# The screw is being turned on the DUP



## WolfeTone (19 Jul 2019)

First Leo, now Angela.

Yesterday, Leo Vradakar proposed that the option of a NI only backstop is still a real possibility to resolve the backstop issue. Today Angela Merkel is reported as having said this









						Withdrawal Agreement not up for renegotiation - Coveney
					

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Coveney has said that the EU's position on the Withdrawal Agreement remains unchanged.




					www.rte.ie
				




Reading between the lines, everything is pointing at the British Government to bring the DUP to heel. The DUP being the political party representing a minority view in NI on Brexit. 

For the moment, its a numbers game in the parliament, with the Tories wanting to avoid an election or get ravaged by the Brexit Party and a possible Corbyn led government. A new leader however, with uncompromising, unflinching rhethoric on exiting the EU on 31st Oct may salvage some of the wreckage.

Real politik is descending, the future is not set by flag-waving and idealism. It is set by the practical political realities of the time. Is the British electorate going to put up with another delay to Brexit, another referendum, a no-deal Brexit, or no Brexit at all? All because the DUP don't want to be "treated differently"?


----------



## cremeegg (19 Jul 2019)

Boris could agree to a NI only backstop and deliver Brexit with a deal. A win all round, only the DUP will see if differently. 

Westminister is bringing NI marriage and abortion legislation into line with Englands, can be sold as strengthening the Union. Again only the DUP unhappy.

It is realistic that he could get a majority in parliament to vote for this both Tory and Labour MPs.

Best PM ever.


----------



## odyssey06 (19 Jul 2019)

cremeegg said:


> It is realistic that he could get a majority in parliament to vote for this both Tory and Labour MPs. Best PM ever.



If he did that, wouldn't the DUP immediately withdraw their support from the minority Conservative government, and trigger a general election?
Boris could be back as PM with a majority... or he could be gone as the shortest serving PM ever.
High risk strategy.


----------



## WolfeTone (19 Jul 2019)

I think its a tricky one. I would go with what Merkel is pointing at - a form of words that is more specific. 
It serves no-one well if any party loses face at the end of this process. The task is to treat NI differently to rest of UK so as to avoid hard border and protect single market without having to say it is being treated differently. 
The DUP need to do some legwork and jump through hoops here. The EU, rest of UK, and Ireland are basically in this position because, in practical terms, the DUP cannot accept goods travelling between NI to Britain being checked at customs in already existing air and sea ports.


----------



## joe sod (19 Jul 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> If he did that, wouldn't the DUP immediately withdraw their support from the minority Conservative government, and trigger a general election?
> Boris could be back as PM with a majority... or he could be gone as the shortest serving PM ever.
> High risk strategy.



The last vote by theresa may which came fairly close to passing was scuppered by remainer mps and not the brexiteers, boris johnson and jacob rees moggs voted for it.  Maybe now the dup and brexiteers are happy to just crash out. Somebody has to give a bit to break the impasse , we are the most exposed to a hard brexit than anybody. Therefore I dont see boris johnson dumping on the dup, he will roll the whole way to october 31 unless there is change. Whereas theresa may ran all over the place to europe to dublin trying to get movement he will just sit and wait


----------



## john luc (21 Jul 2019)

Boris will do what's best for Boris.


----------



## WolfeTone (23 Jul 2019)

john luc said:


> Boris will do what's best for Boris.




Johnson is in, no surprise there.

I was reminded by a colleague of history repeating itself.
In 1912, upon the passing of the Home Rule Bill into British law, the British government would subsequently disregard the interests of Ireland as whole, succumb to the minority viewpoint of Ulster Unionists and usurp its own parliament. Through the threat of violence from the UVF, the British government reneged on its own law and put the interests of a minority over the interests of Ireland as a whole, paving the way for the Rising, rebellion, civil war and 'The Troubles'.

It is 2019 and as it stands, the minority view of the people of NI (let alone Ireland) is the prevailing view of the prospective PM - that NI cannot be treated differently to the rest of UK upon leaving the EU.
When has a British government ever put the interests of Ireland ahead of its own narrow party political agenda?


----------



## Peanuts20 (23 Jul 2019)

If the Tories bring the DUP "to heal" then its a General Election- no reason what so ever for the DUP to support them and they will, sooner or later pull the plug. Anything else is wishful thinking

The DUP are unlikely to loose any seats due to the nature of NI politics. Regardless of local elections, historical tribalism coupled with a weak UUP will see to that

Very few people "on the mainland" give 2 hoots about NI as long as no bombs are going off in their mainland cities and none of their soldiers are getting shot.


----------



## cremeegg (24 Jul 2019)

Does Boris' election as leader of the Tories automatically make him prime minister. Does he not need to be elected by parliament. Hardly a foregone conclusion.

When Enda resigned Fine Gael chose Leo as their new leader, but the Dáil elected him Taoiseach.


----------



## john luc (24 Jul 2019)

Different system. He gets the job without a vote


----------



## odyssey06 (24 Jul 2019)

john luc said:


> Different system. He gets the job without a vote



Something vague about him having the confidence of the Queen to form an admistration... or something... is in the back of my mind.


----------



## Peanuts20 (25 Jul 2019)

At least Boris was elected by the majority of members of his party, unlike our own current leader


----------



## WolfeTone (25 Jul 2019)

So we are still in this place;

- Boris, PM

"And next I say to our friends in Ireland, and in Brussels and around the EU: I am convinced that we can do a deal without checks at the Irish border, because we refuse under any circumstances to have such checks"

- British Government, Nov 2018

Taking Back Control of Our Borders 

- Free movement will end
- New controls for a fairer immigration system

What am I missing? Is it, by any chance,god forbid....that London regards the UK/EU border in Ireland to be somewhat...different...to the UK/EU borders in Britian?  

Has anyone told the DUP?


----------



## EmmDee (25 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> So we are still in this place;
> 
> - Boris, PM
> 
> ...



It is different. It is covered by the free movement agreement between UK and Ireland which is planned to keep - we're not part of Schengen for example and originally the plan was for us to remain out of it for this reason


----------



## WolfeTone (25 Jul 2019)

EmmDee said:


> It is different. It is covered by the free movement agreement between UK and Ireland which is planned to keep - we're not part of Schengen for example and originally the plan was for us to remain out of it for this reason



Which confirms that the DUP, who represent a minority view on Brexit in NI, are perpetrating a hoax on Ireland, Britain and EU. This whole backstop nonsense could be over tomorrow if the backstop is simply applied to NI. Facilitating what the DUP (and everyone else) want - an open border with frictionless trade and free movement between RoI and NI. Which is opposite to what Brexit is actually about.
So the DUP hoax of "not wanting to be treated differently" should be called out, and a tiny rump of politicians in the North East of Ireland with a minority view on Brexit should not be allowed to invoke a no-deal Brexit and the subsequent disruption for trade and relations between Ireland, UK and EU.


----------



## Seagull (25 Jul 2019)

If Boris tries to push through a no-deal, then there will be a call of no confidence in the government, and enough conservatives will back it to trigger an election.


----------



## EmmDee (25 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Which confirms that the DUP, who represent a minority view on Brexit in NI, are perpetrating a hoax on Ireland, Britain and EU. This whole backstop nonsense could be over tomorrow if the backstop is simply applied to NI. Facilitating what the DUP (and everyone else) want - an open border with frictionless trade and free movement between RoI and NI. Which is opposite to what Brexit is actually about.
> So the DUP hoax of "not wanting to be treated differently" should be called out, and a tiny rump of politicians in the North East of Ireland with a minority view on Brexit should not be allowed to invoke a no-deal Brexit and the subsequent disruption for trade and relations between Ireland, UK and EU.



That was the original EU proposal (and the first draft of the agreement). The DUP objected because it would create a border between NI and the rest of the UK. So the EU, at the request of May, extended the proposal to the whole of the UK.

If they weren't reliant on DUP votes, I'm pretty sure most of Westminster would be grand with a NI only backstop tbh.


----------



## WolfeTone (25 Jul 2019)

EmmDee said:


> If they weren't reliant on DUP votes, I'm pretty sure most of Westminster would be grand with a NI only backstop tbh.



Exactly, and it needs to be called out. Not only to facilitate an orderly Brexit but to expose the lie that is inherent in the DUP position - that they don't want to treated differently or separately to rest of UK, when in actual fact they are on record for calling for different and separate conditions to be applied to the UK/EU border in Ireland compared with UK/EU borders in Britain.


----------



## EmmDee (25 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Exactly, and it needs to be called out. Not only to facilitate an orderly Brexit but to expose the lie that is inherent in the DUP position - that they don't want to treated differently or separately to rest of UK, when in actual fact they are on record for calling for different and separate conditions to be applied to the UK/EU border in Ireland compared with UK/EU borders in Britain.



The difference in the NI / Ireland border vs the UK / EU border elsewhere isn't a lie in the DUP position - that difference and added complexity is driven by the Good Friday agreement. In fairness to the DUP, their desire not to have NI separated from the rest of the UK is probably intellectually consistent given their point of view. They also haven't called for there to be a difference... they are supporting an exit even without a deal and just claiming that can be accommodated within the GFA (which is questionable). If there was a FTA established it would cover the entire UK - again they are looking for same treatment as GB

I just think they missed a beat here - they could have proposed that NI be treated differently and have a parallel system which allowed it be open to Ireland and still recognised as part of the Union. Almost a free trade zone with some form of dual-certification recognised by the EU and UK. They would have gained a load of political brownie points for finding a solution and created a unique trading zone that could have attracted a ton of inward investment and ironically made a border poll less likely as it would have had the benefits of both EU and UK access and therefore difficult to give up. I'm pretty sure the EU would have been more flexible about that and Westminster would have supported if DUP were behind it


----------



## WolfeTone (25 Jul 2019)

EmmDee said:


> The difference in the NI / Ireland border vs the UK / EU border elsewhere isn't a lie in the DUP position



I would have to respectfully disagree. It is set out clearly in the British Government EU Exit document above that taking back control of borders means an end to free movement and new controls for a fairer immigration system. 
If there are no border and customs controls required at the UK/EU between NI and RoI, as the DUP claim, then why would there be any need for border and customs controls at the UK/EU borders in Britain?


----------



## cremeegg (25 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> then why would there be any need for border and customs controls at the UK/EU borders in Britain?



Because shiny white people come over the Irish border, whereas shifty east Europeans come in at Dover.


----------



## joe sod (25 Jul 2019)

EmmDee said:


> It is different. It is covered by the free movement agreement between UK and Ireland which is planned to keep - we're not part of Schengen for example and originally the plan was for us to remain out of it for this reason



Whatever about the backstop it is vitally important that the common travel area is maintained at all costs. This was a lifeline for ireland during the financial crisis when graduates and tradesmen were able to find work in the uk when our jobs market was non existent. The UK is vital for graduates to get their initial experience, their companies are much bigger and deeper than ours. 
I sincerely hope that in the coming months and if brexit negotiations become intractable that the irish authorities in a fit of pique dont jettison the centuries old common travel area to join the shengen zone. There are some continental countries that now deeply regret being part of shengen due to the difficulties in controlling illegal immigration.


----------



## EmmDee (26 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I would have to respectfully disagree. It is set out clearly in the British Government EU Exit document above that taking back control of borders means an end to free movement and new controls for a fairer immigration system.
> If there are no border and customs controls required at the UK/EU between NI and RoI, as the DUP claim, then why would there be any need for border and customs controls at the UK/EU borders in Britain?



I understand that but their position has up to now also called out the Ireland / UK free movement agreement and recognised the need to maintain it - which doesn't mean at some point they won't withdraw from that (or threaten to). But for the moment, the position above should be read in conjunction with the free movement agreement.


----------



## EmmDee (26 Jul 2019)

I had forgotten about this - an new agreement was signed earlier this year to confirm the common travel area post Brexit









						Reuters | Breaking International News & Views
					

Find latest news from every corner of the globe at Reuters.com, your online source for breaking international news coverage.




					uk.reuters.com


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Jul 2019)

Yes, and all of that is welcome, it is an Irish/British arrangement.

So im a Dundalk construction firm that regularly takes construction projects in the north each year. My site supervisor is Polish. Without the WA, or any subsequent trade deal, how will a no-deal Brexit effect my business. 
According to DUP, there will be no checks at the border, and any checks needed can be done away from the border. 
My Polish site supervisor will be able to enter the UK, unimpeded, and work in the UK. 
This is at odds with what is being touted by British government after Brexit. 
And if there are no need for checks at the UK/EU border in Ireland, then why have checks on UK/EU border in Britain? 
It is apparent to me that London, DUP and everyone else considers the border in Ireland to be different, separate, from the heavy customs and immigration posts in Britain at sea and airports. 
And they are correct, it is a different situation. Impossible to police for starters, with populations in close proximity on both sides of the border. The level of trade, relative to Irish/British/rest of EU, is miniscule. 
Nevertheless, if DUP are intent on NI not being treated separately or differently, then to me, that would mean the application of same checks at the border as in Heathrow and Dover. 
That is not practical and not desirable, so a separate, different arrangement for Irish border is called for, which is what the DUP are advocating for - frictionless, free movement.
Which means that the DUP are agreeable to NI being treated separately from rest of UK, but just haven't gotten around to saying it.


----------



## EmmDee (26 Jul 2019)

Well - a couple of things. 

The CTA isn't a north/south thing and not driven by the DUP. It is an Ireland / UK thing so applies east / west as well as north / south. I'm not sure it is anything to do with the DUP. It is also related to people and not goods or services. So your Polish manager could go up North without checks - but he couldn't work there. Or probably couldn't drive a construction vehicle through without being stopped and asked about it.

There won't be a difference with the various ports. There will be checks on the border - just as there will in other ports - for goods & customs. And it's possible that Irish passport holders could join UK passport queue in Heathrow for example. So it's not really treating the Northern border differently.

The bigger question for you might be whether you will have ability to pitch for jobs up North after Brexit


----------



## rob oyle (26 Jul 2019)

EmmDee said:


> The CTA isn't a north/south thing and not driven by the DUP. It is an Ireland / UK thing so applies east / west as well as north / south. I'm not sure it is anything to do with the DUP. It is also related to people and not goods or services. So your Polish manager could go up North without checks...


Just to say - the CTA applies to British and Irish citizens, not EU citizens in general. So free travel continuing is not the same for all residents of the two countries.


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Jul 2019)

EmmDee said:


> So your Polish manager could go up North without checks - but he couldn't work there. Or probably couldn't drive a construction vehicle through without being stopped and asked about it.





EmmDee said:


> The bigger question for you might be whether you will have ability to pitch for jobs up North after Brexit



This doesn't sound like the frictionless trade that the DUP are advocating. If I have to hire new staff, that is a cost. Or if my Polish employee needs to apply for a work visa, that is additional burden. 
And if it puts in jeopardy my trade and business, as you have alluded to, then the DUP promise of a borderless trade is bogus - meaning the backstop is critical.


----------



## EmmDee (26 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> This doesn't sound like the frictionless trade that the DUP are advocating....



The whole "frictionless trade" or "nobody wants to put up borders" is a bluff - not just from the DUP. Both governments are saying it as well. But it's politics not reality. Neither side want to put in a position where they are blamed for doing so.

The reality is that if there is no deal, both sides are obliged to monitor trade across borders - unless they applied "no checks" across all ports of entry (which won't happen). So it's a bluff. But it's not a DUP bluff - it's being said by UK, Ireland and EU (to some extent).

No deal means some form of cross-border checks


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Jul 2019)

EmmDee said:


> The whole "frictionless trade" or "nobody wants to put up borders" is a bluff - not just from the DUP



That is what the backstop is for. To prevent border checks, customs checks, immigration checks. ie keep things the way they are now. It was proposed for Ireland only. The British government applied it to the whole of the UK.

It is the DUP who saying that there is no need for the backstop. That frictionless trade can continue without it. That frictionless trade and travel can continue while a free trade agreement is negotiated.  Which is nonsense.

It is nonsense because such a scenario makes mockery of Brexit in the first place. What is the point of Brexit, if after leaving the EU the laws that permit free trade and free travel across UK and EU are still applicable after 31st Oct? 

So a backstop was agreed, within the WA, to facilitate the current arrangements, and an orderly Brexit,  until such time as something else is agreed - ie a free trade agreement.

But as you quite rightly point out;



EmmDee said:


> No deal means some form of cross-border checks



Here is Nigel Dodds









						DUP: 'It is becoming clearer by the day that no one is ever going to build a border'
					

The DUP’s deputy leader said that an “east-west barrier should be no more palatable than having any new north-south barriers”.




					www.thejournal.ie
				




His point is that there is no need for a backstop in the WA. Clearly, without it, or a subsequent trade deal that removes the need for customs and immigration checks, then checks will be required. 
Otherwise what is Brexit about at all?


----------



## EmmDee (26 Jul 2019)

Yeah I know - but what I'm saying is that it isn't JUST the DUP. It is the whole "no deal will be grand" lot. In fact, Dodds is just parroting the ERG loons.

There is a whole hard-Brexit sect in UK politics that are throwing out all sorts of red herrings (GATT 24, side deals, existing mini deals - all that guff) to make the claim that no-deal won't be that bad. This includes the DUP but it doesn't originate from them. They are taking the lead from the likes of JRM and others

I'm not sure that Dublin Govt stating "we won't be the ones to put up borders" was a smart long term strategy. I know they didn't want to been seen to be the ones threatening it (for the sake of the GFA etc). But I think it would have been politically smarter to have stated from the beginning that a no-deal Brexit and the GFA are mutually exclusive


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Jul 2019)

Yeah but the point about the DUP is, they are a tiny constituency in the whole scheme of things, and represent a minority view within NI.
The real politik says that a British government that doesn't rely on their votes to stay in power, would do the pragmatic thing and agree a backstop for NI, citing GFA and removing the backstop after a free-trade deal with EU. 
That is the point of this thread. There may be bluster from a lot of quarters, but it is the DUP, in my opinion, that needs to be called out specifically for its bluster.
Ideally, a form of words, as Merkel alluded to, that doesn't see anyone losing face is what is required, but ultimately it will be treating NI separate to the rest of the UK which afterall, is what the DUP are asking for but wont admit to.


----------



## Purple (26 Jul 2019)

I think the DUP position is that we (as in Ireland the country) should move away from the single market in order to facilitate a frictionless border. After all, we are really British, aren't we?


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Jul 2019)

Purple said:


> I think the DUP position is that we (as in Ireland the country) should move away from the single market in order to facilitate a frictionless border. After all, we are really British, aren't we?



Yes, I've had this discussion with some Unionists (DUP) before. The talk of the whole of Ireland re-joining the UK was proposed. I wasn't against it, I just asked that in exchange, the Home Rule parliament of 1912, as legislated for through the British parliament be implemented. An All-Ireland parliament for a return of Ireland back into the UK.

They couldn't contemplate the idea I'm afraid to say.


----------



## joe sod (26 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Ideally, a form of words, as Merkel alluded to, that doesn't see anyone losing face is what is required, but ultimately it will be treating NI separate to the rest of the UK which afterall, is what the DUP are asking for but wont admit to.



leo varadker is not helping things by continuing to say that the backstop cant be tweeked, even if he shut up for a while it would be a help. If they are to get the dup on side with a "more acceptable" form of words then they need to stop inflaming things. If the UK crashes out then leo varadker will be in big trouble . Surely he needs to see beyond brexit and the economic turmoil that will hit this country


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Jul 2019)

I can see where you are coming from, but for every time BJ says the backstop needs to be abolished, Leo, and Barnier, need to remind  it wont be. 
It is the British government that has got itself into this mess. One calamitous Tory decision after the other. 
To me the answer lies with the DUP, and the British government willingness to 'help' them along. The WA is all ready and set. Britain can be out of the EU, the Single Market, the Customs Union etc by 31st Oct if they want. BJ can be the hero. 
With the only compromise to make, that NI remain in CU, SM until such time as a free trade agreement is made which will remove the backstop from NI then. 
There are zero Tory votes, zero Tory seats in NI. A majority of NI wants to stay in EU. 

Everything in pragmatic terms, including the DUP insistence that there should be frictionless trade between North and South, points to NI being treated separately.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Jul 2019)

Simon Varadkar really need to turn down the green dial here.  Sammy Wilson has a fair point (I cringe to admit) when he says the sea border proposal by the pan nationalist front is in breach of the GFA (ok a bit rich given that the DUP did not accept the GFA).  He points out that one of the key planks of the GFA is the principle of consent.  What this really means is that the constitutional position of NI can only change with the consent of a majority in NI, or more crudely the unionists/protestants have a veto on any change.  The border isn't mentioned in the GFA but the pan nationalists have convinced everyone from Merkel to Pelossi that a visible trade border on the island is in breach of the spirit of the GFA.  Well to me, the imposition of a sea border between NI and GB is every bit as much a breach of the spirit of the GFA unless it is tested for consent.  Any proposal for a NI only backstop should be subject to a referendum in NI (ok throw in a border poll at the same time for balance).  Now we keep getting reminded that the DUP view on Brexit is a minority one in NI.  I am not so sure and I would say the odds would be against the sea border getting a majority Yes in a referendum especially now that Simon Varadkar has made this as much of a tribal issue as a Celtic/Rangers match.

On the freedom of movement thing, my understanding is that Irish citizens have, before the EU, during the EU and after the EU the right to migrate to Britain.  There are therefore no checks at Ireland/UK entry points.  Of course that leaves open the possibility for illegal entry of foreigners into the UK via Ireland, which has always been the case.  But frictionless illegal entry is a far cry from freedom of movement - there would be no rights to work, social welfare etc.  It wasn't an issue pre single market days that there was this different approach to checks between Holyhead and Dover and there is no reason why it should matter in the future.


----------



## cremeegg (28 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> On the freedom of movement thing, my understanding is that Irish citizens have, before the EU, during the EU and after the EU the right to migrate to Britain.  There are therefore no checks at Ireland/UK entry points.



