relatively circumspect about that.

    "The business community" is not a monolith and it seems to me there are zero unionist MLAs elected who share the view of what you claim "the business community" thinks so that seems unlikely.

    If any proposed unilateral legislation invoked A16 then that would be lawful would it not?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,631
    Skims thread...

    "UVF"

    "Trotskyite"

    Yes, HY is in the house.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,493
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    I'm really struggling with @hyufd's logic here so I may need correcting but I think it is something like this:

    If you lose an election or a referendum you have to suck it up. No compromise to the losing side no matter how close the result is. Implement to the extreme and any disobedience put down with the utmost force.

    If you lose an election or referendum, but happen to be a Tory, Unionist, Right Wing or whatever then your views have to be taken into account even if that means forming an unviable enclave and you must give way to any threat of violence.

    Northern Ireland was created by the threat of violence via the armed Ulster volunteers. Loyalist paramilitaries still exist.

    I have yet to see see any significant terrorism from Scottish Nationalists over the 2014 referendum loss or Remainers over the 2016 referendum loss or indeed from unionists and Tories who were on the beaten side in the 1997 Scottish devolution referendum.

    Northern Ireland has a history of recent internal violence the rest of the UK does not so must be handled with special care
    OK, so lets play the two scenarios.

    In NornIron you've said that the will of some of the residents of Lisburn - a minority - mean that the "boundaries can be redrawn" if need be, with the majority booted into the republic. If that means crazy enclaves then thats ok with you, because they are armed.

    In Scotland the majority want a vote on their future. Not terrorism. Not even UDI, jut a vote. You are so against it you're practically volunteering to drive a tank in the special military operation to crush the Scotch.

    You can't see the screaming absurdity and hypocrisy of your position?
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,502

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    AS

    Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    Despite the endless commentary on here, I strongly suspect that the typical mainland voter is disengaged from the battle over the NI protocol, and it won't swing more than a handful of votes whatever happens.

    Unless serious violence breaks out in NI. Then there would be a concerted attempt by the government to blame the EU. However, I'm not convinced that would work. People may be more inclined to blame the government whose doorstep the violence erupts on.

    Yes, agreed. Northern Ireland is a distant country of which we know little, I'm afraid. Arguments over its future will be seen by Leavers as proof the untrustworthiness of the EU and by Remainers as proof of the awfulness of Boris, but if the province were to secede and join the ROI or just quietly go away the vast majority on the mainland would neither notice nor care.
    The Scots would notice, for sure.
    I wonder in the event of a united Ireland if the loyalists would become more virulently enthusiastic about displaying their ‘kultur’?

    Horrid thought, they may pop over even more frequently to Scotland for such displays. Worse, they may just cut their losses and move here. I think Arlene has said as much.

    No, there won't be a united Ireland
    As you repeatedly tell us that the monarchy will last another 1000 years then I will use the same argument back at you.

    Of course there will be a united Ireland. One day.
    There won't, you cannot force loyalist Protestant areas of Northern Ireland like Antrim and Lagan Valley and East Londonderry into the Republic of Ireland against their will without loyalist paramilitary terrorism in Ireland and a return to the Troubles.

    It would be no different to the IRA terrorist violence in Northern Ireland and GB when Roman Catholic areas of Northern Ireland faced direct rule from London
    You're not altogether 'up' on NI are you?

    If you left the province alone for 100 years, let alone 1000, the RC's will have an overwhelming majority.
    So what, the loyalist Protestant areas of Antrim, East Londonderry and Lagan Valley would still have Protestant and Unionist majorities even if the rest of Northern Ireland didn't in 100 years.

    The loyalist paramilitaries, led by the UVF, would then pursue a terrorist campaign across Ireland if forced into the Republic against their will
    The 'loyalists' agreed to letting any possible future reunification to be agreed democratically.

    If they went back on that, they'd find themselves absolutely friendless. England would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland if that's what they democratically choose and nobody would be funnelling weaponry or money to any murderous terrorists who'd deserve to be arrested and imprisoned if they chose to do something so utterly futile.
    No they didn't. The UUP did when they were largest Unionist party and backed the GFA. The DUP opposed the GFA in 1998 and are now largest Unionist party.

    The UVF are already threatening terrorist attacks on Irish leaders in the Republic until the Sea border is removed let alone if forced into a united Ireland against their will.

    https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/uvf-is-actively-planning-to-target-more-irish-politicians-41492302.html

    As a British Tory I would certainly support keeping loyalist areas of Northern Ireland in the UK if they wish to remain so, even if I would not support a terrorist campaign
    As a Tory you should be aware that the Windsors are up to something in Ireland.

    The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall have been on three multi-day trips to Ireland in recent years: June 2018, May 2019, March 2022. The Cambridges were similarly deployed to Ireland in March 2020. If the pandemic hadn't intervened there would doubtless have been more visits.

    Sensible Irish politicians know that they will have to compromise on symbols to mollify moderate Unionists, and therefore isolate extreme Unionists, if they want to achieve a United Ireland.

    Everyone is expecting Charles to be a dreadful King, but suppose he manages to bring Ireland into the Commonwealth and thereby help to ease a peaceful reunification of the island of Ireland? That would be quite the achievement. Maybe he will surprise us.
    I had to google 'The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall' to see who they were. Should I be ashamed of myself?

    (I did wonder Harry and Meghan, but thought 2022 surely ruled them out. Then thought maybe the ones who I now know, after more googling, are the Wessexes. Should have thought Duchy of Cornwall, of course - I know that's Charles's outfit.)
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,854
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,393
    Roger said:

    Applicant said:

    Roger said:

    I wonder if the Tories have got some intelligence that Sir Keir will be exonerated by Durham police. If so then a trade war with the EU might be a good distraction from the contrast with Boris. Ultimate dead-cat manoeuvre?

    I think you are absolutely right, starkers.

    When in power it gives you some control over resetting the narrative to suit you, which is what the Tories are doing, choosing precise time and issue to control the narrative. Even hating Boris and wishing Tories ill, you gave to concede what is actually happening and how it likely plays out, so many posters can’t/won’t do this.

    There will be some sort of deal? Of course it will end in a deal very similar to the UK governments proposals.

    Will UK government get boost soon as the deal agreed? Of course they will, and we will know because Big G and HY in unison will remind us of this fact soon as deal agreed. St Bart Robert will also get a big boost because the government win with a solution they have pushed on PB for last 5 years (allegedly, I havn’t been around a year yet).

    meanwhile the Great Patriotic War puts Labour on back foot now the commons is back in action? Yep, that’s that’s the beautiful timing of the Great Patriotic War.

    And it obscures what’s going on in partygate, just as you said! Which will Boris red wallers care about more - supporting Boris in fight with EU or moan at him over Partygate?
    Did you vote to Brexit?
    She's already answered that question today.
    I must spend less time reading her posts than you. What was the answer?
    Hopefully that it's none of your business.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,913
    Selebian said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    AS

    Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    Despite the endless commentary on here, I strongly suspect that the typical mainland voter is disengaged from the battle over the NI protocol, and it won't swing more than a handful of votes whatever happens.

    Unless serious violence breaks out in NI. Then there would be a concerted attempt by the government to blame the EU. However, I'm not convinced that would work. People may be more inclined to blame the government whose doorstep the violence erupts on.

    Yes, agreed. Northern Ireland is a distant country of which we know little, I'm afraid. Arguments over its future will be seen by Leavers as proof the untrustworthiness of the EU and by Remainers as proof of the awfulness of Boris, but if the province were to secede and join the ROI or just quietly go away the vast majority on the mainland would neither notice nor care.
    The Scots would notice, for sure.
    I wonder in the event of a united Ireland if the loyalists would become more virulently enthusiastic about displaying their ‘kultur’?

    Horrid thought, they may pop over even more frequently to Scotland for such displays. Worse, they may just cut their losses and move here. I think Arlene has said as much.

    No, there won't be a united Ireland
    As you repeatedly tell us that the monarchy will last another 1000 years then I will use the same argument back at you.

    Of course there will be a united Ireland. One day.
    There won't, you cannot force loyalist Protestant areas of Northern Ireland like Antrim and Lagan Valley and East Londonderry into the Republic of Ireland against their will without loyalist paramilitary terrorism in Ireland and a return to the Troubles.

    It would be no different to the IRA terrorist violence in Northern Ireland and GB when Roman Catholic areas of Northern Ireland faced direct rule from London
    You're not altogether 'up' on NI are you?

    If you left the province alone for 100 years, let alone 1000, the RC's will have an overwhelming majority.
    So what, the loyalist Protestant areas of Antrim, East Londonderry and Lagan Valley would still have Protestant and Unionist majorities even if the rest of Northern Ireland didn't in 100 years.

    The loyalist paramilitaries, led by the UVF, would then pursue a terrorist campaign across Ireland if forced into the Republic against their will
    The 'loyalists' agreed to letting any possible future reunification to be agreed democratically.

    If they went back on that, they'd find themselves absolutely friendless. England would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland if that's what they democratically choose and nobody would be funnelling weaponry or money to any murderous terrorists who'd deserve to be arrested and imprisoned if they chose to do something so utterly futile.
    No they didn't. The UUP did when they were largest Unionist party and backed the GFA. The DUP opposed the GFA in 1998 and are now largest Unionist party.

    The UVF are already threatening terrorist attacks on Irish leaders in the Republic until the Sea border is removed let alone if forced into a united Ireland against their will.

    https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/uvf-is-actively-planning-to-target-more-irish-politicians-41492302.html

    As a British Tory I would certainly support keeping loyalist areas of Northern Ireland in the UK if they wish to remain so, even if I would not support a terrorist campaign
    As a Tory you should be aware that the Windsors are up to something in Ireland.

    The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall have been on three multi-day trips to Ireland in recent years: June 2018, May 2019, March 2022. The Cambridges were similarly deployed to Ireland in March 2020. If the pandemic hadn't intervened there would doubtless have been more visits.

    Sensible Irish politicians know that they will have to compromise on symbols to mollify moderate Unionists, and therefore isolate extreme Unionists, if they want to achieve a United Ireland.