Its been a while since I was in Heathrow, but I well remember being "checked" there. Three hours is a locked room with several large men and a woman with a broken Irish accent.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> that the constitutional position of NI can only change with the consent of a majority in NI, or more crudely the unionists/protestants have a veto on any change.



The backstop is not a constitutional change to NI. That is nothing more than drum-beating from Unionism.

It will still be part of the UK. It wont be part of the EU. It will have separate trade and customs rules for dealing with goods and services in/out of EU, but a constitutional change it is not. 
 No more than NI uses a...separate...form of the Sterling currency. No more than its...separate...laws on abortion, same-sex marriage, language Acts, etc. 
All the backstop is doing is facilitating an orderly and pragmatic Brexit in Ireland until such time as a free-trade agreement is agreed between UK/EU. 
Unfortunately, the Dodds and the Wilsons have convinced everyone from May to BJ to Rees-Mogg that the backstop represents a threat to the Union. 
It doesn't, it is a simple, pragmatic facilitator for trade and customs. 
Unfortunately, however, the numbers game in HoC has sold the British government a pup and captured the entire British political establishment into a quagmire. 
To think a NI Secretary once said that Britain had no economic, selfish or strategic interest in NI. 
And yet here we are, 100yrs after the first phoney constitutional crisis which usurped British law at the behest of a Unionist minority. Is history to repeat itself, or can 'Great' Britain withstand the emotive flag-waving claptrap of Ulster Unionism?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Now we keep getting reminded that the DUP view on Brexit is a minority one in NI. I am not so sure



You may not be so sure, in the same way that im not so sure a Brexit vote would pass pass on a second round. For sure, the over-riding emotive sentiment of the UK leaving the EU still prevails, but it has come unhinged somewhat by the prospect of a no-deal Brexit. Something that was promised would never happen. 
This is evident in recent by-elections where the Brexit Party has failed to capitalize.
But all of this is speculation. Lets stick with the facts. NI voted to Remain. The DUP represents a minority view in NI on Brexit.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> there would be no rights to work, social welfare etc. It wasn't an issue pre single market days that there was this different approach to checks between Holyhead and Dover and there is no reason why it should matter in the future.



It may not have been an issue pre-single market days, but unless you missed the referendum campaigning on Brexit, you might have picked up on a sense that illegal immigration is quite an issue today. 
In Britain at least, perhaps not so much in NI, but that is maybe a...separate...issue. 
The point being, that behind the emotive illegal immigrants issue, of hiring 500 border force patrols for UK air and seaports (as announced this week) lies a more dull and boring reality. The UK/EU border in Ireland is different to UK/EU borders in Britain. It cannot be policed effectively. So notions of ramping up port patrols to prevent illegal entry into the UK are doable in Britain, not so in Ireland. The UK/EU border in Ireland is...separate...to the UK/EU borders in Britain.
Pragmatic and practical solutions are required for the continuance of orderly trade and customs - a frictionless border, as everyone has agreed to (including DUP). 
But what is the point of Brexit, from a DUP perspective, if everyone and everything can come and go as they please into the UK via the border in Ireland? That is a...separate...approach to what is being touted for Britain.
The point being, the DUP recognise that NI is different, it is separate - economically, politically, geographically - from the rest of the UK. 
It is nothing more than idealistic bombast that prevents them entering into pragmatic and realistic solutions so that all of the people of this island can move one step further away from the hatred and acrimony that prevents its people living in a real peace.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Jul 2019)

Boris Johnson faces Tory backlash over no plan to guarantee EU citizens’ rights after Brexit
					

Exclusive: Former Tory leader and Johnson ally suggests ministers afraid of legislation being ‘hijacked’ by anti-Brexit MPs, but new prime minister warned that failure to protect rights in law would be ‘abrogation of responsibility’




					www.independent.co.uk
				




More Brexit shambles. The reciprocal citizens rights of UK and EU nationals is already settled in the WA.

An effective backstop, for 3m EU citizens in the UK and 1.3m UK citizens living in EU to protect against any unnecessary and detrimental upheaval to their lives, jobs and careers, and families after Brexit.


But because of the Ulster Unionism whim - "we cant be treated separately", this pragmatic and utterly sensible approach to citizens rights in both UK and EU is now politicised.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Jul 2019)

The DUP are probably being irrational as per usual, I concede.  But Simon Varadkar who we expect to behave better are being even more irrational if they are prepared to plunge Ireland into a No Deal rather than even contemplate a tweak to the WA.  The fact is Simon Varadkar has made this a Celtic/Rangers match.  And Old Firm matches are totally irrational emotional affairs.

On NI voting against Brexit,  I presume Little Worsted on the Weade (if it exists) voted 90% Remain, it doesn't mean they want to be treated separately from the rest of GB now that Brexit is going to happen.

There is nothing in the letter of the GFA preventing a trade border on the island (border not mentioned) and similarly there is nothing in the letter of the GFA preventing a sea border between NI and GB (arguably not a constitutional issue).  But if the land border is in breach of the *spirit* of the GFA then the sea border is at least equally so.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But Simon Varadkar who we expect to behave better are being even more irrational if they are prepared to plunge Ireland into a No Deal rather than even contemplate a tweak to the WA.



Except they aren't. The WA is an international political agreement. It is not an election manifesto to be torn up on some rabble rousing.
The British government, on the authority of its parliament, negotiated and agreed the WA. Its parliament, rejecting that deal has little to do with EU or Ireland. The backstop, applicable to the whole of UK, is a UK term, not Irish or EU term. If the UK want to alter it, offer an alternative prosposal. If acceptable at negotiating level, the WA can re-open for approval for the EU. 
Abolishing the backstop in its entirety is not acceptable. This has been conveyed to the British. A NI only backstop, a tweak, would appear to be acceptable to EU. 
Perhaps it should be put to a vote in the UK parliament? 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> it doesn't mean they want to be treated separately from the rest of GB now that Brexit is going to happen.



It doesn't mean that the people of NI are not prepared to be treated differently from GB either, does it? 
Between the Shinners, SDLP, Greens, Alliance, moderate unionists and the farming community, my bet is on people of NI being prepared to accept the backstop over a no-deal crashout. 
But again, we are speculating. Sticking to the facts, the DUP represents a minority view in NI with regard Brexit.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> There is nothing in the letter of the GFA preventing a trade border on the island



Probably best to clear this out of the way. The trade border already exists. Different currency, different VAT, different tax etc. 
It is by virtue of the SM, CU that such a border is effectively invisible. Its this invisibility that everyone wants to retain. The backstop facilities this until such a time as a free trade agreement is agreed between UK/EU (what is it about the prospective free trade agreement between UK/EU that makes me think it will be near identical to the SM/CU?) 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> But if the land border is in breach of the *spirit* of the GFA then the sea border is at least equally so.



Probably best to clear this out of the way. The sea border already exists. By virtue of a mass of water that will be difficult to disappear.
Nevertheless, why would such a sea (trade) border be unpalatable to unionists? There are no communities living in the sea. The sea was a practical oasis of content during the Troubles. Even the IRA never attacked the sea, and they certainly didn't use it for safe-houses or training, arms dumps or refuge.

If there is no need for border checks on land between RoI and NI, as DUP claim, then there are no need for border checks for goods and services between Belfast and Liverpool, or elsewhere. 

The sea border is, excuse the pun, a red herring.


----------



## Early Riser (28 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> On NI voting against Brexit, I presume Little Worsted on the Weade (if it exists) voted 90% Remain, it doesn't mean they want to be treated separately from the rest of GB now that Brexit is going to happen.



NI is not, and never has been, part of GB. It is part of the UK. Unlike Little Worsted, it was created by the partition of Ireland. NI has always had a population divided by identity and allegiance - often violently so. The GFA enables both of these identities to feel respected. The backstop does not change the constitutional position of NI in the UK (central to unionist identity) but a border in Ireland will be a return to the past for those of a nationalist identity.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> There is nothing in the letter of the GFA preventing a trade border on the island (border not mentioned) and similarly there is nothing in the letter of the GFA preventing a sea border between NI and GB (arguably not a constitutional issue). But if the land border is in breach of the *spirit* of the GFA then the sea border is at least equally so.



There is a big practical difference between border checks in the Irish Sea and checks along the land border. The latter is over 300 miles long and has an estimated 270 existing crossing points. An extensive physical infrastructure will be required for this, no matter what technology is in play. Agricultural goods may currently cross this border several times between point of farm production, to processing and to retailing. On a broader scale, a border such as this is an invitation to smuggling and organised criminality.

There are a limited number of access ports between NI and GB. Animals and certain agricultural goods are already subject to checks at this border (whether on ferry or at port) and this does not seem to have created an identity problem for the DUP. Admittedly there would have to be considerably more checks in the event of a NI only backstop, but logistically it would be much simpler and less disruptive and, as the principle is already in place (uncontroversially), it should be much less of an issue in terms of unionist identity


----------



## cremeegg (28 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Little Worsted on the Weade



I have often been a Little Worsted myself, but never on the weed.


----------



## cremeegg (28 Jul 2019)

Early Riser said:


> NI has always had a population divided by identity and allegiance - often violently so.



Always ? Hardly, think of Henry Joy, and that other fellow, not the one who conquered Quebec, his cousin. I know I saw his name somewhere recently.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Jul 2019)

The "spirit" of the GFA is a notion to foster improved community relations between a divided people - on land. Through trade, community co-operation, social and cultural acceptance.

There are no such divisions in the Irish sea. As such the "spirit" of the GFA does not apply to trade borders, invisible or liquid, in the Irish sea.


----------



## Early Riser (28 Jul 2019)

cremeegg said:


> Always ? Hardly, think of Henry Joy, and that other fellow, not the one who conquered Quebec, his cousin. I know I saw his name somewhere recently.



Henry Joy was dead over 120 years before NI came into existence.


----------



## cremeegg (28 Jul 2019)

Early Riser said:


> Henry Joy was dead over 120 years before NI came into existence.



Try not to be a pedant it doesn't make you any friends. North was still North, and Ireland was Ireland.


----------



## Early Riser (28 Jul 2019)

Early Riser said:


> NI has always had a population divided by identity and allegiance - often violently so.





cremeegg said:


> Always ? Hardly, think of Henry Joy, and that other fellow, not the one who conquered Quebec, his cousin. I know I saw his name somewhere recently.





cremeegg said:


> Try not to be a pedant it doesn't make you any friends. North was still North, and Ireland was Ireland.



To reiterate, NI has always had a population divide by identity and allegiance - often violently so. Since its foundation until the present. Henry Joy is neither here nor there with regard to this. Sorry if pointing this out seeems pedantic. Friends now?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Between the Shinners, SDLP, Greens, Alliance, moderate unionists and the farming community, my bet is on people of NI being prepared to accept the backstop over a no-deal crashout.


That is an interesting call.  It seems to me that a referendum in NI on whether or not they want a NI only backstop has potential to break the logjam.  If NI says No to a NI only backstop surely Simon Varadkar would have to climb down and vice versa the DUP would be isolated if NI said Yes. And Westminster would surely go along with either result.  

So how would that vote go?  If the issue had not been so highly charged it would probably have been a Yes as the practical interests of unionist farmers and businessmen would override DUP bigotry.  Unfortunately Simon Varadkar have ensured that the vote would probably split along tribal lines.


----------



## cremeegg (28 Jul 2019)

Early Riser said:


> To reiterate, NI has always had a population divide by identity and allegiance - often violently so. Since its foundation until the present. Henry Joy is neither here nor there with regard to this. Sorry if pointing this out seeems pedantic. Friends now?



Due to the activities of the United Irishmen, of whom Wolfe Tone and Henry Joy McCracken were leading members, the sectarian divide in northern Ireland in the late 18th century was reduced to the point that the London government was seriously concerned that it could no longer pit Catholic against Protestant.

By the time of the formation of the northern Irish state in the 1920s sectarian divisions were certainly well re-established.

But we all knew that didn't we.

Your comment "NI has always had a population divide by identity and allegiance - often violently so" suggests an immutability about the divide which I do not think is borne out by history.

If you disagree you would be better served by explaining why rather than resorting to throw away comments such as "Henry Joy was dead over 120 years before NI came into existence."


----------



## Early Riser (28 Jul 2019)

cremeegg said:


> Your comment "NI has always had a population divide by identity and allegiance - often violently so" suggests an immutability about the divide which I do not think is borne out by history.
> 
> If you disagree you would be better served by explaining why rather than resorting to throw away comments such as "Henry Joy was dead over 120 years before NI came into existence."




This is a thread about the backstop to prevent a hard border in Ireland in the context of the GFA. The GFA itself was intended to resolve a violent conflict based on sectarian divisions  that had been present throughout the existence of the NI state.

I have not suggested that sectarian divisions are immutable in Ireland - I haven't even suggested that they immutable in NI. That is in no way inconsistent with the statement that you seem to find contentious - "NI has always had a population divided by identity and allegiance - often violently so".  The GFA at least took much of the violence out of that conflict. The possible imposition of a hard border threatens that and alienates one section of the sectarian and political divide.

I am familiar with the history of the United Irishmen, including Henry Joy. I frankly don't see its relevance to the backstop - nor does it change the facts of sectarian division (often violent) throughout NI's existence.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It seems to me that a referendum in NI on whether or not they want a NI only backstop has potential to break the logjam.



I suspect such a referendum is dead before it could even crawl. I can already hear the cries of "you cant treat us separately" from DUP.
The numbers game in HoC dictate that it is not an option. And aside from all that, even if such a referendum were contemplated, there would be the small matter of Scotland, the second of four countries in the UK that voted to Remain. Preferential treatment for NI with the option to remain in SM/CU will not be tolerated. Even the Scottish Tories are rebelling against BJ, suggesting the sentiment for Scottish independence would harden on foot of a no deal Brexit.



But in the interests of exploring all options and possibilities, I suspect you may be over-egging the impact of Varadkar and Coveney comments on the outcome of any vote. When you strip it down, Leo and Simon are simply taking a stance that any Irish government, of any political hue would take.
The contention seems to emanate from DUP circles at the sight of croppy boys refusing to lie down.
But such controversy is a wisp relative to the controversy that would emerge in Unionism if the British parliament were to legislate for a NI backstop referendum.
The concept of "not being treated separately" would be obselete.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Jul 2019)

Ok _Wolfie_ one of your more reasoned offerings, you may be right.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Jul 2019)

This is incredulous. This is Brexit mania. 
Less than a week after Brexiteer PM Boris Johnson stated that his government would refuse "under any circumstances" to impose checks on the UK/EU land border, his new Home Secretary, Priti Patel, publishes this; 









						I will shake up immigration, says PRITI PATEL
					

PRITI PATEL: Our new Prime Minister has promised a radical rewrite of our immigration system. As Home Secretary, I'll be the one making this happen in Britain.



					www.dailymail.co.uk
				




Not one mention of Ireland. 
Not one mention of NI
As if the issue that has dragged the WA into delay after delay doesn't exist. 

Either Priti - of unauthorized meetings with Israeli officials and in favor of a return to capital punishment (regardless of innocence or guilt) - is determined to treat NI separately, or, we are heading for a hard border in Ireland.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Either Priti - in favor of a return to capital punishment (regardless of innocence or guilt)


Gosh, she wants everybody to face capital punishment


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Gosh, she wants everybody to face capital punishment



It was Ian Hislop of Private Eye and Have I Got News for You that pointed out all the miscarriages of justice that his publication helped to highlight and subsequently overturn. Miscarriages that, under Priti's rules, would have led to death sentences of innocent people.
Unperturbed by this reasoning, Priti proclaimed that capital punishment acts as a deterrent  , somewhat ignorant of the fact that countries that have capital punishment, still execute people for crimes undeterred.


----------



## nest egg (29 Jul 2019)

This is what I believe is going on and the most likely outcome...

1. Make the "Irish" backstop the problem (if you listen carefully, he's not saying it's the only problem, it is however the most sellable and solvable (see below)
2. Talk tough with the EU (& Ireland), threaten no deal (this is a bluff, but the English electorate will lap it up)
3. Dump the DUP. Capitalise of the above, call a GE and form a government capable of getting a deal through parliament.
4. "Solve" the backstop by turning it back into it's original NI only format
5. Deliver Brexit / Enjoy being the "hero"


----------



## Purple (29 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> But such controversy is a wisp relative to the controversy that would emerge in Unionism if the British parliament were to legislate for a NI backstop referendum.


Maybe they should have a UK referendum on the Backstop (the UK wide Backstop) and find out just how precious most people in Britain think their precious Union is.


----------



## EmmDee (29 Jul 2019)

mojoask said:


> This is what I believe is going on and the most likely outcome...
> 
> 1. Make the "Irish" backstop the problem (if you listen carefully, he's not saying it's the only problem, it is however the most sellable and solvable (see below)
> 2. Talk tough with the EU (& Ireland), threaten no deal (this is a bluff, but the English electorate will lap it up)
> ...



I agree to some extent. The backstop is a useful tool to talk about (if it wasn't that there would be something else) in order to (a) ensure nothing gets signed with the EU and (b) force Parliament to block a no deal outcome through a vote of confidence or hijacking another piece of legislation. Then call an election claiming to be the true party looking to deliver Brexit - only prevented by the nasty EU and HoC - taking the wind out of the Brexit Party to a large extent.

They must be looking at Labour and thinking the earlier the better to take them to a general election - before Labour sort themselves out. And the rest of the opposition is fragmented across 3 or 4 parties which in a FPP system is an ideal situation if you're on 30% or so.

The must also be thinking they could solve a host of other problems such as reliance on the DUP and leftish Conservative MP's (keep an eye on the deselections) giving them a free run at a host of policy changes.

This would be a nightmare for the DUP as well. They'd have no leverage, no cash to spread around and probably a disgruntled electorate. I think they'd see how much BJ actually cares about NI. I really don't see why they would think this would be a good outcome for them


----------



## nest egg (29 Jul 2019)

EmmDee said:


> ... The backstop is a useful tool to talk about (if it wasn't that there would be something else) in order to (a) ensure nothing gets signed with the EU and (b) force Parliament to block a no deal outcome through a vote of confidence or hijacking another piece of legislation. Then call an election claiming to be the true party looking to deliver Brexit - only prevented by the nasty EU and HoC - taking the wind out of the Brexit Party to a large extent...



That's exactly my thinking. Boris is giving every indication he's not interested in any negotiations with the EU, he's playing to the home crowd, the electioneering has commenced.  The self preservation of the Tory party is at the heart of all this grandstanding. They need to kill off the Brexit party (as they successfully did with UKIP).  Once done, they'll be in a position to get a deal over the line.

Interesting times ahead!


----------



## john luc (29 Jul 2019)

I would have never thought I would see the day that a serious consideration of the breakup of the UK could happen, not anymore. This brexit vote is driven be English Nationalism and the level of,"let them eat cake", attitude that is prevalent in England is quite strong. If Scotland does break away this will put pressure on Wales and Northern Ireland. The problem with Northern Ireland is that its economy is too dependant on the UK taxpayer with 1.8 million people getting over £10 billion as a subsidy means that if a discussion of a united Ireland was to start then many people in the Republic will not be happy about paying extra taxes to keep the north in the comfort they are kept at the moment.


----------



## Purple (29 Jul 2019)

john luc said:


> I would have never thought I would see the day that a serious consideration of the breakup of the UK could happen, not anymore. This brexit vote is driven be English Nationalism and the level of,"let them eat cake", attitude that is prevalent in England is quite strong. If Scotland does break away this will put pressure on Wales and Northern Ireland. The problem with Northern Ireland is that its economy is too dependant on the UK taxpayer with 1.8 million people getting over £10 billion as a subsidy means that if a discussion of a united Ireland was to start then many people in the Republic will not be happy about paying extra taxes to keep the north in the comfort they are kept at the moment.


That divorce bill would make the EU one look like chicken feed.


----------



## odyssey06 (29 Jul 2019)

john luc said:


> I would have never thought I would see the day that a serious consideration of the breakup of the UK could happen, not anymore.



I would have thought the existence of the EU, whether UK was in it or not, makes Scottish independence far more likely. Without an EU, I can't see Scotland going it alone ala Norway or Iceland. Probably the UK should never have signed up for the EU rather than being only being half in, if that was their prime concern.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (29 Jul 2019)

Agree with much of what is being said here.  Betfair has it odds on that a GE will happen before Brexit.  No Deal is still odds against as is Brexit by 31st Oct.
Where I disagree is that I think Brexit will make Scotland less likely to go for independence.  The EU would have one very poison pill for an independent Scotland - the euro, and I see no way they would let Scotland join and be exempt from the euro.  For  a start, to make a promise of such an exception in the context of an independence referendum would be viewed (rightly) by Westminster as a very hostile act.


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Jul 2019)

A more than frosty reception from the crowd for BJ on meeting Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland to say the least. 
Sturgeons views on no deal Brexit were pretty emphatic  - Scotland should determine its own future. 
We all know that Ireland's interests have always been a distant second to Britains interests in the United Kingdom, but Scotlands interests are a different prospect. 
There is no United Kingdom without Scotland. 
A no-deal Brexit, dragging Scotland out of EU against its wishes is playing with fire.


----------



## john luc (29 Jul 2019)

Did anyone notice how bad the optics were today with a very English PM going north to Scotland with a cheap bribe in his pocket in the guise of a few crumbs from the money table. A bit like the Cowboys giving the Indians glass beads for their land.


----------



## odyssey06 (30 Jul 2019)

john luc said:


> Did anyone notice how bad the optics were today with a very English PM going north to Scotland with a cheap bribe in his pocket in the guise of a few crumbs from the money table. A bit like the Cowboys giving the Indians glass beads for their land.



Or when we went over with shiploads of carpet bags for Brussels money?