    Everyone is expecting Charles to be a dreadful King, but suppose he manages to bring Ireland into the Commonwealth and thereby help to ease a peaceful reunification of the island of Ireland? That would be quite the achievement. Maybe he will surprise us.
    I had to google 'The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall' to see who they were. Should I be ashamed of myself?

    (I did wonder Harry and Meghan, but thought 2022 surely ruled them out. Then thought maybe the ones who I now know, after more googling, are the Wessexes. Should have thought Duchy of Cornwall, of course - I know that's Charles's outfit.)
    No. I can't keep up either. It's only because of the biscuits that I can even remember the Cornwall bit. Duke of Rothesay is easy because of the rhyming local demotic contraction as she is spoke on the Clyde - chooky rosay.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,873
    edited May 17
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    I'm really struggling with @hyufd's logic here so I may need correcting but I think it is something like this:

    If you lose an election or a referendum you have to suck it up. No compromise to the losing side no matter how close the result is. Implement to the extreme and any disobedience put down with the utmost force.

    If you lose an election or referendum, but happen to be a Tory, Unionist, Right Wing or whatever then your views have to be taken into account even if that means forming an unviable enclave and you must give way to any threat of violence.

    Northern Ireland was created by the threat of violence via the armed Ulster volunteers. Loyalist paramilitaries still exist.

    I have yet to see see any significant terrorism from Scottish Nationalists over the 2014 referendum loss or Remainers over the 2016 referendum loss or indeed from unionists and Tories who were on the beaten side in the 1997 Scottish devolution referendum.

    Northern Ireland has a history of recent internal violence the rest of the UK does not so must be handled with special care
    Whoosh straight over your head.

    Well of course it should be handled with care.

    But you argue about putting down demonstrations in Scotland with tanks. You admire the force used in Spain. You give no quarter on compromise with your opponents views on anything. Quoting you on a number of occasions you have said 'Tough the Tories won'.

    Yet as soon as violence is threatened you fold like a pack of cards.

    So your argument presumably is to us Remainers we should take up arms as should the Scot Nats. What a pathetic irresponsible response.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Truss just explicitly said in the Commons that the Protocol was never intended to be set in stone.

    Nor should it be. Evolution works. The Protocol in its 15th Article says how the Protocol can be changed by negotiations and in its 16th provides Safeguards to overwrite parts too. Both are entirely appropriate to use.

    Its quite amusing to me how many people who deny my notion that post-Brexit Britain can be more nimble and less sclerotic are being horrified at post-Brexit Britain being nimble and not sclerotic.

    It's the dishonesty and lack of trustworthiness that are the problem.
    Dishonesty is putting up sanctions on Russia and then creating financial mechanisms to break them. The idea that the EU is some virtuous and completely honest organisation is completely ridiculous.
    Siri, provide me with a textbook example of whataboutery.
    But you want the UK to trust an inherently untrustworthy organisation. They have proven they are willing to stab Ukraine in the back so Germany can keep selling dishwashers. The evidence is clear that the EU can't be trusted and neither can we.

    All along I've said that the UK-EU relationship needs to be a tightly defined set of rules. Trust, doing the other one a favour, or expecting a favour from either party is not going to happen, they are not an informal ally who we can rely on to help us when we need it. This isn't New Zealand and Canada loaning up a few hundred trade negotiators in 2017 and 2018, the EU is ultimately a formal ally with whom we have a trade deal and not a lot else.

    Everyone needs to see our relationship with the EU through this lens and give up on the fanciful idea that if we do them a favour they might respond in kind. It's not going to happen.
    The EU aren't the ones about to tear up an agreement they signed up to just three years ago. Whether the EU is a paragon of virtue or the epitome of evil (a question on which I have ventured no opinion) is irrelevant to the issue of whether the UK should be in the business of signing international treaties with its fingers crossed behind its back. It's a bad look for us and damaging to our ability to operate effectively in international affairs.
    No, they're just tearing up the sanctions they agreed on Russia a few weeks ago. So maybe neither country is to be trusted.
    But only one is abrogating an international treaty.
    To be clear, this is not a beauty contest of UK vs EU, my contention that Brexit was a bad idea does not rest on any idea that the EU is some uniquely virtuous organisation, which is as well because I don't think it is. The question is whether signing a treaty that you don't intend to honour because you've dug yourself into a hole by lying to your voters, and then tearing up that treaty a few years later when you supposedly suddenly cotton on to the bits of the treaty that you don't like, is a sensible path of action for a country that wants to be taken seriously and prosper on the world stage.
    Endless whataboutery and diversionary assaults on the moral integrity of the EU can't distract from the absurdity of the British position.
    If we invoke the 16th Article of the Treaty, as per the Treaty that was ratified, how is that abrogating anything? That is something the Treaty explicitly permits, so surely you must view that to be perfectly reasonable and entirely within the rules?
    If we invoke Article 16, we would not be in breach of anything.

    On the other hand, if the Government were to whip and pass an Act that was in clear violation of our Treaty obligations - as the DUP demands - then well... we would be.

    The problem with Article 16 is - of course - that it is entirely likely that arbitration says (basically) "in December, your government's own report to the Northern Ireland Select Committee reported progress is being made, and that no breach has yet occurred, so why have you invoked an Article meant to be used only in those circumstances?"
    Which is why I'd prefer A16.

    Considering that Sercovic this week essentially confirmed an agreement couldn't be reached between what the DUP demand and the EU is prepared to offer at the minute it seems to me a simple answer to your question is "progress hasn't been reached, there is a treat to social stability and so action is required until an agreement is reached".
    And if arbitration goes against us?

    What then?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,472

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    AS

    Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    Despite the endless commentary on here, I strongly suspect that the typical mainland voter is disengaged from the battle over the NI protocol, and it won't swing more than a handful of votes whatever happens.

    Unless serious violence breaks out in NI. Then there would be a concerted attempt by the government to blame the EU. However, I'm not convinced that would work. People may be more inclined to blame the government whose doorstep the violence erupts on.

    Yes, agreed. Northern Ireland is a distant country of which we know little, I'm afraid. Arguments over its future will be seen by Leavers as proof the untrustworthiness of the EU and by Remainers as proof of the awfulness of Boris, but if the province were to secede and join the ROI or just quietly go away the vast majority on the mainland would neither notice nor care.
    The Scots would notice, for sure.
    I wonder in the event of a united Ireland if the loyalists would become more virulently enthusiastic about displaying their ‘kultur’?

    Horrid thought, they may pop over even more frequently to Scotland for such displays. Worse, they may just cut their losses and move here. I think Arlene has said as much.

    No, there won't be a united Ireland
    As you repeatedly tell us that the monarchy will last another 1000 years then I will use the same argument back at you.

    Of course there will be a united Ireland. One day.
    There won't, you cannot force loyalist Protestant areas of Northern Ireland like Antrim and Lagan Valley and East Londonderry into the Republic of Ireland against their will without loyalist paramilitary terrorism in Ireland and a return to the Troubles.

    It would be no different to the IRA terrorist violence in Northern Ireland and GB when Roman Catholic areas of Northern Ireland faced direct rule from London
    You're not altogether 'up' on NI are you?

    If you left the province alone for 100 years, let alone 1000, the RC's will have an overwhelming majority.
    So what, the loyalist Protestant areas of Antrim, East Londonderry and Lagan Valley would still have Protestant and Unionist majorities even if the rest of Northern Ireland didn't in 100 years.

    The loyalist paramilitaries, led by the UVF, would then pursue a terrorist campaign across Ireland if forced into the Republic against their will
    The 'loyalists' agreed to letting any possible future reunification to be agreed democratically.

    If they went back on that, they'd find themselves absolutely friendless. England would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland if that's what they democratically choose and nobody would be funnelling weaponry or money to any murderous terrorists who'd deserve to be arrested and imprisoned if they chose to do something so utterly futile.
    No they didn't. The UUP did when they were largest Unionist party and backed the GFA. The DUP opposed the GFA in 1998 and are now largest Unionist party.

    The UVF are already threatening terrorist attacks on Irish leaders in the Republic until the Sea border is removed let alone if forced into a united Ireland against their will.

    https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/uvf-is-actively-planning-to-target-more-irish-politicians-41492302.html

    As a British Tory I would certainly support keeping loyalist areas of Northern Ireland in the UK if they wish to remain so, even if I would not support a terrorist campaign
    As a Tory you should be aware that the Windsors are up to something in Ireland.

    The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall have been on three multi-day trips to Ireland in recent years: June 2018, May 2019, March 2022. The Cambridges were similarly deployed to Ireland in March 2020. If the pandemic hadn't intervened there would doubtless have been more visits.

    Sensible Irish politicians know that they will have to compromise on symbols to mollify moderate Unionists, and therefore isolate extreme Unionists, if they want to achieve a United Ireland.

    Everyone is expecting Charles to be a dreadful King, but suppose he manages to bring Ireland into the Commonwealth and thereby help to ease a peaceful reunification of the island of Ireland? That would be quite the achievement. Maybe he will surprise us.
    That seems extremely unlikely but would be a great achievement were that to happen.

    Independent nations like India are happy to be in the Commonwealth so if Ireland were to opt to join and reunify on that basis that would be quite impressive.

    But I absolutely do not see it happening. Seems more like a hell freezing over kind of event.
    Ireland has applied to join the Francophonie, so it's a marked sign of residual hostility towards Britain that Ireland is not a member of the Commonwealth.

    That's understandable given the history, but it's equally understandable that it would make a United Ireland quite hostile for those who think of themselves as British. When Ireland is able to join the Commonwealth it will be able to come to terms with its history and accept that a close relationship with Britain is a good thing, rather than a betrayal of the Easter Rising.

    The Windsor's charm offensive to normalize their presence in Ireland seems like a step towards this. I can't imagine a United Ireland happening without it.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,873

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    I'm really struggling with @hyufd's logic here so I may need correcting but I think it is something like this:

    If you lose an election or a referendum you have to suck it up. No compromise to the losing side no matter how close the result is. Implement to the extreme and any disobedience put down with the utmost force.

    If you lose an election or referendum, but happen to be a Tory, Unionist, Right Wing or whatever then your views have to be taken into account even if that means forming an unviable enclave and you must give way to any threat of violence.