----------



## galway_blow_in (30 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> A more than frosty reception from the crowd for BJ on meeting Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland to say the least.
> Sturgeons views on no deal Brexit were pretty emphatic  - Scotland should determine its own future.
> We all know that Ireland's interests have always been a distant second to Britains interests in the United Kingdom, but Scotlands interests are a different prospect.
> There is no United Kingdom without Scotland.
> A no-deal Brexit, dragging Scotland out of EU against its wishes is playing with fire.



Might well explain why the UK government are being so insistent on removing the backstop. 

Would energise the Scots


----------



## cremeegg (30 Jul 2019)

john luc said:


> Did anyone notice how bad the optics were today with a very English PM going north to Scotland with a cheap bribe in his pocket in the guise of a few crumbs from the money table. A bit like the Cowboys giving the Indians glass beads for their land.



Johnson obviously thinks that there are plenty of people in Scotland who will be grateful for his attention. I am not sure he is wrong.


----------



## Firefly (30 Jul 2019)

Brexit will be 'catastrophic', first minister tells Boris Johnson ahead of his visit to Wales – as it happened
					

Rolling coverage of the day’s political developments as they happen, including Boris Johnson’s first visit to Wales as prime minister




					www.theguardian.com
				




_He said that in all scenarios, the government will be steadfast in its commitment to the Belfast agreement and will never put physical checks or physical infrastructure on the border. _

I'm wondering if he is implying that any border will have to be build by the EU? It would be a handy "Well we didn't build the border" cop-out and force the EU into building it, which would in turn cause all sorts of issues with some people here....


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 Jul 2019)

Firefly said:


> Brexit will be 'catastrophic', first minister tells Boris Johnson ahead of his visit to Wales – as it happened
> 
> 
> Rolling coverage of the day’s political developments as they happen, including Boris Johnson’s first visit to Wales as prime minister
> ...


_Fly _this has been the British position since the beginning.   It was a vain attempt to turn Dublin against Brussels but it failed from the very start with our spokespersons asserting that everything that flows from Brexit, including EU actions, is solely the fault of the British - it was they who chose Brexit.


----------



## Firefly (30 Jul 2019)

SF setting out their stall, a.k.a United Ireland. Time to sell my house??????

[broken link removed]

_The nationalist people of the north have turned their backs on Westminster and increasingly look to Dublin for leadership.  

Brexit has forced increasing numbers of people, from all backgrounds, to look South. 

Last Friday An Taoiseach told the MacGill Summer School that the Government would have to consider a forum on Irish unity in the event of a no-deal Brexit. 

A growing number of people in the north, including many from a unionist background, are now considering their future in the context of Brexit.

Many are now open to discussing the prospect of a new Ireland, an agreed Ireland and united Ireland._


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Jul 2019)

Firefly said:


> I'm wondering if he is implying that any border will have to be build by the EU? It would be a handy "Well we didn't build the border" cop-out and force the EU into building it, which would in turn cause all sorts of issues with some people here....



If the UK crashes out with no deal, then they will be operating under WTO rules. If WTO rules dictate that there needs to be border checks, then it is not in the UKs remit to just abandon its trade obligations without penalty.
If it is not an obligation under WTO to have border checks, then there is no reason for EU to put up checks either. 
Logic would deduce that if two economies are operating under different systems, WTO and SM, then some form of checks will be required on both sides. 

But in all of that, it simply exposes the DUP position of not being "treated separately" as bogus. The DUP are, like everyone else, against anything that will suggest a return to border infrastructure - this is completely at odds with what Brexit is supposed to be about in the first instance. And is completely at odds with what the Home Secretary, Priti Patel is promising with border and immigration controls.


----------



## Purple (30 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> with our spokespersons asserting that everything that flows from Brexit, including EU actions, is solely the fault of the British - it was they who chose Brexit.


That's just stating the facts.


----------



## so-crates (30 Jul 2019)

As I said to more than one Brexit supporting colleague in the run up to their referendum in 2016, there's no point getting all worried about Dover if you leave your This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language exposed in Derry....
Their standard response was usually along the lines of "we don't think of you guys as different, ye aren't a problem"
My standard response was "It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what reality is, Ireland is a separate country".


----------



## Purple (30 Jul 2019)

so-crates said:


> there's no point getting all worried about Dover if you leave your This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language exposed in Derry....


Love it.


----------



## PMU (30 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> If the UK crashes out with no deal, then they will be operating under WTO rules. If WTO rules dictate that there needs to be border checks, then it is not in the UKs remit to just abandon its trade obligations without penalty.
> If it is not an obligation under WTO to have border checks, then there is no reason for EU to put up checks either.



It's not so much WTO rules.  There are a stack of EU regulations concerning official controls on the  import of food and animal products into the EU, that inter alia ensure  food provided to EU consumers is safe and wholesome and its production complies with animal  welfare standards.  As an EU member Ireland is required to ensure imports comply with the relevant EU legislation.  So we will have to check them.  And as Ireland has benefited significantly from the single market it's something we should do willingly and unequivocally.

If this is what some people regard as a 'hard' border they really should grow up.  Australia for example has quarantine zones and biosecurity standards including the prohibition of movement of agricultural produce and machinery between its states.  By no reasonable standards would anyone say that this somehow constitutes a 'hard' border between the Australian states.




WolfeTone said:


> Logic would deduce that if two economies are operating under different systems, WTO and SM, then some form of checks will be required on both sides.


 Correct.  Although it's not logic, it's legislation.


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Jul 2019)

PMU said:


> If this is what constitutes a 'hard border' we really should grow up.



Checking goods to see if they comply with EU standards is not the problem. 
The problem is that we have a century old issue called partition that in recent decades has become effectively dormant. The phrase "let sleeping dogs lie" comes to mind. 
It is simply not conceivable that any Irish government would consciously assign Irish citizens to border and customs checkpoints at the NI border, knowing that at somepoint in the future such a post will be violently targeted.


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Jul 2019)

PMU said:


> Australia for example has quarantine zones and biosecurity standards including the prohibition of movement of agricultural produce and machinery between its states. By no reasonable standards would anyone say that this somehow constitutes a 'hard' border between the Australian states.



Correct, and throughout the EU, rules and regulations for livestock in place. Including, annual herd testing for disease, animal destruction if disease detected, quarantine of farms, neighbouring farms if need. 
The life of a animal, from birth to death is traceable throughout the EU. 
When UK leaves the EU, it will no longer be obliged to comply with all EU regulations with regard livestock. Logic could deduce that they will simply continue with same regulations as EU in order to smooth any prospective free trade deal for agriculture produce. But then you would have to ask, why leave EU if they are simply going to comply with identical rules and regulations? 
So if regulations change, or are not applicable to UK livestock, then this will be a major disruption for farmers on the border.


----------



## Leo (30 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> When UK leaves the EU, it will no longer be obliged to comply with all EU regulations with regard livestock. Logic could deduce that they will simply continue with same regulations as EU in order to smooth any prospective free trade deal for agriculture produce. But then you would have to ask, why leave EU if they are simply going to comply with identical rules and regulations?



They seem quite focused on achieving a trade deal with the US as a matter of priority, the US have made it clear that agriculture/ food safety standards will have to be lowered for that to happen.


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Jul 2019)

Leo said:


> They seem quite focused on achieving a trade deal with the US as a matter of priority, the US have made it clear that agriculture/ food safety standards will have to be lowered for that to happen.



Doesn't augur well for the hopes of no border checks. Animal produce from UK, if standards do fall, will be prohibited from EU.
If EU were to prohibit British beef, I would imagine reciprocal measures by UK to prohibit EU beef.
Ensuring, the need for border checks on both sides.


----------



## Leo (30 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Doesn't augur well for the hopes of no border checks. Animal produce from UK, if standards do fall, will be prohibited from EU.
> If EU were to prohibit British beef, I would imagine reciprocal measures by UK to prohibit EU beef.
> Ensuring, the need for border checks on both sides.



Yep, you know if Trump is getting excited about the prospects of a great trade deal, then it's only likely to change in his favour. Can only get messy.


----------



## john luc (30 Jul 2019)

So diabetic beef could be on the way to the UK.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/skittles-cows-corn-truck-crash-american-farmers-wisconsin-dodge-county-a7536731.html?amp#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> It is simply not conceivable that any Irish government would consciously assign Irish citizens to border and customs checkpoints at the NI border, knowing that at somepoint in the future such a post will be violently targeted.


So we are going to plunge this country into a No Deal catastrophe because we are afraid of the IRA.


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> So we are going to plunge this country into a No Deal catastrophe because we are afraid of the IRA.



That is a somewhat glib perspective over an issue that has plagued this country since partition. 
But perhaps Boris's table tantrums are working on you? 
The facts are, there is a deal already agreed. It is the British parliament, and its new government, that are intent on plunging us all into a No Deal catastrophe by reneging on that deal, that its government agreed in good faith.  
If the British government wants to re-negotiate a term of that agreement that it put into the agreement, it is incumbent on them to offer an alternative. 
So far all alternative offers have been found out to be bogus, hence the pounding of 'No-deal' now.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 Jul 2019)

The "any tweak to the existing cross border trading arrangements will destroy the peace process and bring back the IRA" is entirely bogus.  Not just me saying so.  Dan O'Brien and Eoghan Harris of the _Sindo_ have been beating this drum for some time now.
I remember the civil rights movement in NI.  The banners shouted One Man One Vote. The burning issues were discrimination in housing, in public sector appointments, protestant domination of the main industries, a sectarian police force.  Nobody was in the least bit exercised by the long queues at the border, which were mainly the result of the southern state trying to protect its basket case economy.  The backstop is bogus but it suits the EU to use it to back the UK into a corner, and we play the patsy to that strategy.


----------



## Early Riser (30 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The "any tweak to the existing cross border trading arrangements will destroy the peace process and bring back the IRA" is entirely bogus.  Not just me saying so.  Dan O'Brien and Eoghan Harris of the _Sindo_ have been beating this drum for some time now.
> I remember the civil rights movement in NI.  The banners shouted One Man One Vote. The burning issues were discrimination in housing, in public sector appointments, protestant domination of the main industries, a sectarian police force.  Nobody was in the least bit exercised by the long queues at the border, which were mainly the result of the southern state trying to protect its basket case economy.  The backstop is bogus but it suits the EU to use it to back the UK into a corner, and we play the patsy to that strategy.



As someone who also remembers the civil rights marches and who lived along the border, I have to disagree. The marches themselves were about equality of opportunity but lots of people along the border did have an issue with the queues. The fact that they were resigned to them by time did not mean they did not resent them. As many crossings were blocked, people often had to travel several extra miles to go through approved routes. There was tremendous underlying resentment at the petty disruption to daily life - social, recreational, occupational, economic, etc.
The other people who paid attention to the border were smugglers - some for personal use, but many for much more significant activity. What was not there then - at least not widely - was the link between smuggling and organised criminal gangs. This would be much more of a feature of any new border.

Anyway, The Troubles happened unfortunately. There is no turning back the clock to even the civil rights days. After all that turmoil there is no way a significantly large percentage of the nationalist community is going to accept a hard border - not without fierce resentment and alienation, at least. This does not turn them into IRA members. But it does create a context in which IRA activity is viewed with much more understanding and sympathy.

And, except in his own mind, Eoghan Harris is usually wrong in his diagnoses and predictions !


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 Jul 2019)

Ahh _Early Riser _so you are the kinda gal Leo is referring to when he talks about "people who getup early in the morning"
I take your points.  I am going to digress here so regular AAM viewers may wish to switch channels.  When I was a young earl I used to travel back and forth from Belfast to Dublin every weekend.  It depressed me to travel through pot-holed roads through congested towns like Castlebellingham, Dunleer, Drogheda, Balbriggan and Swords.  Why were the northern roads so much better, are prods inherently superior?

These days I do the trip less regularly but I never cease to marvel at the wonders of the M1.  And we are now better than the roads in the North.  I think at least we got something from the excesses of the Celtic Tiger.  Yes, I would be very annoyed if customs blocks were established on the M1.  That is not going to happen but even if it did I would not have an urge to resort to violence, and I would not support those who would.  So indeed we are right to resist a return to a hard border. We made this case early doors and more power to our diplomatic service we succeeded in making no hard border a key EU objective.  But it was hugely cynical to tie this desire to the preservation of the peace process. It is the height of hypocrisy to criticise SF for their glorification of IRA resistance and then use that threat as a bargaining counter in the EU/UK negotiations.


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The "any tweak to the existing cross border trading arrangements will destroy the peace process and bring back the IRA" is entirely bogus.



Probably best to dial down the hyperbole. No-one has said the IRA was coming back. But it doesn't take a genius to recognize that any border infrastructure or installations would not be subject to targeting, and anybody operating them, at some point in the future. 
Every PSNI security assessment of the last few years has stated the threat from militant republicans is at its highest. 
This is somewhat borne out in recent attempts to murder PSNI officers and of course, the tragic murder of Lyra McKee. 
The point about the border is, why offer another target, why do something that is symbolically provocative? When there is absolutely no need to do so?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Not just me saying so. Dan O'Brien and Eoghan Harris of the _Sindo_ have been beating this drum for some time now.



Dan is looking to the economic impact, which is fair enough. But he is shallow when it comes to the political impact. As for Harris, I respect that he is considered somewhat an intellectual, but his bitterness toward anything SF support is his Achilles heel. Since his own IRA/Communist days floundered, he has been prepared to sell out every principle he ever had if he considered it to do damage to the Provos. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I remember the civil rights movement in NI. The banners shouted One Man One Vote.
> The burning issues were discrimination in housing, in public sector appointments, protestant domination of the main industries, a sectarian police force.



Yes, so what? 
I may not be old enough to remember the civil rights movement, but im conscious of the impact the border has had on the psyche of this country. 
Im aware of how British law was usurped through the threat of violence from UVF and to the behest of a Unionist minority to create the border in the first place. The concept of exclusively peaceful and democratic means were discarded by the British. 
WWI was the lamentable excuse for suspending the Home Rule parliament, a parliament to be led by John Redmond who advocated for and encouraged the lives of Irish nationalists to join the war effort with Britain as an act of loyalty to the British crown. 
That betrayal resonated profoundly paving the way for the Rising and subsequent war for independence.

Im aware of the nasty Civil war that followed the introduction of partition that would divide a generation of Irish people, families and communities against one another. 

Im aware of the futile, but fatal IRA 'border' campaign in the late 1950's pre-dating the Civil rights movement.

Im aware of the Troubles and the sectarian murder campaign carried out by the IRA along the border against Protestants. 

Im aware of resistance of local communities to border crossings being closed, blocked off or destroyed by British Army inflicting undue hardship on the economies of rural communities.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Nobody was in the least bit exercised by the long queues at the border,



Must have been a phenomenon. Nobody put out by long queues! The were probably just happy to get there stash of smuggled goods across!


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The backstop is bogus but it suits the EU to use it to back the UK into a corner, and we play the patsy to that strategy.



The backstop is bogus - for the whole of UK. 
Not for NI.


----------



## Early Riser (30 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Yes, I would be very annoyed if customs blocks were established on the M1. That is not going to happen but even if it did I would not have an urge to resort to violence, and I would not support those who would. So indeed we are right to resist a return to a hard border. We made this case early doors and more power to our diplomatic service we succeeded in making no hard border a key EU objective. But it was hugely cynical to tie this desire to the preservation of the peace process. It is the height of hypocrisy to criticise SF for their glorification of IRA resistance and then use that threat as a bargaining counter in the EU/UK negotiations.



But it is not a threat - it is an indication of a significant risk. If there was a proposal to cancel all Garda speedchecks and breathalysers for the next year in order to divert resources elsewhere I would say say there is a real risk of a sharp rise in road deaths. I am not thereby threatening to get plastered and speed up the M1. 

The Government pointing out the reals risks of violence after the establishment of a hard border is not threatening violence but pointing out a reality. Disaffection and disruption fester. Small confrontations can easily escalate. Tolerance levels in the community change - not overnight but incrementally. Like you, I would not support a return to violence either - the same way I wouldn't drive plastered down the M1 in the absence of checks. But there are those who will - in both scenarios.


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But it was hugely cynical to tie this desire to the preservation of the peace process. It is the height of hypocrisy to criticise SF for their glorification of IRA resistance and then use that threat as a bargaining counter in the EU/UK negotiations.



This is totally disingenuous. Nobody is using IRA violence as a bargaining chip. That, if anything, is the extreme outcome of any hardening of the border. 
In the meantime, the prospect of any return to Stormont will vanish. SF may as well pack up and call it day if they are to administer anything remotely resembling a British border in Ireland. 
As much as that may please some, it will create a vacuum.


----------



## galway_blow_in (30 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The "any tweak to the existing cross border trading arrangements will destroy the peace process and bring back the IRA" is entirely bogus.  Not just me saying so.  Dan O'Brien and Eoghan Harris of the _Sindo_ have been beating this drum for some time now.
> I remember the civil rights movement in NI.  The banners shouted One Man One Vote. The burning issues were discrimination in housing, in public sector appointments, protestant domination of the main industries, a sectarian police force.  Nobody was in the least bit exercised by the long queues at the border, which were mainly the result of the southern state trying to protect its basket case economy.  The backstop is bogus but it suits the EU to use it to back the UK into a corner, and we play the patsy to that strategy.



You lost any credibility by referencing eoghan Harris


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 Jul 2019)

Early Riser said:


> But it is not a threat - it is an indication of a significant risk. If there was a proposal to cancel all Garda speedchecks and breathalysers for the next year in order to divert resources elsewhere I would say say there is a real risk of a sharp rise in road deaths. I am not thereby threatening to get plastered and speed up the M1.
> 
> The Government pointing out the reals risks of violence after the establishment of a hard border is not threatening violence but pointing out a reality. Disaffection and disruption fester. Small confrontations can easily escalate. Tolerance levels in the community change - not overnight but incrementally. Like you, I would not support a return to violence either - the same way I wouldn't drive plastered down the M1 in the absence of checks. But there are those who will - in both scenarios.


I’m trying to understand this, seems as if it might make sense but it is late at night, I will address tomorrow.


----------



## joe sod (31 Jul 2019)

Firefly said:


> Last Friday An Taoiseach told the MacGill Summer School that the Government would have to consider a forum on Irish unity in the event of a no-deal Brexit.



we have been very critical of boris johnson and the brexiteers for their nationalistic little england narrative. However we are guilty of the exact same jingoism with regard to the backstop and this talk of a united ireland, its actually leo varadker and not sinn fein that is most guilty of this now. Leo Varadker has departed from the traditional even handed approach to northern ireland of previous taoiseach. Enda Kenny or bertie ahern would never have indulged in such talk especially at such a delicate time.
Boris johnson has been accused of blatant electioneering over the last few days, leo varadker is equally as bad in shamelessly playing the green card


----------



## Purple (31 Jul 2019)

joe sod said:


> leo varadker is equally as bad in shamelessly playing the green card


Leo has shown his inexperience on a number of occasions but talking about a united Ireland is hardly playing to the FG base; they are the people who put the border there in the first place.


----------



## WolfeTone (31 Jul 2019)

joe sod said:


> However we are guilty of the exact same jingoism with regard to the backstop and this talk of a united ireland,



I couldn't disagree more. The concept of a United Ireland is written into the internationally binding GFA. It is also a constitutional requirement of any Irish government to unite all the people of Ireland. 
That the political dynamics of Irish/British relations have altered on foot of Brexit is every reason to start a discussion on a UI - even if it is to rule it out for a generation.
Who is afraid of dialogue? Who is afraid of the democratic process? 

Brexit no-deal (no-plan) however is another kettle of fish. The British parliament may have rejected the WA, but in no way does Boris's unelected government reflect the views of  that parliament. Some are leave with no-deal, no-plan, others are leave but not without a deal, others are staunchly remain in EU. The 'United' Kingdom is a set of four countries, two have voted to Leave, two have voted to Remain. By virtue of England's larger population, two countries that voted Remain are being pulled out of EU against their will. 
Britain by all means should leave the EU. That is their prerogative. But without a plan, a backstop for NI is pragmatic and reasonable.
And if not, the prospect of a UI should be open for discussion.


----------



## galway_blow_in (31 Jul 2019)

joe sod said:


> we have been very critical of boris johnson and the brexiteers for their nationalistic little england narrative. However we are guilty of the exact same jingoism with regard to the backstop and this talk of a united ireland, its actually leo varadker and not sinn fein that is most guilty of this now. Leo Varadker has departed from the traditional even handed approach to northern ireland of previous taoiseach. Enda Kenny or bertie ahern would never have indulged in such talk especially at such a delicate time.
> Boris johnson has been accused of blatant electioneering over the last few days, leo varadker is equally as bad in shamelessly playing the green card



The Irish government has always been far too docile with regards Northern Ireland.



I don't particularly care for Leo Varadkar but he has my full support on the backstop issue.

The brexiteers have a decision to make, cut loose the Ulster unionists or no brexit at all, Northern Ireland can remain in the customs Union and the problem is solved

The central plank of the brexiteers goal is immigration control, that's a joke if you have no border between here and Northern Ireland regardless of what Borris says.

The UK - EU border needs to be in the Irish Sea, economically difficult for us but better than a hard border


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (31 Jul 2019)

Early Riser said:


> But it is not a threat - it is an indication of a significant risk. If there was a proposal to cancel all Garda speedchecks and breathalysers for the next year in order to divert resources elsewhere I would say say there is a real risk of a sharp rise in road deaths. I am not thereby threatening to get plastered and speed up the M1.
> 
> The Government pointing out the reals risks of violence after the establishment of a hard border is not threatening violence but pointing out a reality. Disaffection and disruption fester. Small confrontations can easily escalate. Tolerance levels in the community change - not overnight but incrementally. Like you, I would not support a return to violence either - the same way I wouldn't drive plastered down the M1 in the absence of checks. But there are those who will - in both scenarios.


Not sure I get the "plastered speeding up the M1" bit; I always suspect that the resort to analogy is a sign that the original is unconvincing.  But I accept the semantic point.  It is not a threat in the sense that (unlike SF) Simon Varadkar would not actually support or encourage violent resistance to  customs checks.  But they are big time using the "risk" of such a return to violence as a bargaining counter.  This is deeply cynical, I almost prefer the more honest direct threat from SF.
They are not doing Ireland any favours here.  Customs checks are commonplace the world over and there is nothing in the UN charter of human rights condemning them.  Yet we have everyone from Pelossi to Barnier thinking we risk a return to 25 years of Troubles and over 3,000 deaths just because nationalist sensibilities on the border issue are ruffled.
If Simon Varadkar really believe in the enormity of the risk (I don't and they probably don't) they would do anything at all to prevent a No Deal Brexit in October, even if it meant that yellow top would have a lap of honour.


----------



## galway_blow_in (31 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Not sure I get the "plastered speeding up the M1" bit; I always suspect that the resort to analogy is a sign that the original is unconvincing.  But I accept the semantic point.  It is not a threat in the sense that (unlike SF) Simon Varadkar would not actually support or encourage violent resistance to  customs checks.  But they are big time using the "risk" of such a return to violence as a bargaining counter.  This is deeply cynical, I almost prefer the more honest direct threat from SF.
> They are not doing Ireland any favours here.  Customs checks are commonplace the world over and there is nothing in the UN charter of human rights condemning them.  Yet we have everyone from Pelossi to Barnier thinking we risk a return to 25 years of Troubles and over 3,000 deaths just because nationalist sensibilities on the border issue are ruffled.
> If Simon Varadkar really believe in the enormity of the risk (I don't and they probably don't) they would do anything at all to prevent a No Deal Brexit in October, even if it meant that yellow top would have a lap of honour.



Who is this " Simon Varadkar"? 

Sounds like a fantasy charecter some obnoxious British tabloid journalist would come up with.


----------



## Purple (31 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> If Simon Varadkar really believe in the enormity of the risk (I don't and they probably don't) they would do anything at all to prevent a No Deal Brexit in October


Short of us rejoining the UK removing the backstop would mean a Brexit with a hard border. How would that help?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (31 Jul 2019)

Purple said:


> Short of us rejoining the UK removing the backstop would mean a Brexit with a hard border. How would that help?


It would buy us time _Purple_.  If we really thought border checks in November would precipitate a new Troubles we would be morally bound to seek that two year transition in which negotiations would take place with the aim to prevent the backstop ever being needed. Remember the EU keep telling us it is only an insurance policy, unlikely ever to be needed.
My point is that the risk to the peace process is at best greatly overblown and probably bogus.  Notice that the DUP do not talk of the risk of violent resistance if their hated sea border is implemented. Similarly there was never any talk of the risk of violence around the issues in the Scottish referendum nor indeed around Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will.  It is time Irish nationalism finally grew up and fumigated itself of the whiff of gelignite.


----------



## WolfeTone (31 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Customs checks are commonplace the world over



True, and customs checks prevail both north and south, typically in mobile temporary form. 
It is the prospect of a permanent and fixed customs posts that is at issue. Anything resembling such will most likely, and the people operating it, come under attack. 

So Bojo and his gang have committed to no checks "under any circumstances" in Ireland. Problem solved? Not quite. If there is no requirement for customs and Immigration checks between UK/EU in Ireland, then there is surely no need for customs and Immigration checks between UK/EU in Britain. Correct? 
Not quite. The whole premise of Brexit is to "take back control" and introduce customs and immigration checks. So how can Brexit be both "taking back control" and "under no circumstances" applying checks on UK/EU border? 
Is it possible that London, and its band of Brexiteers consider the UK/EU border in Ireland....SEPARATE...to their Brexit no-plans in Britain?


----------



## WolfeTone (31 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Remember the EU keep telling us it is only an insurance policy, unlikely ever to be needed.



The British say that a trade deal with EU will be the easiest in the world. Im inclined to agree, my guess is that an UK/EU free trade deal will look something almost identical to all arrangements that are in place today. So it is wonder what is the fuss over the backstop at all. 
It will never be needed. 
Highly unlikely, but in the off-remote-chance it is, no harm in having it there for NI.

A form of wording, that permits NI/GB trade as UK trade is all that is required from the British side and im sure the WA can re-open. 
NI can have best of both worlds.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (31 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> It is the prospect of a permanent and fixed customs posts that is at issue. Anything resembling such will most likely, and the people operating it, come under attack.


Unfortunately that is correct.  Nationalism still has a significant morally bankrupt underbelly prepared to kill and maim on the least affront to their political sensibilities.  Hence, there will be no significant infrastructure which might offend those sensibilities.  Certainly the M1 will remain free of obstruction, unless of course republicans chose to close it as they often did with the Belfast/Dublin train line.



> The whole premise of Brexit is to "take back control" and introduce customs and immigration checks. So how can Brexit be both "taking back control" and "under no circumstances" applying checks on UK/EU border?


Don't get you there, _Wolfie_.  It is their choice whether to apply checks at the RoI/NI interface*, they are fully in control.
* notice I didn't say "border", in keeping with the internet era I refer to interface, as the tariffs will mostly be collected over the internet in offices in Dublin, London, Brussels or wherever.


----------



## Purple (31 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It would buy us time _Purple_.  If we really thought border checks in November would precipitate a new Troubles we would be morally bound to seek that two year transition in which negotiations would take place with the aim to prevent the backstop ever being needed. Remember the EU keep telling us it is only an insurance policy, unlikely ever to be needed.
> My point is that the risk to the peace process is at best greatly overblown and probably bogus.  Notice that the DUP do not talk of the risk of violent resistance if their hated sea border is implemented. Similarly there was never any talk of the risk of violence around the issues in the Scottish referendum nor indeed around Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will.  It is time Irish nationalism finally grew up and fumigated itself of the whiff of gelignite.


I agree that it's posturing. The real issue is East West trade. That's why the UK's proposal that the backstop be UK wide and not just about NI was a great thing for us. All that being said that East West trade is very important and a very real issue and our government should use every resource they have to ensure free trade is maintained. At the moment that means using the Backstop as leverage.


----------



## galway_blow_in (31 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> The British say that a trade deal with EU will be the easiest in the world. Im inclined to agree, my guess is that an UK/EU free trade deal will look something almost identical to all arrangements that are in place today. So it is wonder what is the fuss over the backstop at all.
> It will never be needed.
> Highly unlikely, but in the off-remote-chance it is, no harm in having it there for NI.
> 
> ...



The opposition to the backstop stems from unionist fear about a weakening of the link with the mainland, that's understandable but why are mainland British politicians allowing it to potentially scupper brexit, I realise the Michael goves and Rees moggs of this world would be affronted at the idea of an uninhabited ten square metre floating tuft in the middle of the Atlantic loosing a degree of sovereignty but surely the average brexit voter does not wish to see their dreams ruined by a million ulster unionists.

Whenever those voters cop on to this fact, Borris and the tories might quickly be told to cut loose the union jack waving nordies.


----------



## Purple (31 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Don't get you there, _Wolfie_. It is their choice whether to apply checks at the RoI/NI interface*, they are fully in control.


Yea, as long as they keep avoiding reality because that pesky reality says differently.


----------



## Purple (31 Jul 2019)

galway_blow_in said:


> The opposition to the backstop stems from unionist fear about a weakening of the link with the mainland


Brexit weakens the link between all of the UK and the mainland.


----------



## Early Riser (31 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But I accept the semantic point. It is not a threat in the sense that (unlike SF) Simon Varadkar would not actually support or encourage violent resistance to customs checks.


Stating that Varadkar did not threaten violence is not a semantic point. Claiming that he did his hyperbole.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> But they are big time using the "risk" of such a return to violence as a bargaining counter. This is deeply cynical, I almost prefer the more honest direct threat from SF.



I am not a SF supporter. But if they were being deeply cynical in pursuit of their goal of a united Ireland they would probably just sit back and say "bring this border on". That they do not so is (I'm guessing) probably down to some combination of real abhorrence of a possible return to violence and concern that any such border would undermine their credibility to the advantage of what are loosely described as dissident republican groups.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Customs checks are commonplace the world over and there is nothing in the UN charter of human rights condemning them. Yet we have everyone from Pelossi to Barnier thinking we risk a return to 25 years of Troubles and over 3,000 deaths just because nationalist sensibilities on the border issue are ruffled.



I am not aware of anyone having recourse to an appeal to the UN Charter of Human Rights. Hyperbole again? But the reference to custom checks seems to suggest that this relates to a trade issue between two separate countries. Even as such, this would be highly disruptive for people along the border where cross border trade is simply integrated into every day life.

But it is much more than a trade issue. The NI state is largely comprised of people with two different identities - British and Irish (acknowledging but omitting the nuances within these, and omitting the smaller third group who identify as neither). The GFR agreement was negotiated in the context of EU membership. Arguably its greatest architect, John Hume, always emphased the EU dimension. Constitutionally the GFR maintained the constitutional status of NI within the UK as valued by those with a British identity, but the invisible border is of of a symbolic counterweight to this for those of a nationalist identity (along with other provisions of the agreement around power-sharing, equality and the prospect of a border poll). The re-installation of a border will be seen as a provocative and hostile act by at least a section of the nationalist population - a not insignificant section.



joe sod said:


> leo varadker is equally as bad in shamelessly playing the green card



I think it was a miscalculation for Varadkar to speak about a united Ireland recently - even if he was not advocating for it. I don't think it was of any value - even from an electioneering point of view. 
But once the Brexit issue is settled one way or another the Irish government will need to go about establishing a forum on the future of Ireland. A border poll is inevitable within the next 10 years. Unlike the Brexit referendum in the UK, there should be at some sort of clear understanding beforehand of what people might be voting for - what would a united Ireland look like constitutionally and administratively and what would be the stages in its establishment. What the outcome of sich a referendum might be I don't know. But how Brexit pans out will be a factor.


----------



## galway_blow_in (31 Jul 2019)

Purple said:


> Brexit weakens the link between all of the UK and the mainland.



Mainland = Wales + Scotland + England


----------



## galway_blow_in (31 Jul 2019)

Early Riser said:


> Stating that Varadkar did not threaten violence is not a semantic point. Claiming that he did his hyperbole.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The reinstating of a border would be a hostile act, the unionists are a hostile people to the Republic of Ireland, they have been over indulged by everyone for far too long. 

Not only have they never shown the slightest bit of contrition for past deeds, they now wish to wreck a fragile and young peace, they have been repugnantly wreckless since this whole brexit thing got real circa 2015


----------



## Purple (31 Jul 2019)

galway_blow_in said:


> Mainland = Wales + Scotland + England


Mainland = European mainland. 

Britain is an island, just as Ireland is an island. Neither one is a mainland. Talking about "the mainland" in the context of Britain and Ireland is ridiculous.


----------



## WolfeTone (31 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> notice I didn't say "border", in keeping with the internet era I refer to interface, as the tariffs will mostly be collected over the internet in offices in Dublin, London, Brussels or wherever.



Yeah, and is particularly useful for international global trade. 
But why would I, as a builders merchant in Newry charge tarrifs on goods destined for Dundalk if I knew there was never going to be any checks "under any circumstances" as I cross the border?


----------



## Early Riser (31 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Notice that the DUP do not talk of the risk of violent resistance if their hated sea border is implemented.



Possibly because they recognise that comparing border checks at a few bottle neck trading ports (or on a ship at sea) to a continuous 300 mile land border would be seen as risible.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Nationalism still has a significant morally bankrupt underbelly prepared to kill and maim on the least affront to their political sensibilities. Hence, there will be no significant infrastructure which might offend those sensibilities.



This is going to get us nowhere. I would be easy to point out that unionists (whether in or out of uniform) had no difficulty resorting to violence to suppress peaceful civil rights marchers 50 years ago - or resorting to a sectarian murder campaign when nationists got uppity. I don't think that this makes the unionist people as a whole "morally bankrupt", as you put it.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (31 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Yeah, and is particularly useful for international global trade.
> But why would I, as a builders merchant in Newry charge tarrifs on goods destined for Dundalk if I knew there was never going to be any checks "under any circumstances" as I cross the border?


Well, if I was a customs NI officer, I think my first port of call would be the offices of Wolfe Tone Builders Merchants, though Continuity RUC would probably get there before me.  I certainly wouldn't challenge you at the actual border, Jayz people have been murdered  by nationalists in the past for less.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (31 Jul 2019)

Early Riser said:


> But it is much more than a trade issue. The NI state is largely comprised of people with two different identities - British and Irish (acknowledging but omitting the nuances within these, and omitting the smaller third group who identify as neither). The GFR agreement was negotiated in the context of EU membership. Arguably its greatest architect, John Hume, always emphased the EU dimension. Constitutionally the GFR maintained the constitutional status of NI within the UK as valued by those with a British identity, but the invisible border is of of a symbolic counterweight to this for those of a nationalist identity (along with other provisions of the agreement around power-sharing, equality and the prospect of a border poll). The re-installation of a border will be seen as a provocative and hostile act by at least a section of the nationalist population - a not insignificant section.


Yes I have heard this somewhat contrived argument that the GFA, despite not mentioning the border, is fundamentally opposed to customs checks.  I am not going to argue that there is not some truth in all this identity stuff but I do hope it is being exaggerated.  As I outlined before there were some glaring injustices which led to 25 years of Troubles and over 3,000 deaths.  I don't think we have made much progress if the affront to identity wrought by customs checks would likely precipitate a similar catastrophe.


----------



## WolfeTone (31 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Hence, there will be no significant infrastructure which might offend those sensibilities. Certainly the M1 will remain free of obstruction,



Great, so no need for border infrastructure anywhere. Not for WTO, not in Britain either. Everyone and everything can just stroll on by from UK/EU and EU/UK as it is today. 
This whole "leaving the SM/CU" is a nonsense. For all intents and purposes, the UK was never in it! 
What is all the fuss about? There are no border checks anywhere now, and there will not be anywhere in the future. 
Brexit was just one big Y2K bug!


----------



## Purple (31 Jul 2019)

The UK can't leave without a trade deal, trading instead under WTO rules, and not put a border in place.


----------



## Early Riser (31 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It would buy us time _Purple_. If we really thought border checks in November would precipitate a new Troubles we would be morally bound to seek that two year transition in which negotiations would take place with the aim to prevent the backstop ever being needed. Remember the EU keep telling us it is only an insurance policy, unlikely ever to be needed.



This is just what the Brexiters wanted from the start. They started by calling for a free trade deal with the EU with access to both the Customs Union and the Single Market - but without the committments that go with that, like the jurisdiction of the ECJ, regulatory alignment and worker's rights. Bojo referred to it as "having our cake and eating it". 
If the backstop is omitted from the Withdrawal Agreement the Irish border will simply become a British bargaining chip in the future trade relationships - "give us what we want or else". Don't forget that the the majority of the British electorate (and the Brexiters en masse) care not one jot about Ireland, north or south, unionist or nationalist.

This is the one and only chance to get a border guarantee.


----------



## WolfeTone (31 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> As I outlined before there were some glaring injustices which led to 25 years of Troubles and over 3,000 deaths. I don't think we have made much progress if the affront to identity wrought by customs checks would likely precipitate a similar catastrophe.



You are the only one peddling the 25yrs and 3,000 deaths. 
Most are concerned with the prospect of one  more unnecessary death. The GFA, for all its flaws in not making a specific mention of the border, has done much to reduce the prospect of violence in Ireland. Part of that, was a recognition of the PSNI as the legitimate police force, another part was the dismantling of the British security apparatus, part of it, was the re-opening of all border crossings.
Unfortunately the GFA, or more precise, the political class have failed to implement all that was agreed. This is causing some resistance to the peace process. The families of Lyra McKee, Stephen Carroll, can testify to that. It breathes life into those wanting to suck life out of police officers, soldiers and, if they deem it, customs officers. 
The whole purpose of the GFA is to build up generational apthy for violent insurrection - something that happened in the past, but is no longer used. 
Re-surfacing the border is a backward step. 

Oh, except everyone from Arlene to Boris tell us that wont happen. There is no need for a border between NI and RoI under any circumstances. 

Well, just to be sure, stick it out to sea. 
Oh, no! Cant have that! Cant have a border between Britain and NI! 
Even though they tell us, there is no need for a border!


----------



## Early Riser (31 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> As I outlined before there were *some* glaring injustices



I thought you were the Duke of hyperbole there for a while - but now it is understatement.

Anyway there were more than "some" glaring injustices. But it was not these injustices alone that provided the context for 25 years of violence. It was also the issues around identity - the recognition of the specifically Irish identity of nationalists and parity of esteem for their aspirations. The re-installation of a border will be seem as an affront to their identity. How individuals react to that will vary.

I assume the DUP are up for Brexit because they are threatened by the changing demographics in NI and the see Brexit as weakening the link between Ireland north and south (or, to put it another way, strengthening _unionist identity_). But even some of them seem to recognise the dangers of a hard border as opposed to some kind of "soft Brexit".


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (31 Jul 2019)

Early Riser said:


> This is just what the Brexiters wanted from the start. They started by calling for a free trade deal with the EU with access to both the Customs Union and the Single Market - but without the committments that go with that, like the jurisdiction of the ECJ, regulatory alignment and worker's rights. Bojo referred to it as "having our cake and eating it".
> If the backstop is omitted from the Withdrawal Agreement the Irish border will simply become a British bargaining chip in the future trade relationships - "give us what we want or else". Don't forget that the the majority of the British electorate (and the Brexiters en masse) care not one jot about Ireland, north or south, unionist or nationalist.
> 
> This is the one and only chance to get a border guarantee.


I am not saying the backstop has not been a brilliant negotiating ploy by the EU, one which might backfire on Ireland.  I am arguing that the linking of the backstop to the need to preserve peace on the island is totally overblown and cynical.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (31 Jul 2019)

Early Riser said:


> I assume the DUP are up for Brexit because they are threatened by the changing demographics in NI and the see Brexit as weakening the link between Ireland north and south (or, to put it another way, strengthening _unionist identity_).


I think their motivation was more primitive than that.  This is the party of the Rev Ian Paisley.  That arch anti EU demagogue railed against the Treaty of Rome and made a Holy show of himself when Pope John Paul addressed the European parliament.  In the 70s referendum Paisley likened the admission of UK, Ireland, Sweden and Denmark to join the original six was predicted in the Bible where apparently some six headed monster became a ten headed one.
It is interesting that Scotland, itself deeply rooted in the Protestant Reformation found no such seventeenth century reservations with the (admittedly largely RC) EU.
Unfortunately Leo Coveney played right into this sectarian narrative on Brexit and has made the situation much worse than it should have been.


----------



## Early Riser (31 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I think their motivation was more primitive than that. This is the party of the Rev Ian Paisley. That arch anti EU demagogue railed against the Treaty of Rome and made a Holy show of himself when Pope John Paul addressed the European parliament. In the 70s referendum Paisley likened the admission of UK, Ireland, Sweden and Denmark to join the original six was predicted in the Bible where apparently some six headed monster became a ten headed one



Ah - I had forgotten about this particular fulmination from the lovely Reverend. But do you reckon this Free Presbyterian fundamentalism still dominates the DUP ? Do they make up a majority of its membership (I haven't a clue about this) ?

I would have thought that the main thing uniting the thinking of its followers now is The Union. Anything seen as protecting this is good, anything else is bad. It was in this context that I thought they plumped for Brexit (maybe not). If so, although a tactical victory I suspect it may turn into a strategic defeat.

Incidentally, although the number of votes they brought in for Brexit in NI may have been inconsequential in the overall result, they played a major role in the advertising campaign on "the mainland" which may have been much more significant. As far as I know, noone has ever got to the bottom of where the money they spent on this came from.


----------



## Purple (31 Jul 2019)

Early Riser said:


> do you reckon this Free Presbyterian fundamentalism still dominates the DUP ?


The party of "Save Ulssssster from Sodomy!"? Maybe.


----------



## WolfeTone (31 Jul 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am arguing that the linking of the backstop to the need to preserve peace on the island is totally overblown and cynical.



No it is not. 
Nobody is saying that all out war and a return to the Troubles will occur if NI is taken out of CU/SM. The only one referening it is your good self. So stop that now!

What is being said is that the prospect of a return to, or an increase in violence increases with the installation of border controls etc. 
Everyone is in agreement with this, including the DUP and including your good self.

So to avoid any such scenario Britain and DUP keep telling Ireland that there will be no checks as in fact there is actually no need for border checks or controls. This is totally cynical and contradictory to what Brexit is supposed to be about - taking control of UK borders, but under no circumstances applying checks at UK borders! 
So for three years it has been asked of the British how can this work between RoI and NI. No plausible answer has ever been given. If it existed, we would have heard about it by now. 
Instead, those promises of technological solutions have been reduced to promises of "under no circumstances" will the UK impose border checks. 

In the event of a free trade deal (that will most certainly look identical to all arrangements in existence today) that indeed will be the case. 
In the event of no free trade deal, then the backstop kicks in - ensuring an orderly continuance of affairs between the UK and EU, although from an Irish perspective, the backstop is sufficient to NI.

What confidence does anybody have in this British government negotiating a free trade deal with the EU by end of transition period?

This is calamity politics. 

A bumbling procession of one Tory cock-up after another. A party trying to salvage itself and putting the future of its nation in limbo, to say the least. Manifesting itself in the worst kind of English inward looking nationalism, Farage, Robinson et all. And now spreading to the flag-waving, drum beating Orange shores of East Antrim. 

It is all the EU's fault. Straight bananas, kippers, prawn cocktail crisps.

It is an embarrassment. 

There is no way, in anyway shape or form, the future of Irish people on this island be left to the prehistoric vanities exuding from the Glorious Revolution.

It is 2019 - these clowns need a dose of reality. A dose of the here and now.