    Northern Ireland was created by the threat of violence via the armed Ulster volunteers. Loyalist paramilitaries still exist.

    I have yet to see see any significant terrorism from Scottish Nationalists over the 2014 referendum loss or Remainers over the 2016 referendum loss or indeed from unionists and Tories who were on the beaten side in the 1997 Scottish devolution referendum.

    Northern Ireland has a history of recent internal violence the rest of the UK does not so must be handled with special care
    OK, so lets play the two scenarios.

    In NornIron you've said that the will of some of the residents of Lisburn - a minority - mean that the "boundaries can be redrawn" if need be, with the majority booted into the republic. If that means crazy enclaves then thats ok with you, because they are armed.

    In Scotland the majority want a vote on their future. Not terrorism. Not even UDI, jut a vote. You are so against it you're practically volunteering to drive a tank in the special military operation to crush the Scotch.

    You can't see the screaming absurdity and hypocrisy of your position?
    Snap.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,854
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Truss just explicitly said in the Commons that the Protocol was never intended to be set in stone.

    Nor should it be. Evolution works. The Protocol in its 15th Article says how the Protocol can be changed by negotiations and in its 16th provides Safeguards to overwrite parts too. Both are entirely appropriate to use.

    Its quite amusing to me how many people who deny my notion that post-Brexit Britain can be more nimble and less sclerotic are being horrified at post-Brexit Britain being nimble and not sclerotic.

    It's the dishonesty and lack of trustworthiness that are the problem.
    Dishonesty is putting up sanctions on Russia and then creating financial mechanisms to break them. The idea that the EU is some virtuous and completely honest organisation is completely ridiculous.
    Siri, provide me with a textbook example of whataboutery.
    But you want the UK to trust an inherently untrustworthy organisation. They have proven they are willing to stab Ukraine in the back so Germany can keep selling dishwashers. The evidence is clear that the EU can't be trusted and neither can we.

    All along I've said that the UK-EU relationship needs to be a tightly defined set of rules. Trust, doing the other one a favour, or expecting a favour from either party is not going to happen, they are not an informal ally who we can rely on to help us when we need it. This isn't New Zealand and Canada loaning up a few hundred trade negotiators in 2017 and 2018, the EU is ultimately a formal ally with whom we have a trade deal and not a lot else.

    Everyone needs to see our relationship with the EU through this lens and give up on the fanciful idea that if we do them a favour they might respond in kind. It's not going to happen.
    The EU aren't the ones about to tear up an agreement they signed up to just three years ago. Whether the EU is a paragon of virtue or the epitome of evil (a question on which I have ventured no opinion) is irrelevant to the issue of whether the UK should be in the business of signing international treaties with its fingers crossed behind its back. It's a bad look for us and damaging to our ability to operate effectively in international affairs.
    No, they're just tearing up the sanctions they agreed on Russia a few weeks ago. So maybe neither country is to be trusted.
    But only one is abrogating an international treaty.
    To be clear, this is not a beauty contest of UK vs EU, my contention that Brexit was a bad idea does not rest on any idea that the EU is some uniquely virtuous organisation, which is as well because I don't think it is. The question is whether signing a treaty that you don't intend to honour because you've dug yourself into a hole by lying to your voters, and then tearing up that treaty a few years later when you supposedly suddenly cotton on to the bits of the treaty that you don't like, is a sensible path of action for a country that wants to be taken seriously and prosper on the world stage.
    Endless whataboutery and diversionary assaults on the moral integrity of the EU can't distract from the absurdity of the British position.
    If we invoke the 16th Article of the Treaty, as per the Treaty that was ratified, how is that abrogating anything? That is something the Treaty explicitly permits, so surely you must view that to be perfectly reasonable and entirely within the rules?
    If we invoke Article 16, we would not be in breach of anything.

    On the other hand, if the Government were to whip and pass an Act that was in clear violation of our Treaty obligations - as the DUP demands - then well... we would be.

    The problem with Article 16 is - of course - that it is entirely likely that arbitration says (basically) "in December, your government's own report to the Northern Ireland Select Committee reported progress is being made, and that no breach has yet occurred, so why have you invoked an Article meant to be used only in those circumstances?"
    Which is why I'd prefer A16.

    Considering that Sercovic this week essentially confirmed an agreement couldn't be reached between what the DUP demand and the EU is prepared to offer at the minute it seems to me a simple answer to your question is "progress hasn't been reached, there is a treat to social stability and so action is required until an agreement is reached".
    And if arbitration goes against us?

    What then?
    Cross that bridge if we get there.

    If it doesn't, then what?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,093

    Covid/NHS personal experience update.
    Just back from a mental health referral. Help has been almost non existent during covid but pleased to say very positive young woman promising all sorts of things we can look at, back to proper tailored help proposals, and will try and get back to me by Friday with a plan.
    Things are slowly emerging and healing from the carnage.
    I would struggle to explain just how bleak things were for me trying to deal with bereavement, mental health issues/disability in a little flat, alone, during covid. I expect I'm far from unique in that which is why today feels like a victory over the accursed damn virus personally and I hope others find things are improving. And why I'd happily stand on the Frontline to stop lockdown ever happening again.
    Why am I telling you? I dont know. I know very few people these days and so I just wanted to share something that isn't grumpy political cross punching or me being a tool.

    That's cheering to hear. Best of luck with further treatment plan.

    And no, we should not lock down again. Frankly, I am increasingly of the view that it has been a public policy disaster at least after an initial short one to see what we were dealing with and was not part of decades worth of pandemic planning.

  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    Applicant said:

    Roger said:

    I wonder if the Tories have got some intelligence that Sir Keir will be exonerated by Durham police. If so then a trade war with the EU might be a good distraction from the contrast with Boris. Ultimate dead-cat manoeuvre?

    I think you are absolutely right, starkers.

    When in power it gives you some control over resetting the narrative to suit you, which is what the Tories are doing, choosing precise time and issue to control the narrative. Even hating Boris and wishing Tories ill, you gave to concede what is actually happening and how it likely plays out, so many posters can’t/won’t do this.

    There will be some sort of deal? Of course it will end in a deal very similar to the UK governments proposals.

    Will UK government get boost soon as the deal agreed? Of course they will, and we will know because Big G and HY in unison will remind us of this fact soon as deal agreed. St Bart Robert will also get a big boost because the government win with a solution they have pushed on PB for last 5 years (allegedly, I havn’t been around a year yet).

    meanwhile the Great Patriotic War puts Labour on back foot now the commons is back in action? Yep, that’s that’s the beautiful timing of the Great Patriotic War.

    And it obscures what’s going on in partygate, just as you said! Which will Boris red wallers care about more - supporting Boris in fight with EU or moan at him over Partygate?
    Did you vote to Brexit?
    She's already answered that question today.
    I must spend less time reading her posts than you. What was the answer?
    Maybe I shouldn’t have bothered typing it all in for you then. 😆
    By all means tell me what I did wrong with my vote.

    “To answer your question, how did I vote in Brexit referendum. I was (just) too young to vote in 2015 general election but old enough to vote in Brexit referendum. My mum voted staunchly leave, my dad voted staunchly remain.

    I found the long campaign full of crazy rhetorics and wild arguments from both sides, it was hard to know what to believe. It felt long and all over the news even though I went to Spain in middle of it!

    What I didn’t like was commission in Brussels of failed useless politicians on a gravy train wasting money, and it’s completely undemocratic we surrender decisions to them because we Can’t vote them out. That’s like you have surrendered your sovereignty and get less influence and democracy in return. But at same time the vote leave arguments on UK being better off didn’t convince me one iota. It felt bogus but I couldn’t explain it at the time. If you ask me today what was Brexit ref 2016 boil down as, I think it’s FOM and all immigration helps business and economy, it means not just growth but people of working age paying into government so government can afford bills, so it was odd in 2016 that FOM in EU was sold as scroungers and drag on government finance. On the other hand the country is full, housing, NHS waiting lists, building on lovely countryside green belt etc is all because of too much immigration down the years and freedom of movement, so if we aren’t going to lose growth and our government will be wealthier because we aren’t paying so much money into the EU we get that money back, then why not vote for it?

    I am pleased how I used my first ever vote, I didn’t just rush into it keen to use the vote, I wanted to understand it and not get it wrong. But I couldn’t understand which option would prove best so I didn’t vote. “
    Thanks. I didn't realise you were so young. Maybe when you get more into it you'll find you have more in common with the Tories or perhaps UKIP than you have with the Lib Dems
    You are so cheeky!

    I think I am going in the opposite direction, probably because I take my Christianity more seriously than the rest of my family, and helped by Boris Johnson attacking Conservative values with his populist rhetoric.

    I think I understand all the Brexit issues better now than when asked to choose in 2016. Maybe as it gets older the 2016 vote will become known as the “we are being told we can have our cake and eat it, why not give it a try” result. It was all things to all local communities - places getting run down more each year regardless who won General or local elections thought it could be change for better if it made UK government richer will all the money back and less sponging migrants to look after - rural villages hating idea of new housing changing them for ever because the country is too full with too many people coming in - people wanting local hospital back so loving NHS pledge. To say Brexit win was all about democracy and sovereignty questions might not be true, nor was it how either side actually campaigned.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,317

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Truss just explicitly said in the Commons that the Protocol was never intended to be set in stone.

    Nor should it be. Evolution works. The Protocol in its 15th Article says how the Protocol can be changed by negotiations and in its 16th provides Safeguards to overwrite parts too. Both are entirely appropriate to use.

    Its quite amusing to me how many people who deny my notion that post-Brexit Britain can be more nimble and less sclerotic are being horrified at post-Brexit Britain being nimble and not sclerotic.

    It's the dishonesty and lack of trustworthiness that are the problem.
    Dishonesty is putting up sanctions on Russia and then creating financial mechanisms to break them. The idea that the EU is some virtuous and completely honest organisation is completely ridiculous.
    Siri, provide me with a textbook example of whataboutery.
    But you want the UK to trust an inherently untrustworthy organisation. They have proven they are willing to stab Ukraine in the back so Germany can keep selling dishwashers. The evidence is clear that the EU can't be trusted and neither can we.