----------



## Purple (31 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> No it is not.
> Nobody is saying that all out war and a return to the Troubles will occur if NI is taken out of CU/SM. The only one referening it is your good self. So stop that now!
> 
> What is being said is that the prospect of a return to, or an increase in violence increases with the installation of border controls etc.
> ...


I think that the Backstop is a major issue and that without it there is a significant chance of a return to Nationalist terrorism but I also think that it is being used as leverage as the real issue is east-west trade. 



WolfeTone said:


> This is calamity politics.
> 
> A bumbling procession of one Tory cock-up after another. A party trying to salvage itself and putting the future of its nation in limbo, to say the least. Manifesting itself in the worst kind of English inward looking nationalism, Farage, Robinson et all. And now spreading to the flag-waving, drum beating Orange shores of East Antrim.
> 
> ...


I agree with your views on the Tories. The awful thing is I'd still vote for BoJo any day of the week ahead of Commie-Corbyn.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (31 Jul 2019)

Early Riser said:


> Ah - I had forgotten about this particular fulmination from the lovely Reverend. But do you reckon this Free Presbyterian fundamentalism still dominates the DUP ? Do they make up a majority of its membership (I haven't a clue about this) ?
> 
> I would have thought that the main thing uniting the thinking of its followers now is The Union. Anything seen as protecting this is good, anything else is bad. It was in this context that I thought they plumped for Brexit (maybe not). If so, although a tactical victory I suspect it may turn into a strategic defeat.
> 
> Incidentally, although the number of votes they brought in for Brexit in NI may have been inconsequential in the overall result, they played a major role in the advertising campaign on "the mainland" which may have been much more significant. As far as I know, noone has ever got to the bottom of where the money they spent on this came from.


I don't think the DUP thought too strategically about their positioning in the 2016 referendum.  Everything in NI is seen through a sectarian lens.  I would have been pleasantly shocked if the DUP, given their Paisleyite DNA, had been for Remain.  I was pleasantly surprised that the Ulster Unionists were Remain, but unfortunately, partly due to the polarisation of the debate by our politicians, the Ulster Unionists are now indistinguishable from the DUP on this issue.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (31 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> No it is not.
> Nobody is saying that all out war and a return to the Troubles will occur if NI is taken out of CU/SM. The only one referening it is your good self. So stop that now!
> 
> What is being said is that the prospect of a return to, or an increase in violence increases with the installation of border controls etc.
> Everyone is in agreement with this, including the DUP and including your good self.


I don't think that when Barnier or Pelossi talk about the threat to peace they have in mind a marginalised resistance to border infrastructure by dissidents. That really would be the tail wagging the dog.  They are thinking of all out civil unrest on a scale similar to what we have seen in the recent past.  Leo should really take Barnier aside and tell him, hey it won't be all that bad, we will manage it.



> So to avoid any such scenario Britain and DUP keep telling Ireland that there will be no checks as in fact there is actually no need for border checks or controls. This is totally cynical and contradictory to what Brexit is supposed to be about - taking control of UK borders, but under no circumstances applying checks at UK borders!
> So for three years it has been asked of the British how can this work between RoI and NI. No plausible answer has ever been given. If it existed, we would have heard about it by now.
> Instead, those promises of technological solutions have been reduced to promises of "under no circumstances" will the UK impose border checks.


 I have been watching Bojo's lips.  He is saying that under no circumstances will their be customs infra structure on the border.  That does not preclude their being such infra structure a few feet inside the border, it is meaningless.


----------



## Early Riser (31 Jul 2019)

An interesting article in today's IT, including one plausible outcome - an unpalatable one for the DUP:









						We must consider revisiting the ‘Northern Ireland only’ backstop
					

Boris Johnson’s no-deal Brexit threats could frighten MPs into supporting such a backstop




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## Early Riser (31 Jul 2019)

Purple said:


> I agree with your views on the Tories. The awful thing is I'd still vote for BoJo any day of the week ahead of Commie-Corbyn.



Or the Lib-Dems?


----------



## Sophrosyne (31 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> It is 2019 - these clowns need a dose of reality. A dose of the here and now.



Here's hoping.

Brexit is the mission of a Tory minority who ignite irrational fears and prejudices to further their cause.

They have no economic plan, other than to leave the EU.

They are conceited and at the very least mendacious or at worst, downright stupid because of an inability to hang on to detail or understand basic facts.

They dismiss all attempts to explain the very real risks to the UK economy by the facile “project fear” slogan.

Boris, the lovable clown, their current puppet and willing mouthpiece, relays their hogwash in order to play at being PM.

The benefits to UK businesses of EU negotiated trade agreements – better than any the UK could negotiate by itself - is lost on them.

Once it crashes out, the UK will be in a trade agreement limbo for years.

Then the chickens will come home to roost and it won't be pretty.


----------



## Purple (31 Jul 2019)

Sophrosyne said:


> Here's hoping.
> 
> Brexit is the mission of a Tory minority who ignite irrational fears and prejudices to further their cause.
> 
> ...


And it will all be the fault of those foreigners in the EU.


----------



## Purple (31 Jul 2019)

Early Riser said:


> Or the Lib-Dems?


Yes, it would have to be them with what's-her-face in charge.


----------



## Sophrosyne (31 Jul 2019)

Purple said:


> And it will all be the fault of those foreigners in the EU.



Even that will wear out over time as it only relates to a trade deal with the EU.

Once it leaves the EU, the UK cannot benefit from EU negotiated trade deals with non-EU countries.

It will have to negotiate its own agreements and will not be in the same position of power as the EU.


----------



## Purple (31 Jul 2019)

Sophrosyne said:


> Even that will wear out over time as it only relates to a trade deal with the EU.
> 
> Once it leaves the EU, the UK cannot benefit from EU negotiated trade deals with non-EU countries.
> 
> It will have to negotiate its own agreements and will not be in the same position of power as the EU.


In 5-6 years, unshackled from the Frogs, Micks and Krauts in the EU, they will have regained their Imperial might and vigor and will actually have a bigger economy then the entire EU.  Within 20 years the EU will have joined the Commonwealth. In the meantime monkeys will have flown out of my ass.


----------



## joe sod (31 Jul 2019)

Early Riser said:


> But once the Brexit issue is settled one way or another the Irish government will need to go about establishing a forum on the future of Ireland. A border poll is inevitable within the next 10 years.



i think a united ireland is further away now than it was with all this brexit shenanigans, everybody has gone back to their trenches . If a United Ireland was ever on the cards it would be because we are moving closer together, but we are not, and its not because of brexit, we have been diverging long before that even with nationalists in northern ireland. Even if brexit turns out to be a disaster for britain i think northern ireland wont choose to unite with us but they might choose to be an independent state.


----------



## Early Riser (31 Jul 2019)

joe sod said:


> i think a united ireland is further away now than it was with all this brexit shenanigans, everybody has gone back to their trenches . If a United Ireland was ever on the cards it would be because we are moving closer together, but we are not, and its not because of brexit, we have been diverging long before that even with nationalists in northern ireland. Even if brexit turns out to be a disaster for britain i think northern ireland wont choose to unite with us but they might choose to be an independent state.



Perhaps. But a poll is inevitable, whatever the outcome might be. Before there is a poll there needs to be a fairly clear picture  of what might be meant by a united Ireland. I don't think anyone would envisage just encapsulating NI into the Republic. There will need to be a forum before any referendum to tease out what it is that is being talked about. Unlike Brexit, give people an informed choice.


----------



## Itchy (31 Jul 2019)

Early Riser said:


> If the backstop is omitted from the Withdrawal Agreement the Irish border will simply become a British bargaining chip in the future trade relationships - "give us what we want or else". Don't forget that the the majority of the British electorate (and the Brexiters en masse) care not one jot about Ireland, north or south, unionist or nationalist.
> 
> This is the one and only chance to get a border guarantee.



Agreed. 

I think it will be politically impossible for any Irish government to erect any kind of infrastructure in the event of a no-deal.


----------



## galway_blow_in (1 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> Mainland = European mainland.
> 
> Britain is an island, just as Ireland is an island. Neither one is a mainland. Talking about "the mainland" in the context of Britain and Ireland is ridiculous.



What on earth is " ridiculous" about it?

The DUP want to weaken the link with the EU, they want to preserve the link with the UK mainland.

The term " British mainland" is used frequently within many contexts.


----------



## Purple (1 Aug 2019)

galway_blow_in said:


> What on earth is " ridiculous" about it?
> 
> The DUP want to weaken the link with the EU, they want to preserve the link with the UK mainland.
> 
> The term " British mainland" is used frequently within many contexts.


Britain is an island. Northern Ireland is not part of Britain so unless you are talking about somewhere like the Isle of Wight Britain is not a mainland. In a conversation about two islands off the coast of Europe the only mainland is the European mainland.


----------



## Purple (1 Aug 2019)

The DUP and BoJo are aligning on their media campaign of deflection and projection. They are now saying that it is the Irish Government in general, and Leo Varadkar in particular, who are being unreasonable and are causing the current crisis. It is an attempt to undermine the confidence and supply agreement between the Government and FF. Thankfully, and to his credit, Michael Martin has so far not put party ahead of country.


----------



## Early Riser (1 Aug 2019)

Itchy said:


> I think it will be politically impossible for any Irish government to erect any kind of infrastructure in the event of a no-deal.



Then we will have to choose between the politically impossible and the economically catastrophic. The EU are not going to allow Ireland to be a backdoor into the Single Market and Customs Union. Insofar as we don't have creditable (however imperfect) borders in the event of a hard brexit we will find ourselves becoming some sort of satellite of the EU rather than a fully integrated member. The EU is our biggest market.


----------



## WolfeTone (1 Aug 2019)

Early Riser said:


> The EU are not going to allow Ireland to be a backdoor into the Single Market and Customs Union.



This is a particular concern around livestock. If the UK diverges from health and animal welfare standards then imports from UK will be considered a risk to our national herd.


----------



## EmmDee (1 Aug 2019)

Itchy said:


> I think it will be politically impossible for any Irish government to erect any kind of infrastructure in the event of a no-deal.



No choice really. Though they might be able to differentiate between people movement and produce - to some extent

Edit - there will be a difference. Free Travel Area. I had a senior moment


----------



## PMU (1 Aug 2019)

A bit late in the day to realize this - "'I think we should be afraid of no-deal Brexit', Varadkar warns"​​








						'I think we should be afraid of no-deal Brexit', Varadkar warns
					

The Taoiseach was speaking to reporters in Kilkenny this afternoon.




					www.thejournal.ie
				



.


----------



## WolfeTone (1 Aug 2019)

EmmDee said:


> Free Travel Area.



For Irish people. Not for non-Irish, of which there are some 500,000+ resident in Ireland according to the census. Estimate 40,000-50,000 living in border counties.
It will be impossible to police, but where will that leave non-Irish citizens who travel regularly north of the border either for work or personal reasons? Insurance, citizens rights etc,


----------



## WolfeTone (1 Aug 2019)

A comment from The Journal today (not me):

Brits: We’re leaving the EU.
 EU: Want the same trade terms?
 Brits: No.
 EU: You’ll need a border then.
 Brits: No.
 EU: Then you’ll need open borders with all WTO countries.
 Brits: No.
 EU: What about customs checks then?
 Brits: They’re easy. Technology. Don’t need a border.
 EU: How?
 Brits: Trust us.
 EU: Will it be in place by the time you leave?
 Brits: No.
 EU: Then you’ll need a border.
 Brits: No.
 EU: How about we keep the current agreement until you get your alternative in place?
 Brits: No.
 EU: Then you’ll need a border.
 Brits: OMG WHY ARE YOU PERSECUTING ME THIS IS SO UNFAIR I HATE YOU!


----------



## Sadim (1 Aug 2019)

My money is on BoJo going for a GE and dumping the DUP shortly after (presuming he has his majority). It is risky but there is no other way he can square the circle. A No Deal despite his bluster will not get through parliament and the Courts will prevent him bypassing parliament. I am sure he would be quite happy with a border down the Irish Sea and I wouldn't think he wants the DUP tail wagging his English bulldog.

The Scots might be a different issue though!


----------



## EmmDee (1 Aug 2019)

Sadim said:


> My money is on BoJo going for a GE and dumping the DUP shortly after (presuming he has his majority). It is risky but there is no other way he can square the circle. A No Deal despite his bluster will not get through parliament and the Courts will prevent him bypassing parliament. I am sure he would be quite happy with a border down the Irish Sea and I wouldn't think he wants the DUP tail wagging his English bulldog.
> 
> The Scots might be a different issue though!



I agree. I have actual money on them not leaving in 2019.


----------



## EmmDee (1 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> but where will that leave non-Irish citizens who travel regularly north of the border either for work or personal reasons? Insurance, citizens rights etc,



Subject to the same regulations as applied to non-Irish in UK - not clear yet. But could be an issue


----------



## nest egg (1 Aug 2019)

A wonderful, informed interview on Newsnight. Maitlis seems genuinely surprised, which is frightening at one level, as if anyone should know the facts about Brexit at this stage, it's her.

https://youtu.be/oPIGq_eiRBU


----------



## galway_blow_in (1 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> Britain is an island. Northern Ireland is not part of Britain so unless you are talking about somewhere like the Isle of Wight Britain is not a mainland. In a conversation about two islands off the coast of Europe the only mainland is the European mainland.



Let's not be Pedantic.


----------



## losttheplot (1 Aug 2019)

Imagine if Sinn Fein turned up at Westminster to take their seats. Do the DUP know Rees-Mogg is a Catholic?


----------



## joe sod (2 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> For Irish people. Not for non-Irish, of which there are some 500,000+ resident in Ireland according to the census. Estimate 40,000-50,000 living in border counties.
> It will be impossible to police, but where will that leave non-Irish citizens who travel regularly north of the border either for work or personal reasons? Insurance, citizens rights etc,



there are trivial few of those, non nationals in ireland that need to cross the border as part of their job, presumably they will be high skilled technicians who else does it realistically apply to. In any case most are european citizens so visa free travel across europe whether EU or non EU country is not an issue unless they want to work, if they are non european well their rights to travel or work in other european countries are dictated by those countries and not the EU so no change there.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Aug 2019)

joe sod said:


> non nationals in ireland that need to cross the border as part of their job, presumably they will be high skilled technicians who else does it realistically apply to.



I would imagine only a few hundred or less would be affected. Not exclusively high skilled however. Bus drivers, lorry drivers for instance. 
Its not so much about waves of immigrants. My point is relating to one incidence involving,  say a Polish lorry driver, delivering goods from RoI to NI and is involved in an accident and is injured. Will such a person have any rights in UK, are they insured?
Im sure an easy workaround can be found where it is a necessity for a worker to travel from one jurisdiction into another. Isnt that what the SM, CU and freedom of movement solve? 
But the Brexiteers are adamant that free movement will end, with their Home Secretary stating only skilled English speakers welcome.


----------



## Firefly (2 Aug 2019)

losttheplot said:


> Imagine if Sinn Fein turned up at Westminster to take their seats.



As much as it would be an event, I just couldn't imagine Mary Lou uttering the words "The right honourable...."in order to speak!!


----------



## EmmDee (2 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I would imagine only a few hundred or less would be affected. Not exclusively high skilled however. Bus drivers, lorry drivers for instance.
> Its not so much about waves of immigrants. My point is relating to one incidence involving,  say a Polish lorry driver, delivering goods from RoI to NI and is involved in an accident and is injured. Will such a person have any rights in UK, are they insured?
> Im sure an easy workaround can be found where it is a necessity for a worker to travel from one jurisdiction into another. Isnt that what the SM, CU and freedom of movement solve?
> But the Brexiteers are adamant that free movement will end, with their Home Secretary stating only skilled English speakers welcome.



Is that not a wider issue covered by the discussion around recognition of road haulage licenses. I'd have to look it up but as far as I remember, commercial driving would have to cease on Brexit unless there is a mutual recognition scheme. I think this was one of those temporary arrangements being discussed and put in place back in March - but it may expire

Short answer - if there was a crash out, possibly no commercial driving across border without some agreement (your insurance probably would be void anyway)


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Aug 2019)

Here is David Cameron annoucing Brexit referendum in 2016. 









						Prime Minister Announces EU Referendum Date
					

Prime Minister David Cameron has confirmed a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union will be held on 23 June. Read more: http://news.sky.com...




					youtu.be
				




Not one mention of the UK. 

All about Britain leaving the EU, not UK.

DUP are playing everyone for a pup.


----------



## odyssey06 (6 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Here is David Cameron annoucing Brexit referendum in 2016.
> Not one mention of the UK.
> All about Britain leaving the EU, not UK.
> DUP are playing everyone for a pup.



Think you are reading too much into that... Don't the DUP think they are British rather United Kingdomers?

Britain is the UK. Both Britain and the UK are common terms for The *United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland* .








						United Kingdom - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Aug 2019)

DUP identify as British for sure. But Britain is not the UK, it is a part of the UK. As you have identified, Britain and NI are two separate entities within the UK.
Ive never heard the term 'Britain' used a common reference to NI.
I have heard to NI being reffered as being 'British', ruled by Britain,  but that ignores the century old dispute since partition. 

In any case, the legislation to hold the referendum is for the UK.

It is more the mindset of those that brought us Brexit that I was thinking of.
NI was never given any consideration by the British political establishment.


----------



## odyssey06 (6 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> DUP identify as British for sure. But Britain is not the UK, it is a part of the UK. As you have identified, Britain and NI are two separate entities within the UK.
> Ive never heard the term 'Britain' used a common reference to NI.
> I have heard to NI being reffered as being 'British', ruled by Britain,  but that ignores the century old dispute since partition.
> In any case, the legislation to hold the referendum is for the UK.
> ...



Britain = the United Kindgom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
That is why the phrase "British government" is used as synonymous with "UK government".
It is also used interchangeably with the island of Great Britain; but just as much interchangeably with the UK.
Look up any dictionary or Wikipedia page for same and you will see it is an everyday common usage.

When we (as in Republic of Ireland) voted in EU referendums like Nice or Lisbon, did we give Northern Ireland much consideration? I don't remember it coming up in the campaigns.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Aug 2019)

Ok, perhaps im splitting hairs. Im just someone who has never recognized NI being synonymous with Britain. Under British rule, yes, but not part of Britain (geographical entity) nor it being British (cultural or political entity)

I will accept that when Cameron spoke only of Britain, and not a mention of UK, that common impression would suggest that he was referring to the whole of UK.

However, considering the absence of any direct reference to NI by Cameron, Farage, Johnson during the campaign, then such disregard in Irish affairs is synonymous with British government treating such affairs as secondary to its own interests.
NI is separate to rest of UK, despite what DUP pine for.

We never gave NI much consideration in EU referenda (except the Shinners) but we had no practical way of implementing the outcome of the referenda in NI.
The British government are able to implement laws and referenda outcomes in NI, which only points to their absolute disregard for Irish interests as secondary to British interests in perpetuity.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Aug 2019)

When in 1979 we broke with sterling, did we consider the effect on NI, on people living in border counties?  In terms of day to day living this has become the greatest manifestation of partition.  Again when we joined the euro did we consider the impact on the all Ireland economy?  When we went to the needless (and dangerous) folly of changing road signs to kilometers did we consider its NI and border impacts?
NI is very low down the priorities of Southern politicians and electorate alike.  Except when we are indulging in a sectarian or anti Brit waving of the green flag.


----------



## odyssey06 (7 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Ok, perhaps im splitting hairs. Im just someone who has never recognized NI being synonymous with Britain. Under British rule, yes, but not part of Britain (geographical entity) nor it being British (cultural or political entity)
> 
> I will accept that when Cameron spoke only of Britain, and not a mention of UK, that common impression would suggest that he was referring to the whole of UK.
> However, considering the absence of any direct reference to NI by Cameron, Farage, Johnson during the campaign, then such disregard in Irish affairs is synonymous with British government treating such affairs as secondary to its own interests.
> ...



Our decisions in referendums, currency, and in many other respects such as speed limits (noted above) directly and indirectly affected Northern Ireland - and Northern Ireland's population is one quarter of the total population of the island of Ireland. I don't even recall much consideration from the Shinners about those referendums and NI either to be honest, no more than any other ROI party.
The only time I can recall NI impact getting much priority from anyone was the current EU proposal to scrap day light savings time.
We voted for the Lisbon Treaty, which introduced Article 50 under which the UK is leaving the EU.
The likeliest member state at that time to avail of this option being the UK, given that there isn't a chance Maastricht, Nice or Lisbon would have passed a UK public vote.

Northern Ireland has 2.5% of the total population of the UK. It got the level of regard in the campaign that % warranted, I expect.
As much as a US state of same % population gets in a Presidential election. It is not a separate secondary interest, it is a subsidiary secondary interest.
Northern Ireland is a constituent part of the UK and was treated as such, just as Wales was; and Scotland would have been had it not been for its recent referendum. If NI had 2.5% of the population of a united Ireland, it would be treated exactly the same.


----------



## Purple (7 Aug 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> When we (as in Republic of Ireland) voted in EU referendums like Nice or Lisbon, did we give Northern Ireland much consideration? I don't remember it coming up in the campaigns.


Just as Northern Ireland is not part of Britain this is not the Republic of Ireland, it is just "Ireland"or, if you are speaking in Irish Éire (not Eire, that's a slightly misspelled lake).


----------



## Purple (7 Aug 2019)

I don't want a united Ireland. 

The price would be too high both socially and economically. 

I don't want their hate and bigotry and homophobia and racism. I don't want their basket case economy and under education and welfare mindset. I don't want to be bound to the past, looking backward to justify tribalism and divisiveness. 

If Unionist want a future, want their traditions respected and safeguarded, then their best chance is within a united Ireland which is structured to respect those traditions. If they want that then they have to move into the 21st century, or even the latter part of the 20th century. Until then I want no part of them.

It is a tragedy that so many moderate Unionists and Nationalists are prisoners to the extremes within their own communities (communities is the word used for tribes when the people involved are white) but we can't fix that, we can only make it worse.


----------



## odyssey06 (7 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> Just as Northern Ireland is not part of Britain this is not the Republic of Ireland, it is just "Ireland"or, if you are speaking in Irish Éire (not Eire, that's a slightly misspelled lake).



Most times I will say Ireland but in the context of this thread I needed some more descriptive way to mean not the entire island of Ireland, but rather than political entity representing the 6 counties. I must remember to use Éire but fadas annoy me!


----------



## Purple (7 Aug 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> Most times I will say Ireland but in the context of this thread I needed some more descriptive way to mean not the entire island of Ireland, but rather than political entity representing the 6 counties. I must remember to use Éire but fadas annoy me!


People who speak Irish and project a sense of superiority, as if they are more Irish than those who can't speak the language fluently; they really annoy me. That's just tribalism too.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> When in 1979 we broke with sterling, did we consider the effect on NI, on people living in border counties?



I don't know, did we consider the effect on NI? Is there a point here? 
Is there any consideration for a political establishment making rules where it has no jurisdiction, compared with a political establishment making rules where it _does_ have jurisdiction?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> When we went to the needless (and dangerous) folly of changing road signs to kilometers did we consider its NI and border impacts?



Needless, perhaps. Dangerous!...you are kidding right?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> NI is very low down the priorities of Southern politicians and electorate alike.


 
The partitionists would have loved nothing more than for republicans to stand down, bend the knee and accept their lot in the UK. 
The partitionists would have loved nothing more than a two state solution so that they could get on with more menial affairs such as voting on road signs and currency usage, and not be interrupted with such fundamental constitutional issues over human rights, voting rights or cross-border bodies. 

The partitionists failed. Since 1998, and the GFA, the partitionists have been sidelined. Politically, NI, is now no longer a crude territorial claim, it is political imperative to unite all the people of Ireland and a constitutional requirement for any and every Irish government. It cannot be deflected anymore. 
NI may be "low down" the list of priorities for Southern electorate on many things, like road signs for instance, but on constitutional matters it resonates deeply. 
Leo is no hardline republican. But Leo is, and with good reason, someone who understands what it is like for a community to have to campaign for justice and equality.
So all Leo is doing is standing by and standing over what was achieved in the GFA - an opportunity to end the conflict in Ireland once and for all.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Aug 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> Our decisions in referendums, currency, and in many other respects such as speed limits (noted above) directly and indirectly affected Northern Ireland



Yes, and will continue to do so. 
The issue at hand is the decision taken by UK to leave EU (absolutely their right) and the impact, directly and indirectly on Ireland as a whole, and on the prospect of a hard border and, most likely, such a border invoking violence. 
When we changed our road signs, it had no effect. When we changed to euros, it did not invoke violence. 
But if the UK is set about taking control of its own trade rules and regulations outside of the EU, then in all likelihood customs posts and checks will have to be placed along the border. Such customs posts and checks will invoke some to use violence. 
The extent, or impact of any return to violence is unknown. It may have little effect, today. But in 10yrs, it could be wholly different.
The point being, that throughout its existence (with exception of last 20yrs), the border in Ireland has been synonymous with violence, sectarianism and division. 
It is for these reasons that the Irish government is taking the stand it is taking.


----------



## odyssey06 (7 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes, and will continue to do so.
> The issue at hand is the decision taken by UK to leave EU (absolutely their right) and the impact, directly and indirectly on Ireland as a whole, and on the prospect of a hard border and, most likely, such a border invoking violence.
> When we changed our road signs, it had no effect. When we changed to euros, it did not invoke violence.
> But if the UK is set about taking control of its own trade rules and regulations outside of the EU, then in all likelihood customs posts and checks will have to be placed along the border. Such customs posts and checks will invoke some to use violence.
> ...



The deeper integration within the EU, and distancing from the UK on issues of major economic purpose such as currency, and a hundred other decisions like speed limits, trade rules and regulations, is what has complicated the withdrawal process. Granted, we stayed outside Schengen for this reason which is why we might still be able to retain common travel agreement, although that was as much about travel between the two islands as within Ireland.
If the UK had left the EU at Maastricht, it would have been a completely different and simpler process, far less likely to result in the deadlock we see today. 
If our absolute priority was zero prospect of a border on both sides, well neither the Irish nor UK government acted like that in their major decisions (except Shengen).

And even if it does mean customs checks on commercial vehicles going across the border, there's no real reason why in 2019 it should mean violence unless people want a return to it. There is now power sharing basis in the North (if on hiatus), parity of esteem, civil rights etc etc the situation with 1957 or 1977 is totally different.
If it's all about the border, well the line was still on the map when Britain was in the EU, the border was there, and for the last 20 years it's been a peace, or maybe it was just a truce. We'll see.
And most times the only way you'd notice that border line was those speed limits signs. Were any blown up?


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Aug 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> The deeper integration within the EU, and distancing from the UK on issues of major economic purpose such as currency, and a hundred other decisions like speed limits, trade rules and regulations, is what has complicated the withdrawal process.



None of which, or that im aware of, invoked a violent reaction.



odysseey06 said:


> If our absolute priority was zero prospect of a border on both sides, well neither the Irish nor UK government acted like that in their major decisions



Your talking about decisions taken at a time when there was a hard border. A conflict was ensuing. 
And aside from the activities of paramilitaries, there was an unresolved political dispute between Ireland and Britain over the territory of NI. 
The border was in place, and it required protection of British Army. That security border remained in place on the British side despite the advent of the SM, while customs posts were removed on Irish side.




odyssey06 said:


> there's no real reason why in 2019 it should mean violence unless people want a return to it.



Some people, a relatively small section of people, are prepared and preparing for violent attacks against security. 
This is the often repeated assessment of the PSNI. It is evident in the form of attacks on PSNI resulting in deaths of PSNI officers, attempted murders and the death of Lyra McKee.
Its not a question of a return to violence, as it is a question of a return to escalating violence. 
Why take the risk, when a simple NI only backstop can resolve the matter?



odyssey06 said:


> And most times the only way you'd notice that border line was those speed limits signs. Were any blown up?



Speed limits dont adversely interfere with the lives of people living in border communities. 
Stop vehicles, looking for ID, searching cars, vans etc do. 
It builds resentment, it puts people as targets. 
And for the relatively small factions that are prepared to use violence it provides an opportunity to do just that.


----------



## Purple (7 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Why take the risk, when a simple NI only backstop can resolve the matter?


The DUP would see the streets red with blood before they give an inch on the Britishness of Northern Ireland. 
"Never!... never!... never!..." as the Reverend used to say.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I don't know, did we consider the effect on NI? Is there a point here?


Well yeah.  It is the point we have been discussing in the last few posts, how much consideration do we really give to NI when making big changes that affect them?


> Needless, perhaps. Dangerous!...you are kidding right?


 Why then the warnings that speed limits are in kph?  Do we really want Billy living on the Down side of the border thinking he can drive at 120 mph?  On a more serious note, the decision to enter the euro was entirely political on our part.  We ignored completely the damaging impact it would have on the all island economy and on the trade with our biggest trading partner.  And we nearly, nearly went down the financial plug hole following the euro induced credit binge (but let's not digress).



> NI may be "low down" the list of priorities for Southern electorate on many things, like road signs for instance, but on constitutional matters it resonates deeply.


On constitutional matters it is the only issue. I doubt it resonates more than will there be tax cuts in October.


> So all Leo is doing is standing by and standing over what was achieved in the GFA - an opportunity to end the conflict in Ireland once and for all.


Ask the friends of Lyra McKee about the GFA ending conflict once and for all.  Won't happen as long as their are hardline republicans in our midst, which leads to my next point:


			
				1798 Man said:
			
		

> And for the relatively small factions that are prepared to use violence it provides an opportunity to do just that.


  These factions will be with us for a long time yet.  Why are we letting them wag the dog?  Leo is now prepared to plunge us into a No Deal economic catastrophe *and *increased opportunities for the factions, just because he was afraid of the factions in the first place.  Coudn't make it up


----------



## Purple (7 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Leo is now prepared to plunge us into a No Deal economic catastrophe *and *increased opportunities for the factions, just because he was afraid of the factions in the first place. Coudn't make it up


What do you suggest he does?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> What do you suggest he does?


5 year time limit.  That will really get the DUP and the Mad Brexiteers hopping mad, but if the card is played shrewdly at the right moment Boris and Jeremy might find it very difficult not to agree together to proceed with this amended version of Theresa's WA.


----------



## Purple (7 Aug 2019)

So what happens after 5 years? What will have changed?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> So what happens after 5 years? What will have changed?


_Purple_, if I knew that I would have been a professional clairvoyant And we are really talking 7 years after allowing for transition.  Lots could have happened, for example:
1.  Brits change their mind once negotiations begin and the temperature dial gets turned down.
2.  Alternative Arrangements (technology) are indeed found for a hard border; after all the EU keep saying it is a "backstop" in case such AA are not found.
3.  The inexorable demographic dynamic of NI leads to a border poll and UI.
4.  The EU breaks up anyway.
5.  Least likely of all, pan nationalism turns down the rhetoric and persuades their supposed fellow (proddie) countrymen and women that the  NI backstop arrangement actually favours them (best of both worlds), as argued by their farming and business leaders.

But your question underlines exactly why the Brexiteers hate the backstop.  They see it as not some remote insurance event but an inevitability as they see nothing changing from the current position.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Aug 2019)

We consider the effects, or none, on our neighbors of our decisions. But without legal jurisdiction we are somewhat hampered. 
That said, constitutional matters resonate profoundly in these parts although not exclusively. I see India/Pakistan matters are heating up again over constitutional territorial claims. 
Ask the DUP about its position within the political entity that constitutes the UK. It matters. 

Critically, when making decisions consideration should of course be given to the impact on neighbors. Take road signs. We changed ours from m/ph to k/pm. I think we have gotten over it unscathed. I think its fair to say that we have adjusted without any negative impact whatsoever on our neighbors. Project 'Fear' and Billy ripping the motorways at 120m/ph has not materialised.

The GFA is not the panacea for ending the conflict. It has however offered us all the best opportunity to end violent conflict between the people of Ireland. 

The small factions that are prepared to use violence may become the large factions prepared to use violence if a hard is returned. This is not tail wagging the dog. 
It has taken 7yrs to charge anyone with the murder of PSNI officer Ronan Kerr, 
The trial for the murder of prison officer David Black collapsed
Nobody charged with murder of Stephen Carroll.
Nobody charged with murder of Lyra McKee. 
And one conviction, subsequently overturned as being unsafe, for the murders of two British soldiers.
Those prepared to use violence may be small in number, but they also command community support not willing to assist investigators or too frightened to assist. 
This is a reality in Ireland that continues. 

A return to a hard border in Ireland is a retrograde step feeding into hands of paramilitaries.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> The DUP would see the streets red with blood before they give an inch on the Britishness of Northern Ireland.
> "Never!... never!... never!..." as the Reverend used to say.



DUP are concerned about their identity. After Brexit,

- Still part of UK, check
- Union Jack still flag, check
- National anthem, GSTQ, check
- Road signs in m/ph, check
- Post boxes red, check
....

What would the impact of the backstop have on British identity for Unionists in the North?
Ans: zero.

What would the impact of a hard border in Ireland have on peace process.
Ans: Hard to quantify, but all reasonable thinking suggests it will lead to some level of escalating violence, including assessment from PSNI

What would be the impact of a backstop for NI trade after Brexit?
Ans: All goods and services manufactured and produced in NI, destined for RoI will be labelled as 'made in EU' and treated accordingly.

All goods and services manufactured and produced in NI, destined for GB and the Rest of World will be labelled as 'made in UK' and treated accordingly.

Is this the identity that Unionists fear losing?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Aug 2019)

Theobold said:
			
		

> Project 'Fear' and Billy ripping the motorways at 120m/ph has not materialised.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> A return to a hard border in Ireland is a retrograde step feeding into hands of paramilitaries.


Yes, can we please put it off for 7 years and see if anything turns up rather than have it come by this Christmas together with an economic disaster.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> 1. Brits change their mind once negotiations begin and the temperature dial gets turned down.



Unlikely, EU Treaties would require them to adopt the Euro as currency for rejoining - unless Boris & co think this is unacceptable and demand to renegotiate all EU Treaties to their satisfaction.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> 2. Alternative Arrangements (technology) are indeed found for a hard border; after all the EU keep saying it is a "backstop" in case such AA are not found.



And if not found, renew backstop for another 5yrs?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> 3. The inexorable demographic dynamic of NI leads to a border poll and UI.



Or not.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> 4. The EU breaks up anyway.



UK breaks up anyway.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> 5. Least likely of all, pan nationalism turns down the rhetoric and persuades their supposed fellow (proddie) countrymen and women that the NI backstop arrangement actually favours them (best of both worlds), as argued by their farming and business leaders.



Yes, some common sense, some pragmatism. The backstop is not a constitutional issue. It is not a dilution of British identity. It is a practical arrangement, beneficial for trade in NI.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Yes, can we please put it off for 7 years and see if anything turns up rather than have it come by this Christmas together with an economic disaster.



Are you proposing another Brexit delay? 
Its not Leo you should be concerned about, its Boris. He wont be having any of that.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Are you proposing another Brexit delay?


No, Brexit at Halloween with a Deal with a 5 year backstop.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> No, Brexit at Halloween with a Deal with a 5 year backstop.



And then what happens after 5yrs? Say, if no trade deal is agreed.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> And then what happens after 5yrs? Say, if no trade deal is agreed.


Dunno!  But at least we will have another 5 years with the factions staying within their current box.  Better than resigning ourselves to a factionful Christmas this year.


----------



## EmmDee (7 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> 5 year time limit.  That will really get the DUP and the Mad Brexiteers hopping mad, but if the card is played shrewdly at the right moment Boris and Jeremy might find it very difficult not to agree together to proceed with this amended version of Theresa's WA.



It's a red herring really - the ERG will vote down the WA even with no backstop. They imagine they can see what they always wanted - a crash out. And I suspect BJ doesn't want any agreement because he sees what he wants - the chance of a general election against a splintered Labour party.

Doesn't matter what Ireland / EU does at this point


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Dunno!



I will tell you so. 

In trade negotiations, any term that is agreed between UK and EU that in any way shape or form, regardless of how obviously reasonable it is, that suggests it is an EU term, or condition, will have Brexiteers up in arms again.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Aug 2019)

EmmDee said:


> It's a red herring really - the ERG will vote down the WA even with no backstop. They imagine they can see what they always wanted - a crash out. And I suspect BJ doesn't want any agreement because he sees what he wants - the chance of a general election against a splintered Labour party.
> 
> Doesn't matter what Ireland / EU does at this point


Yes, that's a valid point of view, and probably correct.  Leo  may have missed his opportunity to play the 5 year time limit card.  It woudn't have taken too many more of the ERG to vote for and to be joined by Labour rebels for Theresa to have got her WA through.  But BJ may have neutralised Leo's hand at this stage.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I will tell you so.
> 
> In trade negotiations, any term that is agreed between UK and EU that in any way shape or form, regardless of how obviously reasonable it is, that suggests it is an EU term, or condition, will have Brexiteers up in arms again.


Still a 5 to 7 years reprieve is not to be sneezed at. Better than throwing in the towel now.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Still a 5 to 7 years reprieve is not to be sneezed at. Better than throwing in the towel now.



The backstop already extends beyond 7yrs, it is indefinite.
It is the transition period that you are asking to be extended - a Brexit delay.


----------



## Purple (7 Aug 2019)

What the British want is an expiry date on the backstop so that they can get their trade deal and then just sit out the 5 or 7 years without acting in good faith. If they were going to act in good faith then they wouldn't have a problem with the backstop.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> The backstop already extends beyond 7yrs, it is indefinite.
> It is the transition period that you are asking to be extended - a Brexit delay.


Dearie me, either my communication skills are non existent or...
The default and increasingly likely outcome is No Deal Brexit on Halloween which will economically be very harmful to Ireland as well as rattling the cages of the factions.  I am arguing that by conceding a 5 year time limit to the backstop we may be able to salvage a 2 year transition plus a 5 year backstop, during which 7 years anything could happen. Seems to me that if this is a genuine choice the answer is a no brainer.
However, _EmmDee _is probably right that Leo has missed his chance to play this card - and this because he made the whole thing a virility symbol of his republican credentials.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am arguing that by conceding a 5 year time limit to the backstop we may be able to salvage a 2 year transition plus a 5 year backstop, during which 7 years anything could happen



Yes, you have outlined some of the 'anything could happen' scenarios. 

Here is what will happen if a time limit of 5yrs on the backstop was agreed. 
The EU/UK enter trade negotiations. With the backstop in the background, any term or condition of the EU, as reasonable as it may be, could be construed by Brexiteers as concession to the EU and not get passed UK parliament. 
Any term or condition of the UK, that is not agreeable to EU, will be construed as the EU using the backstop as leverage and not get passed UK parliament. 

Or in simple terms, as @Purple pointed out, the time limit will simply be run down and used as leverage by UK to extract concessions - back to square one.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes, you have outlined some of the 'anything could happen' scenarios.
> 
> Here is what will happen if a time limit of 5yrs on the backstop was agreed.
> The EU/UK enter trade negotiations. With the backstop in the background, any term or condition of the EU, as reasonable as it may be, could be construed by Brexiteers as concession to the EU and not get passed UK parliament.
> ...


Better than Armageddon this Halloween.  Peace in our time, Theobold.


----------



## Purple (7 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Better than Armageddon this Halloween.  Peace in our time, Theobold.


Is it though? 
We just end up having the same discussion in 5 years but with a significantly weakened bargaining position.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> Is it though?
> We just end up having the same discussion in 5 years but with a significantly weakened bargaining position.


Ahhh!  A logical counter argument - high brinkmanship.  But if Armageddon does happen on Halloween we must surely regret not having gone for peace in our time.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Ahhh!  A logical counter argument - high brinkmanship.  But if Armageddon does happen on Halloween we must surely regret not having gone for peace in our time.



But you are assuming that it is for Ireland, or EU to concede. 
An agreement has already been done. It has been rejected by UK parliament, which consists of no-deal Brexiteers, no leave without a deal, and remainers. 
Which part of UK parliament should EU negotiate with? 
Obviously, its government, which is currently led by crash-out Brexiteers. Previously it was led by a remainer PM when first negotiation was concluded. 
Who will lead it in October? 

It is incumbent on the British government, on the direction of its parliament to negotiate on behalf of the UK parliament. 
What is the position of UK parliament?


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Aug 2019)

Just to emphasise, on what authority does the EU have to re-open negotiations? 
Article 50 details the process of withdrawal, which the UK, having invoked it, is obliged to accept it.
Is the EU to change the rules specific for a UK administration that has not received a mandate from parliament to negotiate any specific position? 

*As a side I recommend C4 drama "Brexit: An Uncivil War".


----------



## joe sod (7 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Yes, that's a valid point of view, and probably correct.  Leo  may have missed his opportunity to play the 5 year time limit card.  It woudn't have taken too many more of the ERG to vote for and to be joined by Labour rebels for Theresa to have got her WA through.  But BJ may have neutralised Leo's hand at this stage.



yes he definitely missed the boat with theresa may, enda kenny would never have been so obtuse, thats the biggest tragedy that they didnt hold onto enda kenny a bit longer, maybe even another year , things might have advanced enough to prevent varadker sticking his oar in.


----------



## Romulan (8 Aug 2019)

Leaving aside all the various possibilities and options, I think the core issue has always been trust, as in, can the UK be trusted to act in good faith during negotiations.   Obviously Ireland did not and could not say we did not think so.

Events have proved unfortunately, that this was the case.


----------



## Firefly (9 Aug 2019)

I'm by no means an expert on Brexit, but didn't the UK parliament not pass a vote that stops the UK leaving without a deal? If so, does Boris not have to get a deal??


----------



## Early Riser (9 Aug 2019)

Firefly said:


> I'm by no means an expert on Brexit, but didn't the UK parliament not pass a vote that stops the UK leaving without a deal? If so, does Boris not have to get a deal??



No. In March the Parliament passed a non-binding vote indicating its opposition to no deal. Theresa May followed up by requesting the EU for an extension which was granted - to October.

I am not sure if this vote was specific to the March situation, but whether or not it is non-binding. Come October the default situation is that the UK leaves without a deal. The only alternatives are 1, Leave with an agreed deal; 2, Revoke Article 50 (remain); or 3, the UK government asks for another extension (which the EU may or may not agree to).


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Aug 2019)

Its a good point, highlights how this shambles is becoming more complex.
But just because the UK parliament voted for no no-deal doesn't mean the EU are compelled to recognise that.
The EU are obliged by Article 50 and the Treaties. To all intents and purposes, from EU perspective, the deal with UK has been agreed, irrespective of the turmoil in UK parliament.
My guess (its only a guess) is that come 1st November, EU will carry on as though the WA is the official position (which under EU law, it is).
So far from EU erecting borders in Ireland, the question will be, will UK government change any rules or regulations that contravene the WA as it stands, as agreed with EU?
If they do, then WTO trade and future free trade deals are in jeopardy.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Its a good point, highlights how this shambles is becoming more complex.
> But just because the UK parliament voted for no no-deal doesn't mean the EU are compelled to recognise that.
> The EU are obliged by Article 50 and the Treaties. To all intents and purposes, from EU perspective, the deal with UK has been agreed, irrespective of the turmoil in UK parliament.
> My guess (its only a guess) is that come 1st November, EU will carry on as though the WA is the official position (which under EU law, it is).
> ...


Bunkum!  