    All along I've said that the UK-EU relationship needs to be a tightly defined set of rules. Trust, doing the other one a favour, or expecting a favour from either party is not going to happen, they are not an informal ally who we can rely on to help us when we need it. This isn't New Zealand and Canada loaning up a few hundred trade negotiators in 2017 and 2018, the EU is ultimately a formal ally with whom we have a trade deal and not a lot else.

    Everyone needs to see our relationship with the EU through this lens and give up on the fanciful idea that if we do them a favour they might respond in kind. It's not going to happen.
    The EU aren't the ones about to tear up an agreement they signed up to just three years ago. Whether the EU is a paragon of virtue or the epitome of evil (a question on which I have ventured no opinion) is irrelevant to the issue of whether the UK should be in the business of signing international treaties with its fingers crossed behind its back. It's a bad look for us and damaging to our ability to operate effectively in international affairs.
    No, they're just tearing up the sanctions they agreed on Russia a few weeks ago. So maybe neither country is to be trusted.
    But only one is abrogating an international treaty.
    To be clear, this is not a beauty contest of UK vs EU, my contention that Brexit was a bad idea does not rest on any idea that the EU is some uniquely virtuous organisation, which is as well because I don't think it is. The question is whether signing a treaty that you don't intend to honour because you've dug yourself into a hole by lying to your voters, and then tearing up that treaty a few years later when you supposedly suddenly cotton on to the bits of the treaty that you don't like, is a sensible path of action for a country that wants to be taken seriously and prosper on the world stage.
    Endless whataboutery and diversionary assaults on the moral integrity of the EU can't distract from the absurdity of the British position.
    Whatever the rights and wrongs it would be quite a thing for the EU to "sanction" the UK at a time when the said UK has done more than any other European country to come to the assistance of Ukraine. Interesting optics.
    Equally quite a thing to pick an unnecessary fight with the EU when the Ukraine conflict demands a united European front. No wonder Putin loves Brexit so much.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    I'm really struggling with @hyufd's logic here so I may need correcting but I think it is something like this:

    If you lose an election or a referendum you have to suck it up. No compromise to the losing side no matter how close the result is. Implement to the extreme and any disobedience put down with the utmost force.

    If you lose an election or referendum, but happen to be a Tory, Unionist, Right Wing or whatever then your views have to be taken into account even if that means forming an unviable enclave and you must give way to any threat of violence.

    Northern Ireland was created by the threat of violence via the armed Ulster volunteers. Loyalist paramilitaries still exist.

    I have yet to see see any significant terrorism from Scottish Nationalists over the 2014 referendum loss or Remainers over the 2016 referendum loss or indeed from unionists and Tories who were on the beaten side in the 1997 Scottish devolution referendum.

    Northern Ireland has a history of recent internal violence the rest of the UK does not so must be handled with special care
    Whoosh straight over your head.

    Well of course it should be handles with care.

    But you argue about putting down demonstrations in Scotland with tanks. You admire the force used in Spain. You give no quarter on compromise with your opponents views on anything. Quoting you on a number of occasions you have said 'Tough the Tories won'.

    Yet as soon as violence is threatened you fold like a pack of cards.

    So your argument presumably is to us Remainers we should take up arms as should the Scot Nats. What a pathetic irresponsible response.
    There is no history of significant terrorism in Scotland and it is within the UK government's right to refuse an indyref2.

    If Remainers had taken up arms for their own areas to stay in the EU then there might have been a case to consider it. They didn't, nor did they even vote in most Remain areas for the LDs in 2019 who outright rejected Brexit.

    The Good Friday Agreement and Sinn Fein representation at Stormont in the executive only emerged of course because of IRA violence in NI and GB

  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,502

    Covid/NHS personal experience update.
    Just back from a mental health referral. Help has been almost non existent during covid but pleased to say very positive young woman promising all sorts of things we can look at, back to proper tailored help proposals, and will try and get back to me by Friday with a plan.
    Things are slowly emerging and healing from the carnage.
    I would struggle to explain just how bleak things were for me trying to deal with bereavement, mental health issues/disability in a little flat, alone, during covid. I expect I'm far from unique in that which is why today feels like a victory over the accursed damn virus personally and I hope others find things are improving. And why I'd happily stand on the Frontline to stop lockdown ever happening again.
    Why am I telling you? I dont know. I know very few people these days and so I just wanted to share something that isn't grumpy political cross punching or me being a tool.

    All the best to you - I hope you get the support you need. Getting a referral is a good first step, that can take some time (I have a friend who is a nurse working in mental health). Once you're in the process, there are indeed lots of options, I believe. Hope you find something that works for you.

    There will be many others, I'm sure, for whom lockdown was pretty horrendous. Those of us for whom it was only an inconvenience, even with some benefits in WFH, need to remember how lucky we are.

    And tell people. Why not? We offer (and should offer) good wishes for all kinds of breaks and fractures, physical or not.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,393
    MISTY said:

    "Should the UK decide to move ahead with a bill disapplying constitutive elements of the Protocol as announced today by the UK government, the EU will need to respond with all measures at its disposal"

    That last part does sound a bit like Vlad's thinly veiled nuke threats.

    @lisaocarroll
    NEW: EU has power to impose sanctions within seven days of any Brexit law - explainer
    Three options outlined here including nuclear option
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/17/three-ways-eu-could-respond-to-uk-ditching-northern-ireland-protocol
    https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1526549880965058561
    Can the EU's constituent governments get involved at all?

    I was wondering whether countries such as Poland and the Baltics might not want a key ally like Britain punished too heavily...?

    Unless we are not really such a key ally....
    The more sensible journalists say that much of the current stuff is posturing and that neither side is keen on a trade war. Of course you won't find much of that on twitter and even less in the Guardian..
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,472
    Selebian said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    AS

    Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    Despite the endless commentary on here, I strongly suspect that the typical mainland voter is disengaged from the battle over the NI protocol, and it won't swing more than a handful of votes whatever happens.

    Unless serious violence breaks out in NI. Then there would be a concerted attempt by the government to blame the EU. However, I'm not convinced that would work. People may be more inclined to blame the government whose doorstep the violence erupts on.

    Yes, agreed. Northern Ireland is a distant country of which we know little, I'm afraid. Arguments over its future will be seen by Leavers as proof the untrustworthiness of the EU and by Remainers as proof of the awfulness of Boris, but if the province were to secede and join the ROI or just quietly go away the vast majority on the mainland would neither notice nor care.
    The Scots would notice, for sure.
    I wonder in the event of a united Ireland if the loyalists would become more virulently enthusiastic about displaying their ‘kultur’?

    Horrid thought, they may pop over even more frequently to Scotland for such displays. Worse, they may just cut their losses and move here. I think Arlene has said as much.

    No, there won't be a united Ireland
    As you repeatedly tell us that the monarchy will last another 1000 years then I will use the same argument back at you.

    Of course there will be a united Ireland. One day.
    There won't, you cannot force loyalist Protestant areas of Northern Ireland like Antrim and Lagan Valley and East Londonderry into the Republic of Ireland against their will without loyalist paramilitary terrorism in Ireland and a return to the Troubles.

    It would be no different to the IRA terrorist violence in Northern Ireland and GB when Roman Catholic areas of Northern Ireland faced direct rule from London
    You're not altogether 'up' on NI are you?

    If you left the province alone for 100 years, let alone 1000, the RC's will have an overwhelming majority.
    So what, the loyalist Protestant areas of Antrim, East Londonderry and Lagan Valley would still have Protestant and Unionist majorities even if the rest of Northern Ireland didn't in 100 years.

    The loyalist paramilitaries, led by the UVF, would then pursue a terrorist campaign across Ireland if forced into the Republic against their will
    The 'loyalists' agreed to letting any possible future reunification to be agreed democratically.

    If they went back on that, they'd find themselves absolutely friendless. England would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland if that's what they democratically choose and nobody would be funnelling weaponry or money to any murderous terrorists who'd deserve to be arrested and imprisoned if they chose to do something so utterly futile.
    No they didn't. The UUP did when they were largest Unionist party and backed the GFA. The DUP opposed the GFA in 1998 and are now largest Unionist party.

    The UVF are already threatening terrorist attacks on Irish leaders in the Republic until the Sea border is removed let alone if forced into a united Ireland against their will.

    https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/uvf-is-actively-planning-to-target-more-irish-politicians-41492302.html

    As a British Tory I would certainly support keeping loyalist areas of Northern Ireland in the UK if they wish to remain so, even if I would not support a terrorist campaign
    As a Tory you should be aware that the Windsors are up to something in Ireland.

    The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall have been on three multi-day trips to Ireland in recent years: June 2018, May 2019, March 2022. The Cambridges were similarly deployed to Ireland in March 2020. If the pandemic hadn't intervened there would doubtless have been more visits.

    Sensible Irish politicians know that they will have to compromise on symbols to mollify moderate Unionists, and therefore isolate extreme Unionists, if they want to achieve a United Ireland.

    Everyone is expecting Charles to be a dreadful King, but suppose he manages to bring Ireland into the Commonwealth and thereby help to ease a peaceful reunification of the island of Ireland? That would be quite the achievement. Maybe he will surprise us.
    I had to google 'The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall' to see who they were. Should I be ashamed of myself?

    (I did wonder Harry and Meghan, but thought 2022 surely ruled them out. Then thought maybe the ones who I now know, after more googling, are the Wessexes. Should have thought Duchy of Cornwall, of course - I know that's Charles's outfit.)
    As it happens the Sussexes were sent to Ireland in July 2018 - before they consciously uncoupled from the Royal family.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,437
    MISTY said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    AS

    Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    Despite the endless commentary on here, I strongly suspect that the typical mainland voter is disengaged from the battle over the NI protocol, and it won't swing more than a handful of votes whatever happens.

    Unless serious violence breaks out in NI. Then there would be a concerted attempt by the government to blame the EU. However, I'm not convinced that would work. People may be more inclined to blame the government whose doorstep the violence erupts on.

    Yes, agreed. Northern Ireland is a distant country of which we know little, I'm afraid. Arguments over its future will be seen by Leavers as proof the untrustworthiness of the EU and by Remainers as proof of the awfulness of Boris, but if the province were to secede and join the ROI or just quietly go away the vast majority on the mainland would neither notice nor care.
    The Scots would notice, for sure.
    I wonder in the event of a united Ireland if the loyalists would become more virulently enthusiastic about displaying their ‘kultur’?

    Horrid thought, they may pop over even more frequently to Scotland for such displays. Worse, they may just cut their losses and move here. I think Arlene has said as much.

    No, there won't be a united Ireland
    As you repeatedly tell us that the monarchy will last another 1000 years then I will use the same argument back at you.

    Of course there will be a united Ireland. One day.
    There won't, you cannot force loyalist Protestant areas of Northern Ireland like Antrim and Lagan Valley and East Londonderry into the Republic of Ireland against their will without loyalist paramilitary terrorism in Ireland and a return to the Troubles.

    It would be no different to the IRA terrorist violence in Northern Ireland and GB when Roman Catholic areas of Northern Ireland faced direct rule from London
    You're not altogether 'up' on NI are you?

    If you left the province alone for 100 years, let alone 1000, the RC's will have an overwhelming majority.
    So what, the loyalist Protestant areas of Antrim, East Londonderry and Lagan Valley would still have Protestant and Unionist majorities even if the rest of Northern Ireland didn't in 100 years.

    The loyalist paramilitaries, led by the UVF, would then pursue a terrorist campaign across Ireland if forced into the Republic against their will
    The 'loyalists' agreed to letting any possible future reunification to be agreed democratically.

    If they went back on that, they'd find themselves absolutely friendless. England would be glad to see the back of Northern Ireland if that's what they democratically choose and nobody would be funnelling weaponry or money to any murderous terrorists who'd deserve to be arrested and imprisoned if they chose to do something so utterly futile.
    No they didn't. The UUP did when they were largest Unionist party and backed the GFA. The DUP opposed the GFA in 1998 as did the UVF.

    The UVF are already threatening terrorist attacks on Irish leaders in the Republic until the Sea border is removed let alone if forced into a united Ireland against their will.

    https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/uvf-is-actively-planning-to-target-more-irish-politicians-41492302.html

    As a British Tory I would certainly support keeping loyalist areas of Northern Ireland in the UK if they wish to remain so, even if I would not support a terrorist campaign
    You aren't a British Tory - just an English one. In Wales you are a Plaid Cymru voting nationalist.

    Anyway, the problem with your "Panem Now, Panem Forever" approach is that the "loyalist areas" are shrinking. Was the 6 counties a century ago, now pockets inside those counties. You can't administer odd towns, or parts of towns. Unionism is dying out - literally. If the DUP weren't so pious they should be launching a "Shag for Britain" campaign to out-breed the catholics.

    Its their only chance.
    In Antrim and Lagan Valley etc Protestants comfortably still outnumber Roman Catholics
    And how do you make these pockets of loyalists into a working administrative area?

    It doesn't matter if Antrim and Lagan Valley want to stay in the Union if they are outvoted by the people not in Antrim and Lagan Valley.
    Yes it does, you can keep them in the UK and send the rest off Northern Ireland to the Republic. Just redraw the boundaries.

    Northern Ireland was created 100 years ago after the threat of loyalist violence from the Ulster Volunteer Force if they were forced into the new Irish Free State after the Irish War of Independence and the Sinn Fein win in the rest of Ireland in the 1918 general election.

    Little has changed on that point a century later
    'send the rest off NI to the republic'. I hope you aren't talkiing about ethnic cleansing.
    Of course the GFA ceded the future of NI to the people of Ireland. It became part of the constitution of two countries - the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Amongst other things it led to the revocation of the government of Ireland act. The agreement reached was that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, and would remain so until a majority of the people both of Northern Ireland and of the Republic of Ireland wished otherwise. Should that happen, then the British and Irish governments are under "a binding obligation" to implement that choice. So no option to declare Ballymena independent- not just by internal law but by international treaty which was guaranteed by the US. The GFA remains a rare consensus point in US politics. No winding the clock back on that one.
    Seems that Boris Johnson and his "true" Conservative and (Dis)Unionist Party have as much respect for international law, esp. treaties, as . . . wait for it . . . Valdmir Putin and his "United" Russia Party.
    Does this mean we will be offered territory for free, as Macron offered to carve up Ukraine with Putin?
    No. Nor does it mean the Queen will dispatch you to Moon Base Alpha as her Green-Cheese-Finder General.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,868
    Applicant said:

    One for the PB brains trust, as I'm sure someone will know...

    What is it with this modern thing with logging into websites where you have to put your email address in on one page and then the password on a separate page, instead of just putting both in together? Is it really that much more secure that justifies the extra irritation?

    It makes it more difficult for bots or brute force attacks to succeed. The first page validates the email address as a valid username, proceeding to the password entry screen.

    It’s less annoying to humans than the silly CAPTCHA validation box, while being at least as annoying to non-humans.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,493
    Bartholemew has been excellent in this thread.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 1,734

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Truss just explicitly said in the Commons that the Protocol was never intended to be set in stone.

    Nor should it be. Evolution works. The Protocol in its 15th Article says how the Protocol can be changed by negotiations and in its 16th provides Safeguards to overwrite parts too. Both are entirely appropriate to use.

    Its quite amusing to me how many people who deny my notion that post-Brexit Britain can be more nimble and less sclerotic are being horrified at post-Brexit Britain being nimble and not sclerotic.

    It's the dishonesty and lack of trustworthiness that are the problem.
    Dishonesty is putting up sanctions on Russia and then creating financial mechanisms to break them. The idea that the EU is some virtuous and completely honest organisation is completely ridiculous.
    Siri, provide me with a textbook example of whataboutery.
    But you want the UK to trust an inherently untrustworthy organisation. They have proven they are willing to stab Ukraine in the back so Germany can keep selling dishwashers. The evidence is clear that the EU can't be trusted and neither can we.

    All along I've said that the UK-EU relationship needs to be a tightly defined set of rules. Trust, doing the other one a favour, or expecting a favour from either party is not going to happen, they are not an informal ally who we can rely on to help us when we need it. This isn't New Zealand and Canada loaning up a few hundred trade negotiators in 2017 and 2018, the EU is ultimately a formal ally with whom we have a trade deal and not a lot else.

    Everyone needs to see our relationship with the EU through this lens and give up on the fanciful idea that if we do them a favour they might respond in kind. It's not going to happen.
    The EU aren't the ones about to tear up an agreement they signed up to just three years ago. Whether the EU is a paragon of virtue or the epitome of evil (a question on which I have ventured no opinion) is irrelevant to the issue of whether the UK should be in the business of signing international treaties with its fingers crossed behind its back. It's a bad look for us and damaging to our ability to operate effectively in international affairs.
    No, they're just tearing up the sanctions they agreed on Russia a few weeks ago. So maybe neither country is to be trusted.
    But only one is abrogating an international treaty.
    To be clear, this is not a beauty contest of UK vs EU, my contention that Brexit was a bad idea does not rest on any idea that the EU is some uniquely virtuous organisation, which is as well because I don't think it is. The question is whether signing a treaty that you don't intend to honour because you've dug yourself into a hole by lying to your voters, and then tearing up that treaty a few years later when you supposedly suddenly cotton on to the bits of the treaty that you don't like, is a sensible path of action for a country that wants to be taken seriously and prosper on the world stage.
    Endless whataboutery and diversionary assaults on the moral integrity of the EU can't distract from the absurdity of the British position.
    Whatever the rights and wrongs it would be quite a thing for the EU to "sanction" the UK at a time when the said UK has done more than any other European country to come to the assistance of Ukraine. Interesting optics.
    Equally quite a thing to pick an unnecessary fight with the EU when the Ukraine conflict demands a united European front. No wonder Putin loves Brexit so much.
    Well mebbes. But the NI protocol is hardly an existential matter for the EU countries, minus Ireland, is it? (Well, I guess it is for the nomenklatura). Ukraine, and the threat from Russia, is. And the UK is pretty fundamental to that.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,642

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Truss just explicitly said in the Commons that the Protocol was never intended to be set in stone.

    Nor should it be. Evolution works. The Protocol in its 15th Article says how the Protocol can be changed by negotiations and in its 16th provides Safeguards to overwrite parts too. Both are entirely appropriate to use.

    Its quite amusing to me how many people who deny my notion that post-Brexit Britain can be more nimble and less sclerotic are being horrified at post-Brexit Britain being nimble and not sclerotic.

    It's the dishonesty and lack of trustworthiness that are the problem.
    Dishonesty is putting up sanctions on Russia and then creating financial mechanisms to break them. The idea that the EU is some virtuous and completely honest organisation is completely ridiculous.
    Siri, provide me with a textbook example of whataboutery.
    But you want the UK to trust an inherently untrustworthy organisation. They have proven they are willing to stab Ukraine in the back so Germany can keep selling dishwashers. The evidence is clear that the EU can't be trusted and neither can we.

    All along I've said that the UK-EU relationship needs to be a tightly defined set of rules. Trust, doing the other one a favour, or expecting a favour from either party is not going to happen, they are not an informal ally who we can rely on to help us when we need it. This isn't New Zealand and Canada loaning up a few hundred trade negotiators in 2017 and 2018, the EU is ultimately a formal ally with whom we have a trade deal and not a lot else.