			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> The *Brexit withdrawal agreement* (officially: _*The draft Agreement on the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union*_)


 This draft WA does not come into effect until the British Prime Minister signs it.  And the very last thing the EU will do is implement the WA on Nov 1st without the UK signing up to its commitments.  That really would be the UK having its cake and eating it, for the immediate effect of the WA is that nothing changes except the UK is free to negotiate trade deals with others.  Its the sting in the tail of the WA that the Brexiteers do not like, the requirement to continue paying into the budget during the transition, also subject to ECJ and of course the backstop.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> My guess (its only a guess)





Duke of Marmalade said:


> This draft WA does not come into effect until the British Prime Minister signs it.



So my guess was wrong on that score.


----------



## ardmacha (14 Aug 2019)

joe sod said:


> yes he definitely missed the boat with theresa may, enda kenny would never have been so obtuse, thats the biggest tragedy that they didnt hold onto enda kenny a bit longer, maybe even another year , things might have advanced enough to prevent varadker sticking his oar in.



This idea that Varadkar is somehow more extreme than Kenny is nonsense.  In the early days after the referendum, the British said they would respect the GFA and the Irish government waited for them to produce a proposal. The British subsequently produced their red lines and did nothing whatsoever to address NI, so the Irish government then had to be more forthright. 

As stated above, the British have continually acted with bad faith throughout.


----------



## john luc (14 Aug 2019)

I would not be a fan of Varadkar but the idea that he is being hard and awkward is nonsense. He is doing what I would expect a Taoiseach to do, speak out and defend our right to not be harmed by the decisions of another state.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (14 Aug 2019)

john luc said:


> I would not be a fan of Varadkar but the idea that he is being hard and awkward is nonsense. He is doing what I would expect a Taoiseach to do, speak out and defend our right to not be harmed by the decisions of another state.


We are going to be harmed by the decisions of another state, backstop or no backstop, the  harm ranging in severity from possibly imaginary for a time limited version to worst case in a No Deal.  The Irish people have the right to expect their political leaders to minimise the harm done to them by the decisions of another state.

In any case, we haven't got the right you refer to.  Some think that Donald Trump is doing far more long term harm to Ireland (climate change) but we haven't the right not to be harmed by his decisions.


----------



## odyssey06 (14 Aug 2019)

ardmacha said:


> This idea that Varadkar is somehow more extreme than Kenny is nonsense.  In the early days after the referendum, the British said they would respect the GFA and the Irish government waited for them to produce a proposal. The British subsequently produced their red lines and did nothing whatsoever to address NI, so the Irish government then had to be more forthright.



When Kenny was Taoiseach there were definite soundings out on trying to make a 'soft' border work, ie with electronic customs checks on commercial vehicles. No need for actual manned border posts stopping Tom, Dick and Harry. When Varadkar got in, all consideration of that was shut down. There was either nothing at all on the border or a hard border. I don't know how realistic those plans were, apparently there was a report prepared for the EU Parliament which said it could work.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (14 Aug 2019)

_odyssey06 _I forgot that, the time Varadkar called off the civil servants working on a "soft" border.  So from the off Varadkar was a "do or die" no change whatsoever to existing arrangements.  It's becoming clearer to me that Varadkar (aided and abetted by Coveney) is most responsible for bringing these islands to the edge of the abyss.


----------



## odyssey06 (14 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _odyssey06 _I forgot that, the time Varadkar called off the civil servants working on a "soft" border.  So from the off Varadkar was a "do or die" no change whatsoever to existing arrangements.  It's becoming clearer to me that Varadkar (aided and abetted by Coveney) is most responsible for bringing these islands to the edge of the abyss.



A backstop designed to prevent a hard border becomes a stumbling block to a deal and makes a hard border more likely.

It's like the US developing a new missile shield so that no nuclear attack against them could ever succeed, except Russia launches an attack before the shield can be activated because afterwards its missiles would be useless.


----------



## cremeegg (14 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> So from the off Varadkar was a "do or die" no change whatsoever to existing arrangements.  It's becoming clearer to me that Varadkar (aided and abetted by Coveney) is most responsible for bringing these islands to the edge of the abyss.



Well as to "these Islands" Varadkar doesn't have much responsibility for what is done in Britain.



odyssey06 said:


> A backstop designed to prevent a hard border becomes a stumbling block to a deal and makes a hard border more likely.



The backstop in its original NI only form was a London idea, nixed over the phone by Arelene Foster so in a remarkable concession the EU agreed to a UK wide backstop, and Theresa May couldn't get Parliament to accept it.

From an Irish point of view, we recognise that a hard border would be very bad, both politically and economically. We could have tried to find some soft border option through negotiation with the British government, or we could have asked our EU partners to insist on no hard border as part of the WA. We took the second option, our EU partners made no hard border one of 3 elements of the WA, the UK government signed up to that.

Then Jacob and friends said No. And together with Jeremy and friends they voted down the WA. (Let us pause to remember that Labour and the SNP voted against the WA in Parliament too). So now we may get the very thing we sought to avoid, and get it through our own efforts to avoid it.

*Nonsense.*

After Brexit the UK is going to need some trade deal with the EU and the first three things on the agenda will still be; the financial settlement; citizens rights and no hard border.

If the Irish government were at this stage to put up their hand and say, "well actually we are a little bit frightened of Boris and actually maybe "no hard border" isn't essential after all." Our EU friends would think that we weren't serious people and laugh at us, Boris and Jacob would laugh at us and nothing would change.

Nothing would change because as well as being an issue in its own right the Irish Border issue is also a proxy fight over the entire EU/UK border. The EU wishes to dictate the terms for all EU/UK trade, that includes the Irish border but encompasses much more. Ireland should support the EU in this NOT because we want to get one over on the Brits, satisfying as I admit I will find that, but because that is where our national advantage lies.

The fact that Nancy Pelosi says that the UK will not get a US trade deal without guaranteeing no hard border (and she not John Bolton nor Donal Trump is in the driving seat on that question) is the icing on the cake as a reason for Varadkar to hold firm.


----------



## Purple (14 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _odyssey06 _I forgot that, the time Varadkar called off the civil servants working on a "soft" border.  So from the off Varadkar was a "do or die" no change whatsoever to existing arrangements.  It's becoming clearer to me that Varadkar (aided and abetted by Coveney) is most responsible for bringing these islands to the edge of the abyss.


That's complete nonsense. There is no way a soft border is with the UK's "Red Lined" in place. That, on its own, is reason enough to not engage in a discussion about a soft border.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (14 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> That's complete nonsense. There is no way a soft border is with the UK's "Red Lined" in place. That, on its own, is reason enough to not engage in a discussion about a soft border.


The UK has insisted from the outset that there will be no hard border.  Their solution was Alternative Arrangements.  Kenny had set civil servants the task of exploring Alternative Arrangements.  Leo saw this as admitting we would accept some change to existing border structures. He called them off and painted the most crimson of red lines - no changes at all to the border.
I agree with someone (_cremeegg  _I think) that to cave into Bojo now would destroy all credibility Ireland has with the EU.  And judging by the majority opinion on this thread, the overwhelming consensus of the Irish commentariat and on the pan nationalist political front it would destroy Leo politically.  Leo has overplayed his hand and Ireland, or rather its farmers and those living in border counties and of course the poor deserted Northern nationalists who Leo said would not be let down this time,  are at the front of the queue heading for the precipice.


----------



## Purple (14 Aug 2019)

The idea of alternative arrangements was very quickly shown to be totally unworkable. The UK government has come up with nothing that even approached being credible and the EU side said that the technology for what the UK is talking about does not exist. The only solution which the UK would have accepted was for us to effectively leave the EU with them. If Kenny thought that our Civil Servants could find something that both the UK and the EU failed to find then I seriously question his judgement. Thankfully Leo saw the bigger picture and adopted a better strategic position.

This whole thing is a UK creation. They are operating on their own terms and nothing which we proposed would have brought them closer to an orderly Brexit; they would not have moved an inch, it would only have weakened our bargaining position.

This is nothing to do with pan nationalism or any other dismissive or derisive term you choose to attach to the discussion. It has everything to do with looking for the best realistic outcome for the citizens of this State and Irish people in Northern Ireland of both traditions. That is what the government is doing, with the support of the opposition, despite the UK holding a proverbial gun to our heads over the border. If the Tory's choose to wreak havoc on their fellow British citizens in Northern Ireland in some bloody minded gesture of defiance to Johnny Foreigner then there really is very little that we can do about it.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (14 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> This is nothing to do with pan nationalism or any other dismissive or derisive term you choose to attach to the discussion. It has everything to do with looking for the best realistic outcome for the citizens of this State and Irish people in Northern Ireland of both traditions.


I presume the "you" is "me" or am I a Carly Simon example.  The odds are now on that we will get the worst realistic outcome for the constituencies you list.  Maybe Leo should have set his sights a little below the "best".


----------



## Purple (14 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I presume the "you" is "me" or am I a Carly Simon example.  The odds are now on that we will get the worst realistic outcome for the constituencies you list.  Maybe Leo should have set his sights a little below the "best".


The notion that the position taken by the Irish government is the reason we'll probably end up with a no deal Brexit is just nonsense. The Brexit Party, BoJo, the money men who back the Tories and don't want proper oversight of their going's on and a long list of other factors are all ahead of it on the list.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (14 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> The notion that the position taken by the Irish government is the reason we'll probably end up with a no deal Brexit is just nonsense. The Brexit Party, BoJo, the money men who back the Tories and don't want proper oversight of their going's on and a long list of other factors are all ahead of it on the list.


We'll have to disagree on that. (Actually you might be right)  I think a minor concession to Theresa would have got her WA through, we didn't even try.  We shall never know.
_Purple _you describe the term "pan-nationalist" as "dismissive or derisory".  I did not intend any offence.  Please advise how you would like me to describe the collective of Fine Gael, Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein, Labour (RoI), Greens (RoI), Looney Tunes (RoI), SDLP, Fintan O'Toole, Irish Times, Irish Independent but definitely not the Ulster Unionists or DUP.  You understand why I wanted a shorthand way to refer to this collective.
Signing off now, past the cocktail hour in France


----------



## galway_blow_in (14 Aug 2019)

john luc said:


> I would not be a fan of Varadkar but the idea that he is being hard and awkward is nonsense. He is doing what I would expect a Taoiseach to do, speak out and defend our right to not be harmed by the decisions of another state.



Elements within the Irish media have urged the Irish government to fully trust the British government and get behind blighty

Eoghan Harris being the chief union jack waver, at least Ruth dudley Edwards left her place of birth having realised she hated her own country

It would be a tragedy if the government begins to believe that anyone is influenced by these dingbats, nobody puts another country ahead of their own


----------



## odyssey06 (14 Aug 2019)

galway_blow_in said:


> Elements within the Irish media have urged the Irish government to fully trust the British government and get behind blighty
> Eoghan Harris being the chief union jack waver, at least Ruth dudley Edwards left her place of birth having realised she hated her own country
> It would be a tragedy if the government begins to believe that anyone is influenced by these dingbats, nobody puts another country ahead of their own



I'm not saying fully trust anyone. It's in Ireland's enlightened self interest to help get UK out of the jam they are in.  In a no deal situation we aren't going to be walking away whistling dixie.
ps You'll begin to sound a bit like a dingbat yourself if you keep up this level of invective and you don't need it to get your points across, if anything it has the opposite effect.


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Aug 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> It's in Ireland's enlightened self interest to help get UK out of the jam they are in



A NI only backstop has been proposed. 
The UK also needs to take off the blinkers and help itself.


----------



## galway_blow_in (14 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> A NI only backstop has been proposed.
> The UK also needs to take off the blinkers and help itself.



The obvious solution has always been for Northern Ireland to remain in the customs Union 

If we hold tight, a general election will be called in Britain, the DUP will no longer be needed and no way will leave voters allow ulster unionist preciousness hold up their EU exit. 

A brexit is bad no matter what way you look at it as the UK is a land bridge for us but a hard border with northern Ireland is a whole other challenge


----------



## odyssey06 (14 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> A NI only backstop has been proposed.
> The UK also needs to take off the blinkers and help itself.



Would a NI only backstop be considered a change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom?
According to the GFA such a change would require a majority vote by people of NI.

Could a NI only backstop without such a vote be challenged in the courts? 
_(This is not a rhetorical question, I saw it in a newspaper letters section)_


----------



## joe sod (14 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _odyssey06 _I forgot that, the time Varadkar called off the civil servants working on a "soft" border.  So from the off Varadkar was a "do or die" no change whatsoever to existing arrangements.  It's becoming clearer to me that Varadkar (aided and abetted by Coveney) is most responsible for bringing these islands to the edge of the abyss.



I remember that period, they let Enda Kenny do the donkey work of setting up the confidence and supply agreement with fianna fail after the election, varadker would never have been able to do that because it involves compromise and keeping your big mouth shut. It was only after this was set up and brexit was voted for that varadker and coveney started gunning for enda kenny, of course the media lapped it all up, they were breathless with the idea of having a gay mixed race taoiseach.
It is only in the last few months that the short comings and inexperience of varadker are really showing. He has ignored his base (farmers and small business owners) ,ditched political pragmatism and gone all out with this silly ideological battle with the british brexiteers and will be punished at the next election. Its the economy stupid


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Aug 2019)

I agree, anything can be challenged in the courts.
My take is that the backstop is not a constitutional issue. Specifically to GFA, the constitutionality of NI only refers to its status within UK or as part of a UI. The EU is not mentioned in that regard.
NI will be leaving the EU with rest of UK. The difference being its status with trade under the backstop with EU.
A form of words, as Merkel has suggested, is needed.

Here is my suggestion;

- All goods and services manufactured and produced in NI with a final destination of RoI, shall be treated as goods and services manufactured and produced in the EU, and vice versa.

- All goods and services manufactured and produced in NI with a final destination of Great Britain and The Rest of the World (incl the EU bar RoI) shall be treated as goods and services manufactured and produced in the UK.

This is the gift that is on offer for NI, as far as I can see.
Nothing to do with constitutions, flags, anthems, emblems, identities.

All to do with product labelling 

Someone needs to clip wings off the DUP if their leadership is unable to sell this to their constituency.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (15 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I agree, anything can be challenged in the courts.
> My take is that the backstop is not a constitutional issue. Specifically to GFA, the constitutionality of NI only refers to its status within UK or as part of a UI. The EU is not mentioned in that regard.
> NI will be leaving the EU with rest of UK.


The GFA makes no mention of the border.  But nationalists have succeeded in persuading everybody that it is there in spirit.  Are the unionists not allowed to interpret the spirit of the GFA?


----------



## Purple (15 Aug 2019)

joe sod said:


> I remember that period, they let Enda Kenny do the donkey work of setting up the confidence and supply agreement with fianna fail after the election, varadker would never have been able to do that because it involves compromise and keeping your big mouth shut. It was only after this was set up and brexit was voted for that varadker and coveney started gunning for enda kenny, of course the media lapped it all up, they were breathless with the idea of having a gay mixed race taoiseach.
> It is only in the last few months that the short comings and inexperience of varadker are really showing. He has ignored his base (farmers and small business owners) ,ditched political pragmatism and gone all out with this silly ideological battle with the british brexiteers and will be punished at the next election. Its the economy stupid


I take from that that you are not overly fond of Leo. 
I would question if the FG base is farmers and small business owners. Big Farmers and business owners were certainly FG voters in the past but they certainly wouldn't win them an election. Small farmers were always FF voters. 

I would take Varadkar or Coveney (or M.Martin) over Teresa or BoJo or Corbyn any day of the week. My views on Leo are influenced by his ability, not his sexuality or the colour of his skin. He is certainly prone to the odd gaff, mainly because he had the unusual habit for a politician of answering the question he was asked. 
He is far more experienced politically than BoJo or most of BoJo's cabinet. Much and all as I liked him I don't think Enda would have had the backbone for this.


----------



## Purple (15 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Are the unionists not allowed to interpret the spirit of the GFA?


They are, yes.


----------



## WolfeTone (15 Aug 2019)

To answer your question, of course unionists are allowed to interpret GFA, the backstop or anything else.
Im merely suggesting that I do not consider the backstop to a constitutional issue. Even if it were, it needs to be reminded that the DUP represents a minority viewpoint on Brexit in NI.

Secondly, it is disingenuous to say that there is no mention of the border in the GFA.
The document itself is a cross-border agreement between two governments, and political parties from all over Ireland.

Strand Two is the North/South Ministerial Council "_to be established to bring together those with executive responsibilities in NI and Irish government, to develop consultation, co-operation and action within the island of Ireland - including through implementation on an all-island and cross-border basis - on matters of mutual interest within the competence of the Administrations, north and south."_

I think I can read the spirit of "no hard border" within that.


----------



## Purple (15 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> We'll have to disagree on that. (Actually you might be right) I think a minor concession to Theresa would have got her WA through, we didn't even try. We shall never know.


 I don't think a minor, or even major, concession to Teresa would have changed anything as this is all about a civil war within the Tory Party but we shall never know for sure. 


Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Purple _you describe the term "pan-nationalist" as "dismissive or derisory". I did not intend any offence. Please advise how you would like me to describe the collective of Fine Gael, Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein, Labour (RoI), Greens (RoI), Looney Tunes (RoI), SDLP, Fintan O'Toole, Irish Times, Irish Independent but definitely not the Ulster Unionists or DUP. You understand why I wanted a shorthand way to refer to this collective.


There is no collective consensus amongst those you listed above. There is a general view held that the Uk's backstop idea is a good one and that the three freedoms which the EU is built on must be protected. Labour are not Nationalist in the way SF are and FG are the party that signed up to partition. Leo has said that he doesn't think a united Ireland is a good idea any time soon and the Shinners want one tomorrow. Therefore lumping them all in together is lazy and inaccurate but, given your obvious intellect, something that you knew but chose to do anyway. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Signing off now, past the cocktail hour in France


 Soon you'll be able to buy a cheap holiday home over there from one of the Brits who will be deported after October. 
I keep getting visions of the little Girl in Schindler's List shouting at the jews but this time it will be a French kid shouting "Good By, Brits!" It will all happen in black and white. 
I know, I have a sick mind.


----------



## Purple (15 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I think I can read the spirit of "no hard border" within that.


Never, NEVER, NEVER!!!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (15 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> To answer your question, of course unionists are allowed to interpret GFA, the backstop or anything else.
> Im merely suggesting that I do not consider the backstop to a constitutional issue. Even if it were, it needs to be reminded that the DUP represents a minority viewpoint on Brexit in NI.


A minority viewpoint on Brexit maybe but not on the backstop.  Varadkar has succeeded in uniting unionists in NI to see the backstop as a Green/Orange struggle.



> Secondly, it is disingenuous to say that there is no mention of the border in the GFA.
> The document itself is a cross-border agreement between two governments, and political parties from all over Ireland.
> 
> Strand Two is the North/South Ministerial Council "_to be established to bring together those with executive responsibilities in NI and Irish government, to develop consultation, co-operation and action within the island of Ireland - including through implementation on an all-island and cross-border basis - on matters of mutual interest within the competence of the Administrations, north and south."_
> ...


I was aware of the one reference "cross-border" but thought, given  the hyphen, I would get away with "no reference".  Of course "no hard border" is within the spirit of those sentiments but the principle of consent, in spirit, should prevent a border in the Irish sea against the will of the majority in NI.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (15 Aug 2019)

_Purple _I should probably have used the term pan-catholic rather than pan-nationalist as the sectarian divide between the two views seems even more stark than the nationalist/unionist divide.


----------



## WolfeTone (15 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> A minority viewpoint on Brexit maybe but not on the backstop. Varadkar has succeeded in uniting unionists in NI to see the backstop as a Green/Orange struggle.



You are making assumptions. I would certainly concede at party leadership and membership level that to be the case. But at business and community level, I wouldn't be so sure. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> but the principle of consent, in spirit, should prevent a border in the Irish sea against the will of the majority in NI.



You have assumed that a majority is opposed to a border in the Irish sea. Certainly its natural to take this view when all we hear is from the table-thumpers. 
I would hazard a guess that there is a not less than significant section of NI population who can see the value of a border kicked to touch into the Irish sea. 
Leaving, a simple form of wording required, that reduces customs, and access to single market, that parks constitutional matters (perceived or real) to nothing more product "made in the XX" labelling.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (15 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> You are making assumptions. I would certainly concede at party leadership and membership level that to be the case. But at business and community level, I wouldn't be so sure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Possibly.  There has been talk of a referendum in NI.  That would be fun.


----------



## Sunny (15 Aug 2019)

When Brexit goes badly, it will be Ireland's fault. When immigrants are still arriving in the UK, it will be Irelands fault. When inflation climbs and interest rates rise, it will be Irelands fault. When the famous trade deal with the US falls in Congress, it will be Ireland's fault. When the rest of the world aren't flocking to buy UK goods, it will be Ireland's fault. When Sterling reaches parity with the Euro and English breakfasts and pints of beer in Spain rocket, it will be Ireland's fault.

After all is Ireland that decided that the UK should leave the EU. It is Ireland that bullied every country in the EU including the weak Germans into punishing the UK with the Irish backstop. The UK are like spoilt teenagers crying 'Why me', 'Why is it always me'..... They made the decision to leave but now it is everyone elses fault.


----------



## Purple (15 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Purple _I should probably have used the term pan-catholic rather than pan-nationalist as the sectarian divide between the two views seems even more stark than the nationalist/unionist divide.


No, try again.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (15 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> I don't think a minor, or even major, concession to Teresa would have changed anything as this is all about a civil war within the Tory Party but we shall never know for sure.


The point is we never tried.  Leo's legacy in all this is that he saw it as a contest as to who could have the brightest red lines.


----------



## EmmDee (15 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The point is we never tried.  Leo's legacy in all this is that he saw it as a contest as to who could have the brightest red lines.