    Everyone needs to see our relationship with the EU through this lens and give up on the fanciful idea that if we do them a favour they might respond in kind. It's not going to happen.
    The EU aren't the ones about to tear up an agreement they signed up to just three years ago. Whether the EU is a paragon of virtue or the epitome of evil (a question on which I have ventured no opinion) is irrelevant to the issue of whether the UK should be in the business of signing international treaties with its fingers crossed behind its back. It's a bad look for us and damaging to our ability to operate effectively in international affairs.
    No, they're just tearing up the sanctions they agreed on Russia a few weeks ago. So maybe neither country is to be trusted.
    But only one is abrogating an international treaty.
    To be clear, this is not a beauty contest of UK vs EU, my contention that Brexit was a bad idea does not rest on any idea that the EU is some uniquely virtuous organisation, which is as well because I don't think it is. The question is whether signing a treaty that you don't intend to honour because you've dug yourself into a hole by lying to your voters, and then tearing up that treaty a few years later when you supposedly suddenly cotton on to the bits of the treaty that you don't like, is a sensible path of action for a country that wants to be taken seriously and prosper on the world stage.
    Endless whataboutery and diversionary assaults on the moral integrity of the EU can't distract from the absurdity of the British position.
    It wasn't even a few years later. It was 18 months later.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,493

    Covid/NHS personal experience update.
    Just back from a mental health referral. Help has been almost non existent during covid but pleased to say very positive young woman promising all sorts of things we can look at, back to proper tailored help proposals, and will try and get back to me by Friday with a plan.
    Things are slowly emerging and healing from the carnage.
    I would struggle to explain just how bleak things were for me trying to deal with bereavement, mental health issues/disability in a little flat, alone, during covid. I expect I'm far from unique in that which is why today feels like a victory over the accursed damn virus personally and I hope others find things are improving. And why I'd happily stand on the Frontline to stop lockdown ever happening again.
    Why am I telling you? I dont know. I know very few people these days and so I just wanted to share something that isn't grumpy political cross punching or me being a tool.

    Thanks for sharing. Covid screwed so many people mentally - myself included. As you say, one victory at a time as we get back to some kind of normal.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,437
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Truss just explicitly said in the Commons that the Protocol was never intended to be set in stone.

    Nor should it be. Evolution works. The Protocol in its 15th Article says how the Protocol can be changed by negotiations and in its 16th provides Safeguards to overwrite parts too. Both are entirely appropriate to use.

    Its quite amusing to me how many people who deny my notion that post-Brexit Britain can be more nimble and less sclerotic are being horrified at post-Brexit Britain being nimble and not sclerotic.

    It's the dishonesty and lack of trustworthiness that are the problem.
    Dishonesty is putting up sanctions on Russia and then creating financial mechanisms to break them. The idea that the EU is some virtuous and completely honest organisation is completely ridiculous.
    Siri, provide me with a textbook example of whataboutery.
    But you want the UK to trust an inherently untrustworthy organisation. They have proven they are willing to stab Ukraine in the back so Germany can keep selling dishwashers. The evidence is clear that the EU can't be trusted and neither can we.

    All along I've said that the UK-EU relationship needs to be a tightly defined set of rules. Trust, doing the other one a favour, or expecting a favour from either party is not going to happen, they are not an informal ally who we can rely on to help us when we need it. This isn't New Zealand and Canada loaning up a few hundred trade negotiators in 2017 and 2018, the EU is ultimately a formal ally with whom we have a trade deal and not a lot else.

    Everyone needs to see our relationship with the EU through this lens and give up on the fanciful idea that if we do them a favour they might respond in kind. It's not going to happen.
    The EU aren't the ones about to tear up an agreement they signed up to just three years ago. Whether the EU is a paragon of virtue or the epitome of evil (a question on which I have ventured no opinion) is irrelevant to the issue of whether the UK should be in the business of signing international treaties with its fingers crossed behind its back. It's a bad look for us and damaging to our ability to operate effectively in international affairs.
    No, they're just tearing up the sanctions they agreed on Russia a few weeks ago. So maybe neither country is to be trusted.
    But only one is abrogating an international treaty.
    To be clear, this is not a beauty contest of UK vs EU, my contention that Brexit was a bad idea does not rest on any idea that the EU is some uniquely virtuous organisation, which is as well because I don't think it is. The question is whether signing a treaty that you don't intend to honour because you've dug yourself into a hole by lying to your voters, and then tearing up that treaty a few years later when you supposedly suddenly cotton on to the bits of the treaty that you don't like, is a sensible path of action for a country that wants to be taken seriously and prosper on the world stage.
    Endless whataboutery and diversionary assaults on the moral integrity of the EU can't distract from the absurdity of the British position.
    If we invoke the 16th Article of the Treaty, as per the Treaty that was ratified, how is that abrogating anything? That is something the Treaty explicitly permits, so surely you must view that to be perfectly reasonable and entirely within the rules?
    If we invoke Article 16, we would not be in breach of anything.

    On the other hand, if the Government were to whip and pass an Act that was in clear violation of our Treaty obligations - as the DUP demands - then well... we would be.

    The problem with Article 16 is - of course - that it is entirely likely that arbitration says (basically) "in December, your government's own report to the Northern Ireland Select Committee reported progress is being made, and that no breach has yet occurred, so why have you invoked an Article meant to be used only in those circumstances?"
    Which is why I'd prefer A16.

    Considering that Sercovic this week essentially confirmed an agreement couldn't be reached between what the DUP demand and the EU is prepared to offer at the minute it seems to me a simple answer to your question is "progress hasn't been reached, there is a treat to social stability and so action is required until an agreement is reached".
    And if arbitration goes against us?

    What then?
    Assume that is rhetorical question, as answer is quite predictable.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,403
    edited May 17
    felix said:

    Roger said:

    Applicant said:

    Roger said:

    I wonder if the Tories have got some intelligence that Sir Keir will be exonerated by Durham police. If so then a trade war with the EU might be a good distraction from the contrast with Boris. Ultimate dead-cat manoeuvre?

    I think you are absolutely right, starkers.

    When in power it gives you some control over resetting the narrative to suit you, which is what the Tories are doing, choosing precise time and issue to control the narrative. Even hating Boris and wishing Tories ill, you gave to concede what is actually happening and how it likely plays out, so many posters can’t/won’t do this.

    There will be some sort of deal? Of course it will end in a deal very similar to the UK governments proposals.

    Will UK government get boost soon as the deal agreed? Of course they will, and we will know because Big G and HY in unison will remind us of this fact soon as deal agreed. St Bart Robert will also get a big boost because the government win with a solution they have pushed on PB for last 5 years (allegedly, I havn’t been around a year yet).

    meanwhile the Great Patriotic War puts Labour on back foot now the commons is back in action? Yep, that’s that’s the beautiful timing of the Great Patriotic War.

    And it obscures what’s going on in partygate, just as you said! Which will Boris red wallers care about more - supporting Boris in fight with EU or moan at him over Partygate?
    Did you vote to Brexit?
    She's already answered that question today.
    I must spend less time reading her posts than you. What was the answer?
    Hopefully that it's none of your business.
    Do you exist for any other purpose than to 'like' posts which don't like me? I get it that you find Spain dull but surely you can find a park to walk round.
  • theakestheakes Posts: 675
    So far as I am aware the Lib Dems have not identified, well publically at least, who their candidate is. The weekend selection was as others have said a Sarah Dyke , a Somerset councillor, for Somerton and Frome, another very possible by election later this year.
    Now the by election has been called I would expect an anouncement for Tiverton by close of play on Sunday coming.
    In the meantime they are certainly campaigning!
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,317

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Truss just explicitly said in the Commons that the Protocol was never intended to be set in stone.

    Nor should it be. Evolution works. The Protocol in its 15th Article says how the Protocol can be changed by negotiations and in its 16th provides Safeguards to overwrite parts too. Both are entirely appropriate to use.

    Its quite amusing to me how many people who deny my notion that post-Brexit Britain can be more nimble and less sclerotic are being horrified at post-Brexit Britain being nimble and not sclerotic.

    It's the dishonesty and lack of trustworthiness that are the problem.
    Dishonesty is putting up sanctions on Russia and then creating financial mechanisms to break them. The idea that the EU is some virtuous and completely honest organisation is completely ridiculous.
    Siri, provide me with a textbook example of whataboutery.
    But you want the UK to trust an inherently untrustworthy organisation. They have proven they are willing to stab Ukraine in the back so Germany can keep selling dishwashers. The evidence is clear that the EU can't be trusted and neither can we.

    All along I've said that the UK-EU relationship needs to be a tightly defined set of rules. Trust, doing the other one a favour, or expecting a favour from either party is not going to happen, they are not an informal ally who we can rely on to help us when we need it. This isn't New Zealand and Canada loaning up a few hundred trade negotiators in 2017 and 2018, the EU is ultimately a formal ally with whom we have a trade deal and not a lot else.

    Everyone needs to see our relationship with the EU through this lens and give up on the fanciful idea that if we do them a favour they might respond in kind. It's not going to happen.
    The EU aren't the ones about to tear up an agreement they signed up to just three years ago. Whether the EU is a paragon of virtue or the epitome of evil (a question on which I have ventured no opinion) is irrelevant to the issue of whether the UK should be in the business of signing international treaties with its fingers crossed behind its back. It's a bad look for us and damaging to our ability to operate effectively in international affairs.
    No, they're just tearing up the sanctions they agreed on Russia a few weeks ago. So maybe neither country is to be trusted.
    But only one is abrogating an international treaty.
    To be clear, this is not a beauty contest of UK vs EU, my contention that Brexit was a bad idea does not rest on any idea that the EU is some uniquely virtuous organisation, which is as well because I don't think it is. The question is whether signing a treaty that you don't intend to honour because you've dug yourself into a hole by lying to your voters, and then tearing up that treaty a few years later when you supposedly suddenly cotton on to the bits of the treaty that you don't like, is a sensible path of action for a country that wants to be taken seriously and prosper on the world stage.
    Endless whataboutery and diversionary assaults on the moral integrity of the EU can't distract from the absurdity of the British position.
    Whatever the rights and wrongs it would be quite a thing for the EU to "sanction" the UK at a time when the said UK has done more than any other European country to come to the assistance of Ukraine. Interesting optics.
    Equally quite a thing to pick an unnecessary fight with the EU when the Ukraine conflict demands a united European front. No wonder Putin loves Brexit so much.
    Oh give it up already. 🙄

    At a time when France, Germany and the EU under its rotating French Presidency is circumventing international sanctions, while British munitions are helping Ukraine win the war, I think the idea that it is Brexit that is on Putin's side can be put in the dustbin of bad takes once and for all. 🤦‍♂️
    The point is that without the UK in the EU, the EU will be dominated by German mercantilist interests, as we have seen. The EU would be taking a much firmer stand against Putin if we were still in it. That is the advantage he has gained ftom Brexit.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,642

    Covid/NHS personal experience update.
    Just back from a mental health referral. Help has been almost non existent during covid but pleased to say very positive young woman promising all sorts of things we can look at, back to proper tailored help proposals, and will try and get back to me by Friday with a plan.
    Things are slowly emerging and healing from the carnage.
    I would struggle to explain just how bleak things were for me trying to deal with bereavement, mental health issues/disability in a little flat, alone, during covid. I expect I'm far from unique in that which is why today feels like a victory over the accursed damn virus personally and I hope others find things are improving. And why I'd happily stand on the Frontline to stop lockdown ever happening again.
    Why am I telling you? I dont know. I know very few people these days and so I just wanted to share something that isn't grumpy political cross punching or me being a tool.

    BIB - you know everyone here on PB and although some refuse to see reason - actually a feature not a bug :smile: - we are an OK lot and as one of us, you will know that you have 110% support from everyone. Good to hear you're emerging from what sounds like a very difficult time.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    Thanks to those with kind and supportive words. And right back at anyone struggling physically, mentally or both.

    In the wider world, some leakage of news from North Korea suggests no outdoor ban/lockdown at the moment and markets open but they are at that slightly weird 'double mask' requirement that was doing the rounds early in 2021 especially in the American cities
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,493
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Truss just explicitly said in the Commons that the Protocol was never intended to be set in stone.

    Nor should it be. Evolution works. The Protocol in its 15th Article says how the Protocol can be changed by negotiations and in its 16th provides Safeguards to overwrite parts too. Both are entirely appropriate to use.

    Its quite amusing to me how many people who deny my notion that post-Brexit Britain can be more nimble and less sclerotic are being horrified at post-Brexit Britain being nimble and not sclerotic.

    It's the dishonesty and lack of trustworthiness that are the problem.
    Dishonesty is putting up sanctions on Russia and then creating financial mechanisms to break them. The idea that the EU is some virtuous and completely honest organisation is completely ridiculous.
    Siri, provide me with a textbook example of whataboutery.
    But you want the UK to trust an inherently untrustworthy organisation. They have proven they are willing to stab Ukraine in the back so Germany can keep selling dishwashers. The evidence is clear that the EU can't be trusted and neither can we.

    All along I've said that the UK-EU relationship needs to be a tightly defined set of rules. Trust, doing the other one a favour, or expecting a favour from either party is not going to happen, they are not an informal ally who we can rely on to help us when we need it. This isn't New Zealand and Canada loaning up a few hundred trade negotiators in 2017 and 2018, the EU is ultimately a formal ally with whom we have a trade deal and not a lot else.

    Everyone needs to see our relationship with the EU through this lens and give up on the fanciful idea that if we do them a favour they might respond in kind. It's not going to happen.
    The EU aren't the ones about to tear up an agreement they signed up to just three years ago. Whether the EU is a paragon of virtue or the epitome of evil (a question on which I have ventured no opinion) is irrelevant to the issue of whether the UK should be in the business of signing international treaties with its fingers crossed behind its back. It's a bad look for us and damaging to our ability to operate effectively in international affairs.
    No, they're just tearing up the sanctions they agreed on Russia a few weeks ago. So maybe neither country is to be trusted.
    But only one is abrogating an international treaty.
    To be clear, this is not a beauty contest of UK vs EU, my contention that Brexit was a bad idea does not rest on any idea that the EU is some uniquely virtuous organisation, which is as well because I don't think it is. The question is whether signing a treaty that you don't intend to honour because you've dug yourself into a hole by lying to your voters, and then tearing up that treaty a few years later when you supposedly suddenly cotton on to the bits of the treaty that you don't like, is a sensible path of action for a country that wants to be taken seriously and prosper on the world stage.
    Endless whataboutery and diversionary assaults on the moral integrity of the EU can't distract from the absurdity of the British position.
    If we invoke the 16th Article of the Treaty, as per the Treaty that was ratified, how is that abrogating anything? That is something the Treaty explicitly permits, so surely you must view that to be perfectly reasonable and entirely within the rules?
    If we invoke Article 16, we would not be in breach of anything.

    On the other hand, if the Government were to whip and pass an Act that was in clear violation of our Treaty obligations - as the DUP demands - then well... we would be.

    The problem with Article 16 is - of course - that it is entirely likely that arbitration says (basically) "in December, your government's own report to the Northern Ireland Select Committee reported progress is being made, and that no breach has yet occurred, so why have you invoked an Article meant to be used only in those circumstances?"
    Which is why I'd prefer A16.

    Considering that Sercovic this week essentially confirmed an agreement couldn't be reached between what the DUP demand and the EU is prepared to offer at the minute it seems to me a simple answer to your question is "progress hasn't been reached, there is a treat to social stability and so action is required until an agreement is reached".
    And if arbitration goes against us?

    What then?
    When. Not if. BR has no plan other than rip up the agreement and walk away. Apparently the EU can't do anything against us so we will be free. Free to do what we wanna do. We wanna have a good time.

    So lets trigger A16. I know the treaty says this is a time-limited safety valve and not the end game BR purports it to be. But thats ok because the treaty is wrong and all the lawyers are wrong and the diplomats are wrong and BR is righr.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,136
    ClippP said:

    kjh said:

    I'm really struggling with @hyufd's logic here so I may need correcting but I think it is something like this:

    If you lose an election or a referendum you have to suck it up. No compromise to the losing side no matter how close the result is. Implement to the extreme and any disobedience put down with the utmost force.

    If you lose an election or referendum, but happen to be a Tory, Unionist, Right Wing or whatever then your views have to be taken into account even if that means forming an unviable enclave and you must give way to any threat of violence.

    That always has been the policy of the Conservative & Unionist Party, hasn't it?

    Think of all the difficulty they caused for poor Mr Gladstone.

    Our young HY is always a very consistent Conservative.
    A great opportunity for one of my fav quotes of all time: “Gladstone .. spent his declining years trying to guess the answer to the Irish Question; unfortunately, whenever he was getting warm, the Irish secretly changed the Question, ...” W.C. Sellar, 1066 and All That: A Memorable History of England
  • mr-claypolemr-claypole Posts: 215
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    I'm really struggling with @hyufd's logic here so I may need correcting but I think it is something like this:

    If you lose an election or a referendum you have to suck it up. No compromise to the losing side no matter how close the result is. Implement to the extreme and any disobedience put down with the utmost force.

    If you lose an election or referendum, but happen to be a Tory, Unionist, Right Wing or whatever then your views have to be taken into account even if that means forming an unviable enclave and you must give way to any threat of violence.

    Northern Ireland was created by the threat of violence via the armed Ulster volunteers. Loyalist paramilitaries still exist.

    I have yet to see see any significant terrorism from Scottish Nationalists over the 2014 referendum loss or Remainers over the 2016 referendum loss or indeed from unionists and Tories who were on the beaten side in the 1997 Scottish devolution referendum.

    Northern Ireland has a history of recent internal violence the rest of the UK does not so must be handled with special care
    Whoosh straight over your head.

    Well of course it should be handles with care.

    But you argue about putting down demonstrations in Scotland with tanks. You admire the force used in Spain. You give no quarter on compromise with your opponents views on anything. Quoting you on a number of occasions you have said 'Tough the Tories won'.

    Yet as soon as violence is threatened you fold like a pack of cards.

    So your argument presumably is to us Remainers we should take up arms as should the Scot Nats. What a pathetic irresponsible response.
    There is no history of significant terrorism in Scotland and it is within the UK government's right to refuse an indyref2.

    If Remainers had taken up arms for their own areas to stay in the EU then there might have been a case to consider it. They didn't, nor did they even vote in most Remain areas for the LDs in 2019 who outright rejected Brexit.

    The Good Friday Agreement and Sinn Fein representation at Stormont in the executive only emerged of course because of IRA violence in NI and GB

    In the word(s) of General McAuliffe: 'Nuts!'
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    Thanks to those with kind and supportive words. And right back at anyone struggling physically, mentally or both.

    In the wider world, some leakage of news from North Korea suggests no outdoor ban/lockdown at the moment and markets open but they are at that slightly weird 'double mask' requirement that was doing the rounds early in 2021 especially in the American cities

    Best of luck with everything @dyedwoolie and keeping fingers crossed. As @TOPPING said, we may be an argumentative bunch who slag each other fairly regularly but I think we are also a bunch who would have people’s backs when required.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,551
    edited May 17

    Covid/NHS personal experience update.
    Just back from a mental health referral. Help has been almost non existent during covid but pleased to say very positive young woman promising all sorts of things we can look at, back to proper tailored help proposals, and will try and get back to me by Friday with a plan.
    Things are slowly emerging and healing from the carnage.
    I would struggle to explain just how bleak things were for me trying to deal with bereavement, mental health issues/disability in a little flat, alone, during covid. I expect I'm far from unique in that which is why today feels like a victory over the accursed damn virus personally and I hope others find things are improving. And why I'd happily stand on the Frontline to stop lockdown ever happening again.
    Why am I telling you? I dont know. I know very few people these days and so I just wanted to share something that isn't grumpy political cross punching or me being a tool.

    Well done. I'm pleased to hear you've had a good experience from your appointment and you on he road to recovery. Long may it continue!

    I myself have been through quite a significant health issue this year and the NHS has done a very good job treating me. I'm on the road to recovery as well thankfully.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,868

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Which is precisely why we need to use every bit of 'the rules' that suits our interests in a maximalist way to force them to compromise.

    That means using legislation in the Commons, Article 16 or any other tools at our disposal to give them no choice but to co-operate.

    Because the notion of "compromise" or "trust" otherwise is for the fairies or the naive.

    It was trumpeted by the UK Govt as being a fantastic deal. My concern is not with pragmatism in amending a deal but with the sheer idiocy of agreeing one, each element of which (checks on intra-UK ham sandwiches, for example) small children in Hartlepool could have explained to you, and then less than 18 months later saying that precisely those parts of the deal which were agreed are all of a sudden intolerable.

    It is the sheer imbecility of Boris and his govt who so transparently agreed something on the spur of the moment, and either did not understand or did but were dishonest about the effects of it and now we are where we are.

    You applaud them reneging on a deal they agreed months ago; I think it a sign of incompetence and/or disingenuousness.
    Utter bullshit, bollocks and codswallop.

    A deal was needed to get Brexit done and get us out of the Article 50 quagmire, that's been achieved. Now its time for the deal to be renegotiated. That was the plan all along. It was always said that the Irish issue could be revisited once we had a trade deal, so to revisit it now is the system working as designed its not a failure.
    As I say you applaud it all. Agree a deal and then, precisely because of the terms of the deal you have just agreed, decide you want to renege on the deal.

    In your world that is a good way to run the country. No point me arguing with that.
    Who said anything about reneging on it? Not me. I have repeatedly said we should invoke Article 16 of the deal which is quite literally a part of the deal and operate unilaterally within its confines, until a new deal can be agreed as per Article 15 of the deal.

    That is completely acting within the rules of the deal, it isn't going against it.

    The deal was always meant to be temporary and evolved over time and subject to safeguarding, that is why Articles 15 and 16 were agreed. Using them isn't problematic or dishonest or a bad way to run a country, it is a perfectly good way to run a country.
    Not only that, but it’s something that’s already been activated previously from the EU side.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-55864442

    In a new regulation, the European Commission stated: "This is justified as a safeguard measure pursuant to Article 16 of that Protocol in order to avert serious societal difficulties due to a lack of supply threatening to disturb the orderly implementation of the vaccination campaigns in the Member States."
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,032

    Covid/NHS personal experience update.
    Just back from a mental health referral. Help has been almost non existent during covid but pleased to say very positive young woman promising all sorts of things we can look at, back to proper tailored help proposals, and will try and get back to me by Friday with a plan.
    Things are slowly emerging and healing from the carnage.
    I would struggle to explain just how bleak things were for me trying to deal with bereavement, mental health issues/disability in a little flat, alone, during covid. I expect I'm far from unique in that which is why today feels like a victory over the accursed damn virus personally and I hope others find things are improving. And why I'd happily stand on the Frontline to stop lockdown ever happening again.
    Why am I telling you? I dont know. I know very few people these days and so I just wanted to share something that isn't grumpy political cross punching or me being a tool.

    I have just returned from my cup of tea and rich tea biscuit with my beloved on the patio and yours is the first post I have read

    Our family have suffered and continue to suffer from mental health problems including my eldest with near 3 years of PTSD and anxiety and it is clear that both here in the UK and in my eldest's case in Canada mental health services have simply not been able to cope and indeed have been overwhelmed by covid

    I really wish you all the best and that you receive the mental health care you need and are100% on the same page that we must never let HMG impose lockdown on us again

    And by the way I see @HYUFD is still havering away with his nonsense on Ireland (and Scotland)
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,938
    On topic, I think that both contests will be easy wins for the oppsotion.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,642
    GIN1138 said:

    Covid/NHS personal experience update.
    Just back from a mental health referral. Help has been almost non existent during covid but pleased to say very positive young woman promising all sorts of things we can look at, back to proper tailored help proposals, and will try and get back to me by Friday with a plan.
    Things are slowly emerging and healing from the carnage.
    I would struggle to explain just how bleak things were for me trying to deal with bereavement, mental health issues/disability in a little flat, alone, during covid. I expect I'm far from unique in that which is why today feels like a victory over the accursed damn virus personally and I hope others find things are improving. And why I'd happily stand on the Frontline to stop lockdown ever happening again.
    Why am I telling you? I dont know. I know very few people these days and so I just wanted to share something that isn't grumpy political cross punching or me being a tool.

    Well done. I'm pleased to hear you've had a good experience from your appointment and you on he road to recovery. Long may it continue!

    I myself have been through quite a significant health issue this year and the NHS has done a very good job treating me. I'm on the road to recovery a well thankfully.
    Good to hear. The NHS still has significant challenges, that said. Glad to hear that it was good to you.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    MrEd said:

    Thanks to those with kind and supportive words. And right back at anyone struggling physically, mentally or both.

    In the wider world, some leakage of news from North Korea suggests no outdoor ban/lockdown at the moment and markets open but they are at that slightly weird 'double mask' requirement that was doing the rounds early in 2021 especially in the American cities

    Best of luck with everything @dyedwoolie and keeping fingers crossed. As @TOPPING said, we may be an argumentative bunch who slag each other fairly regularly but I think we are also a bunch who would have people’s backs when required.
    Absolutely. Even when I get antsy I've forgotten it once I've huffed and puffed and vented.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Truss just explicitly said in the Commons that the Protocol was never intended to be set in stone.

    Nor should it be. Evolution works. The Protocol in its 15th Article says how the Protocol can be changed by negotiations and in its 16th provides Safeguards to overwrite parts too. Both are entirely appropriate to use.

    Its quite amusing to me how many people who deny my notion that post-Brexit Britain can be more nimble and less sclerotic are being horrified at post-Brexit Britain being nimble and not sclerotic.

    It's the dishonesty and lack of trustworthiness that are the problem.
    Dishonesty is putting up sanctions on Russia and then creating financial mechanisms to break them. The idea that the EU is some virtuous and completely honest organisation is completely ridiculous.
    Siri, provide me with a textbook example of whataboutery.
    But you want the UK to trust an inherently untrustworthy organisation. They have proven they are willing to stab Ukraine in the back so Germany can keep selling dishwashers. The evidence is clear that the EU can't be trusted and neither can we.

    All along I've said that the UK-EU relationship needs to be a tightly defined set of rules. Trust, doing the other one a favour, or expecting a favour from either party is not going to happen, they are not an informal ally who we can rely on to help us when we need it. This isn't New Zealand and Canada loaning up a few hundred trade negotiators in 2017 and 2018, the EU is ultimately a formal ally with whom we have a trade deal and not a lot else.

    Everyone needs to see our relationship with the EU through this lens and give up on the fanciful idea that if we do them a favour they might respond in kind. It's not going to happen.
    The EU aren't the ones about to tear up an agreement they signed up to just three years ago. Whether the EU is a paragon of virtue or the epitome of evil (a question on which I have ventured no opinion) is irrelevant to the issue of whether the UK should be in the business of signing international treaties with its fingers crossed behind its back. It's a bad look for us and damaging to our ability to operate effectively in international affairs.
    No, they're just tearing up the sanctions they agreed on Russia a few weeks ago. So maybe neither country is to be trusted.
    But only one is abrogating an international treaty.
    To be clear, this is not a beauty contest of UK vs EU, my contention that Brexit was a bad idea does not rest on any idea that the EU is some uniquely virtuous organisation, which is as well because I don't think it is. The question is whether signing a treaty that you don't intend to honour because you've dug yourself into a hole by lying to your voters, and then tearing up that treaty a few years later when you supposedly suddenly cotton on to the bits of the treaty that you don't like, is a sensible path of action for a country that wants to be taken seriously and prosper on the world stage.
    Endless whataboutery and diversionary assaults on the moral integrity of the EU can't distract from the absurdity of the British position.
    If we invoke the 16th Article of the Treaty, as per the Treaty that was ratified, how is that abrogating anything? That is something the Treaty explicitly permits, so surely you must view that to be perfectly reasonable and entirely within the rules?
    If we invoke Article 16, we would not be in breach of anything.

    On the other hand, if the Government were to whip and pass an Act that was in clear violation of our Treaty obligations - as the DUP demands - then well... we would be.

    The problem with Article 16 is - of course - that it is entirely likely that arbitration says (basically) "in December, your government's own report to the Northern Ireland Select Committee reported progress is being made, and that no breach has yet occurred, so why have you invoked an Article meant to be used only in those circumstances?"
    Which is why I'd prefer A16.

    Considering that Sercovic this week essentially confirmed an agreement couldn't be reached between what the DUP demand and the EU is prepared to offer at the minute it seems to me a simple answer to your question is "progress hasn't been reached, there is a treat to social stability and so action is required until an agreement is reached".
    And if arbitration goes against us?

    What then?
    Cross that bridge if we get there.

    If it doesn't, then what?
    If it doesn't, great.

    But we can't go in saying "well, I'm taking it to arbitration, and if I don't like the result, I'm going to ignore it."
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372
    Sandpit said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Which is precisely why we need to use every bit of 'the rules' that suits our interests in a maximalist way to force them to compromise.

    That means using legislation in the Commons, Article 16 or any other tools at our disposal to give them no choice but to co-operate.

    Because the notion of "compromise" or "trust" otherwise is for the fairies or the naive.

    It was trumpeted by the UK Govt as being a fantastic deal. My concern is not with pragmatism in amending a deal but with the sheer idiocy of agreeing one, each element of which (checks on intra-UK ham sandwiches, for example) small children in Hartlepool could have explained to you, and then less than 18 months later saying that precisely those parts of the deal which were agreed are all of a sudden intolerable.

    It is the sheer imbecility of Boris and his govt who so transparently agreed something on the spur of the moment, and either did not understand or did but were dishonest about the effects of it and now we are where we are.

    You applaud them reneging on a deal they agreed months ago; I think it a sign of incompetence and/or disingenuousness.
    Utter bullshit, bollocks and codswallop.

    A deal was needed to get Brexit done and get us out of the Article 50 quagmire, that's been achieved. Now its time for the deal to be renegotiated. That was the plan all along. It was always said that the Irish issue could be revisited once we had a trade deal, so to revisit it now is the system working as designed its not a failure.
    As I say you applaud it all. Agree a deal and then, precisely because of the terms of the deal you have just agreed, decide you want to renege on the deal.

    In your world that is a good way to run the country. No point me arguing with that.
    Who said anything about reneging on it? Not me. I have repeatedly said we should invoke Article 16 of the deal which is quite literally a part of the deal and operate unilaterally within its confines, until a new deal can be agreed as per Article 15 of the deal.

    That is completely acting within the rules of the deal, it isn't going against it.

    The deal was always meant to be temporary and evolved over time and subject to safeguarding, that is why Articles 15 and 16 were agreed. Using them isn't problematic or dishonest or a bad way to run a country, it is a perfectly good way to run a country.
    Not only that, but it’s something that’s already been activated previously from the EU side.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-55864442

    In a new regulation, the European Commission stated: "This is justified as a safeguard measure pursuant to Article 16 of that Protocol in order to avert serious societal difficulties due to a lack of supply threatening to disturb the orderly implementation of the vaccination campaigns in the Member States."
    I thought they floated it, and then backed off when it created a firestorm.
This discussion has been closed.