In my view - this is falling into the narrative that is being spun in the UK in order to justify the current path. The backstop in any form is a red herring. They don't actually care about the backstop. Even if it was completely removed, they would still refuse the withdrawal agreement. The issue is much more fundamental than that. There is a vision doing the rounds of turning the UK into a laissez-faire Singapore lookalike with significantly reduced Governmental intervention and influence. Not dissimilar to the Tea Party in the US. Any form of deal with the EU would hamper that.

Leo could say anything he wants - he could lie down and have his belly tickled. It really doesn't matter. They have a list of other things up their sleeve that they will pull out if the backstop issue suddenly disappeared.


----------



## Early Riser (15 Aug 2019)

It looks like the UK Gov is determined to crash out - they have rejected the Withdrawal Agreement that was drawn up with the involvement of the UK negotiators and accepted by the PM - yet they have failed to propose an alternative. All the Irish Government can do is stick to its guns. Let the UK make its own decision. The EU have made clear that if the UK want to discuss a trade deal in the future (which they will have to) then all the committments in the current Withdrawal Agreement (including the backstop and the "divorce bill") will have to be dealt with first.

The issue is not the backstop. It is the Tory civil war and their fear of the Brexit Party. There is the secondary issue of the DUP - taking the same path that the leaders of Ulster Unionism has taken for decades - going for short term triumphalism ( a hard Brexit and sharper barriers to the ROI), while alienating the middle ground that they will depend on to "preserve the union" in the longer term.


----------



## galway_blow_in (15 Aug 2019)

Early Riser said:


> It looks like the UK Gov is determined to crash out - they have rejected the Withdrawal Agreement that was drawn up with the involvement of the UK negotiators and accepted by the PM - yet they have failed to propose an alternative. All the Irish Government can do is stick to its guns. Let the UK make its own decision. The EU have made clear that if the UK want to discuss a trade deal in the future (which they will have to) then all the committments in the current Withdrawal Agreement (including the backstop and the "divorce bill") will have to be dealt with first.
> 
> The issue is not the backstop. It is the Tory civil war and their fear of the Brexit Party. There is the secondary issue of the DUP - taking the same path that the leaders of Ulster Unionism has taken for decades - going for short term triumphalism ( a hard Brexit and sharper barriers to the ROI), while alienating the middle ground that they will depend on to "preserve the union" in the longer term.



The DUP would happily build a wall from donegal to the cooley mountains


----------



## Firefly (16 Aug 2019)

UK LABOUR PARTY leader Jeremy Corbyn has called on opposition party leaders to install him as caretaker Prime Minister to avoid a no-deal Brexit.  









						Jeremy Corbyn urges parties to make him caretaker PM to defeat no-deal Brexit
					

Corbyn has called on opposition leaders to support a Labour caretaker government.




					www.thejournal.ie
				




Could be the perfect storm for the UK....leaving the world's largest trading bloc with a Marxist at the wheel...what could possibly go wrong!


----------



## EmmDee (16 Aug 2019)

Firefly said:


> UK LABOUR PARTY leader Jeremy Corbyn has called on opposition party leaders to install him as caretaker Prime Minister to avoid a no-deal Brexit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In fairness, he is not calling on the parties to form a on-going government with him. The plan is to form a government in order to obtain an extension and then hold an election. But it will still be a problem for any conservative or LibDem to be seen to let him in the door of No 10 even if only for a single purpose.

It's being referred to as a "Meat Loaf Brexit" - "I'd do anything to stop a no deal - but I won't do that"


----------



## Early Riser (16 Aug 2019)

EmmDee said:


> It's being referred to as a "Meat Loaf Brexit" - "I'd do anything to stop a no deal - but I won't do that"



Well, its hardly "paradise by the dashboard light"!


----------



## cremeegg (16 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Varadkar has succeeded in uniting unionists in NI to see the backstop as a Green/Orange struggle.



Varadkar made it into an Orange/Green struggle. Hardly.

It was Arlene Foster who telephoned TM to say a NI only backstop would weaken the union.

Objectively it is a nonsense to say that a NI only backstop threatens the union, (consider all the other borders in the Irish sea on gay rights etc.) but the DUP having been caught on the wrong side of the Brexit debate, needed something Orange to rally their supporters around and the "border in the Irish sea" (which was an idea created by the British Government, I believe) was perfect.


----------



## Firefly (16 Aug 2019)

EmmDee said:


> In fairness, he is not calling on the parties to form a on-going government with him.



Small steps....









						Like a good Marxist, Corbyn is securing his revolution from within | Damian McBride
					

By appointing Ken Livingstone, the Labour leader is hoping history will repeat itself. But will it be the success of 2000 or the dismal failure of 2012?




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## EmmDee (16 Aug 2019)

Firefly said:


> Small steps....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It wouldn't work - he wouldn't hold confidence of the house for anything other than extending and calling an election - the debate may be whether to call a general election or hold a second referendum first. I suspect he might want to do the later but I doubt that would keep some of the conservative rebels on side


----------



## Firefly (16 Aug 2019)

EmmDee said:


> It wouldn't work - he wouldn't hold confidence of the house for anything other than extending and calling an election - the debate may be whether to call a general election or hold a second referendum first. I suspect he might want to do the later but I doubt that would keep some of the conservative rebels on side



I think if he were in power (even in a caretaker role) he would be more likely to win an election.


----------



## galway_blow_in (16 Aug 2019)

cremeegg said:


> Varadkar made it into an Orange/Green struggle. Hardly.
> 
> It was Arlene Foster who telephoned TM to say a NI only backstop would weaken the union.
> 
> Objectively it is a nonsense to say that a NI only backstop threatens the union, (consider all the other borders in the Irish sea on gay rights etc.) but the DUP having been caught on the wrong side of the Brexit debate, needed something Orange to rally their supporters around and the "border in the Irish sea" (which was an idea created by the British Government, I believe) was perfect.



Unionists see everything through the lens of an impending green takeover and always have, if we took unionist preciousness - "neurosis into consideration every day, we'd might as well stay in bed, you cannot assuage paranoia


----------



## EmmDee (16 Aug 2019)

Firefly said:


> I think if he were in power (even in a caretaker role) he would be more likely to win an election.



I know what you mean but I'm not sure - I think he might have peaked at the last one. There will be quite a lot of his party coming under pressure from either LibDem / Remain Alliance or Brexit. I don't think he would get more MP's.

But he might be able to form a coalition - or at least Labour might be able to. Whether other parties would agree with him as leader is another thing - other than the SNP who would if given a second IndyRef


----------



## Firefly (16 Aug 2019)

galway_blow_in said:


> Unionists see everything through the lens of an impending green takeover and always have, if we took unionist preciousness - "neurosis into consideration every day, we'd might as well stay in bed, you cannot assuage paranoia



And yet they have the opportunity of a life-time.....being able to export into both the EU and the rest of the UK (and whoever the UK agrees to trade with after Brexit). All this with cheaper wage costs than the RoI. If NI was to then get autonomy regarding taxation they could reduce Corporation Tax. There would then, IMO, be a lot of companies here wondering why they don't move up the road....


----------



## Leo (16 Aug 2019)

Firefly said:


> .being able to export into both the EU and the rest of the UK (and whoever the UK agrees to trade with after Brexit).



Given how little they export, do they really care?


----------



## galway_blow_in (16 Aug 2019)

Firefly said:


> And yet they have the opportunity of a life-time.....being able to export into both the EU and the rest of the UK (and whoever the UK agrees to trade with after Brexit). All this with cheaper wage costs than the RoI. If NI was to then get autonomy regarding taxation they could reduce Corporation Tax. There would then, IMO, be a lot of companies here wondering why they don't move up the road....



Unionists would rather live on three bowls of rice per day than see their precious union diluted 1%

They are a people who want very little, they want to wave their union Jack's and that's it

Might explain the kind of politicians who have been elected


----------



## john luc (16 Aug 2019)

Cornyn is a fraud and hides his real opinion on Brexit which makes him untrustworthy to lead a short term government. If they are serious then a person who is not a leader e.g. Ken Clarke would be best suited for this role.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (16 Aug 2019)

galway_blow_in said:


> Unionists would rather live on three bowls of rice per day than see their precious union diluted 1%


And it seems Nationalists would rather live on three spuds a day than see a 1% increase in the (already fairly extensive) visibility of the border.


----------



## galway_blow_in (16 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> And it seems Nationalists would rather live on three spuds a day than see a 1% increase in the (already fairly extensive) visibility of the border.



So you wish to roll back progress


----------



## joe sod (16 Aug 2019)

Firefly said:


> If NI was to then get autonomy regarding taxation they could reduce Corporation Tax. There would then, IMO, be a lot of companies here wondering why they don't move up the road....



but boris johnson has already pledged to reduce corporation tax to 12.5% for the UK, so they get that anyway. But its not an economic issue for them anyways as has been pointed out, its a cultural and tribal thing. But its the same with us here , our position on the backstop is more cultural ,tribal than an economic issue. The backstop is going to do serious damage to our indigenous industry but we are sticking to it no matter what, we have thrown pragmatism out the window just like the ulster unionists.


----------



## galway_blow_in (17 Aug 2019)

joe sod said:


> but boris johnson has already pledged to reduce corporation tax to 12.5% for the UK, so they get that anyway. But its not an economic issue for them anyways as has been pointed out, its a cultural and tribal thing. But its the same with us here , our position on the backstop is more cultural ,tribal than an economic issue. The backstop is going to do serious damage to our indigenous industry but we are sticking to it no matter what, we have thrown pragmatism out the window just like the ulster unionists.



The backstop is a way of keeping barriers down, hundreds of thousands of our brothers and sisters live in the North, we cannot abandon them three times in a century


----------



## Firefly (19 Aug 2019)

Leo said:


> Given how little they export, do they really care?



True enough...decades of dependency from London..


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2019)

john luc said:


> Cornyn is a fraud and hides his real opinion on Brexit which makes him untrustworthy to lead a short term government. If they are serious then a person who is not a leader e.g. Ken Clarke would be best suited for this role.


Corbyn is also a marxist and, if his behaviour within his own party is anything to go by, has no respect for democracy. The Labour Party leadership is like the 50 year reunion of a 1969 marxist Students Union.


----------



## Sunny (19 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> Corbyn is also a marxist and, if his behaviour within his own party is anything to go by, has no respect for democracy. The Labour Party leadership is like the 50 year reunion of a 1969 marxist Students Union.



I like him. He is like that simple racist old uncle that nobody really wants for Christmas dinner but invite him anyway despite him making a tit of himself every year....


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2019)

Sunny said:


> I like him. He is like that simple racist old uncle that nobody really wants for Christmas dinner but invite him anyway despite him making a tit of himself every year....


Sure, but you want him in charge of your country.
I like Clare Daly; she's passionate and intelligent and has certainly done the country some service, but she's also a loony marxist and there's no way on earth I'd want her in charge of anything. Corbyn is like her in many ways except she's smarter and has more respect for democracy.


----------



## Sunny (19 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> Sure, but you want him in charge of your country.
> I like Clare Daly; she's passionate and intelligent and has certainly done the country some service, but she's also a loony marxist and there's no way on earth I'd want her in charge of anything. Corbyn is like her in many ways except she's smarter and has more respect for democracy.



I wouldn't put him in charge of anything including the Labour Party. I wouldn't even allow him a public platform. He has shown himself to be anti-Semitic. The labour Party in the UK is extremely weak (Diane Abbott as shadow home secretary)…..I follow UK politics but I would struggle to put a face to most names in the Shadow Cabinet. Its frightening to see the State of politics in the UK that seem to be following the US at the moment. A buffoon in charge of the Country but absolutely no credible opposition.


----------



## galway_blow_in (19 Aug 2019)

Sunny said:


> I wouldn't put him in charge of anything including the Labour Party. I wouldn't even allow him a public platform. He has shown himself to be anti-Semitic. The labour Party in the UK is extremely weak (Diane Abbott as shadow home secretary)…..I follow UK politics but I would struggle to put a face to most names in the Shadow Cabinet. Its frightening to see the State of politics in the UK that seem to be following the US at the moment. A buffoon in charge of the Country but absolutely no credible opposition.



How people cannot spot the professional smear job on corbyn ( via the anti semetism charge) for what it is beggars belief. 

A corbyn premiership would be a huge threat to monied interests in the city of London, this slime campaign is utterly predictable and so delightfully vague in detail.


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2019)

galway_blow_in said:


> How people cannot spot the professional smear job on corbyn ( via the anti semetism charge) for what it is beggars belief.


Yes, the bulwark of conservative mercantilism, the Guardian, is smearing him with the truth.




galway_blow_in said:


> A corbyn premiership would be a huge threat to monied interests in the city of London,


 and anyone with a job.


----------



## WolfeTone (19 Aug 2019)

Sunny said:


> He has shown himself to be anti-Semitic



I like Corbyn, has always stood up for the marginalised and is prepared to listen to all sides. 
He does lack the charisma typically associated with leaders of British parties. 

But in no way shape or form could he be labelled as anti-Semitic. To suggest such is to admit to falling for the smear propaganda. 
Corbyns record in promoting rights of Jews and standing against anti-Semitism dates backs to 1970's when he organisations demonstrations against the National Front.


----------



## galway_blow_in (19 Aug 2019)

How come this anti semetism lark only arose since corbyn became leader?

The kind of deep rooted culture being alleged does not spring up over night

Are we to believe institutionalused behaviour was not there during the tenure of miliband, Gordon brown or Tony Blair?

All too convenient

Just to add I would be centre right politically but this thing stinks


----------



## WolfeTone (19 Aug 2019)

Imagine if police officers in Britain had been subjected to a booby-trap bomb attack, what the reaction would be from the political establishment all the way to the highest office.

Now compare for yourself the almost muted reaction from same when police officers come under attack in Ireland. 
Im watching on Sky News, it is item number 3. Nothing on Twitter feed from Boris Johnson.


----------



## Sunny (19 Aug 2019)

galway_blow_in said:


> How people cannot spot the professional smear job on corbyn ( via the anti semetism charge) for what it is beggars belief.
> 
> A corbyn premiership would be a huge threat to monied interests in the city of London, this slime campaign is utterly predictable and so delightfully vague in detail.



Yes it is all one big conspiracy involving rich bankers, left and right wing media and members of his own party. It is fake news that he has attended events commemorating the people responsible for the Munich Olympics massacre. He has made numerous comments including using the term Zionist to describe Jews. He tried to get the definition of anti semitism to include a reference that the foundation of Israel was a racist endeavour. He sent a message of support to an artist of the most anti semitic mural you will ever see and only condemned it when the media pulled him. He has referred to Hamas as friends. He was done very little to deal with the huge number of internal labour party complaints around anti semitic views in the party. All fake news spread by the 'monied' city of London....


----------



## WolfeTone (19 Aug 2019)

Sunny said:


> It is fake news that he has attended events commemorating the people responsible for the Munich Olympics massacre.



Yes it is. The event attended was to commemorate the lives of 47 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in 1985.



Sunny said:


> He has made numerous comments including using the term Zionist to describe Jews



How is that anti-semitic? In what context were his remarks made?



Sunny said:


> He tried to get the definition of anti semitism to include a reference that the foundation of Israel was a racist endeavour.



How is that anti-semitic? It is an opinion. There are Jewish groups who are opposed to existence of Israel as it is today. Israel is the promised land, to be delivered by the Messiah, not by the US, UK and EU.
Are these Jews anti-semitic too?



Sunny said:


> He sent a message of support to an artist of the most anti semitic mural you will ever see and only condemned it when the media pulled him.



The message of support was in the context of freedom of speech. When alerted to subject matter of the mural he apologized and reiterated his life long held views in opposition to anti-Semitism.



Sunny said:


> He has referred to Hamas as friends



How is that anti-semitic?



Sunny said:


> He was done very little to deal with the huge number of internal labour party complaints around anti semitic views in the party.



Bad management does not qualify as anti-semitism.
'A large number of complaints' does not quantify as anti-semitism either. If the complaints are substantiated then that is a different matter.
The whole Chris Williamson MP affair is a good example of 'anti-semitism' in the UK Labour party being completely part of a smear campaign.


----------



## WolfeTone (19 Aug 2019)

Back on track...the Fire Brigades Union in England, commenting on reports that freedom of movement will end from day one of Brexit, have warned Home Secretary Pritti Patel to expect a reaction if any of their non-British members are denied re-entry into UK after being abroad. 

Seems like an effective way of dismantling this Brexit nonsense.


----------



## galway_blow_in (20 Aug 2019)

Sunny said:


> Yes it is all one big conspiracy involving rich bankers, left and right wing media and members of his own party. It is fake news that he has attended events commemorating the people responsible for the Munich Olympics massacre. He has made numerous comments including using the term Zionist to describe Jews. He tried to get the definition of anti semitism to include a reference that the foundation of Israel was a racist endeavour. He sent a message of support to an artist of the most anti semitic mural you will ever see and only condemned it when the media pulled him. He has referred to Hamas as friends. He was done very little to deal with the huge number of internal labour party complaints around anti semitic views in the party. All fake news spread by the 'monied' city of London....



Is corbyn as pm a threat to the 1%? 

If bernie sanders looked like beating trump next year, I wouldn't be surprised to see him getting labelled an anti semite too


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Aug 2019)

Nice article and footage from 1930's in Irish Times.









						Ireland's original hard Border: Rare footage shows what it was like
					

British Pathé newsreel from 1924 depicts the ‘much debated Ulster Border’




					www.irishtimes.com
				




The border 'festering sore'.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (20 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Nice article and footage from 1930's in Irish Times.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The customs border was imposed by the Free State to protect the fledgling economy. A hard border will be imposed by Dublin/Brussels to protect the single market. Plus ca change.
Also note RUC and Free State soldiers treating the whole matter as a bit of a joke.  A far cry from the project fear implosion of the Peace Process predicted (threatened) by the pan nationalist (catholic) front today.


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> A far cry from the project fear implosion of the Peace Process predicted (threatened) by the pan nationalist (catholic) front today.


I'm not a catholic and I'm not a nationalist. What group am I part of?


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> A hard border will be imposed by Dublin/Brussels to protect the single market


Don't fall for the "Project Jingoism; make Britain white again" line that the UK will not have to put up borders in the event of a hard Brexit.


----------



## Early Riser (20 Aug 2019)

galway_blow_in said:


> How come this anti semetism lark only arose since corbyn became leader?
> 
> The kind of deep rooted culture being alleged does not spring up over night



Well, Corbyn became leader on the votes of hard left people (largely Momentum) who joined Labour in droves once he managed to become a candidate - one person, one vote. Once he won, the same hard left came to dominate Labour's National Executive. They also dominate many of the constituency associations. So, it didn't "spring up overnight". Labour membership and Labour administration has been transformed since Corbyn became leader. A revolution in itself.

The hard left have a long history of anti-semitism. E.G., remember George Galloway?



galway_blow_in said:


> If bernie sanders looked like beating trump next year, I wouldn't be surprised to see him getting labelled an anti semite too



You do know that Bernie Sanders is Jewish?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (20 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> I'm not a catholic and I'm not a nationalist. What group am I part of?


I don't know.  You tell me.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (20 Aug 2019)

Rev. Ian Paisley always claimed he had nothing against individual RCs, it was their church that he abominated.  JC claims not to have a anti semitic bone in his body and yet he wants the Zionist state wiped off the face of the earth.  Let RCs make the call in the former case and let Jews make the call in the latter.


----------



## EmmDee (20 Aug 2019)

galway_blow_in said:


> How come this anti semetism lark only arose since corbyn became leader?
> 
> The kind of deep rooted culture being alleged does not spring up over night
> 
> ...



There's a reason for the questions you ask. It's not "convenient" and it's not a conspiracy theory. There is a difference between being supportive of the Palestinian cause, moving towards the desire for the Israeli state to not be there to blaming Jewish people generally for the actions of the state. While Corbyn was always strong an the first, a lot of the support that joined labour were from organisations further down the above line. This was also mixed in with a certain thinking in some of the far left who resurfaced tropes around the "behind the scenes Jewish business people controlling the world economy" line from mid 20th century - who found a home supporting Corbyn. There is a reason it escalated when Corbyn became leader and why it didn't during the last few leaders. It was there previously in the far left and there was a big battle to get it out after Foot was leader.

You want to see examples - all you have to do is go through Rachel Riley's twitter timeline over the last 6 or 9 months. It's pretty brutal what is being directed at Jewish people. Or what any of the Labour Jewish MP's or Peers are highlighting. They are providing specific examples and evidence and it's unpleasant  

This "I'm only saying - it's really convenient - I'm only asking questions" conspiracy nonsense is the problem. There is a real issue and it isn't being tackled. There is also a real problem in the Conservative party around Muslim people (or in fact any people of colour). The last few years have really brought out some of the nastiest undercurrents in politics - they have been given permission to speak out


----------



## galway_blow_in (20 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The customs border was imposed by the Free State to protect the fledgling economy. A hard border will be imposed by Dublin/Brussels to protect the single market. Plus ca change.
> Also note RUC and Free State soldiers treating the whole matter as a bit of a joke.  A far cry from the project fear implosion of the Peace Process predicted (threatened) by the pan nationalist (catholic) front today.



Lovely bit of sectarianism there.


----------



## galway_blow_in (20 Aug 2019)

Early Riser said:


> Well, Corbyn became leader on the votes of hard left people (largely Momentum) who joined Labour in droves once he managed to become a candidate - one person, one vote. Once he won, the same hard left came to dominate Labour's National Executive. They also dominate many of the constituency associations. So, it didn't "spring up overnight". Labour membership and Labour administration has been transformed since Corbyn became leader. A revolution in itself.
> 
> The hard left have a long history of anti-semitism. E.G., remember George Galloway?
> 
> ...



I'm well aware that bernie sanders is Jewish.


----------



## Early Riser (20 Aug 2019)

Corbyn is just as much a euro-sceptic and a brexiter as Johnson - indeed, ideologically probably more so. But they are both more interested in using the current situation to attain/keep power.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (20 Aug 2019)

A


galway_blow_in said:


> Lovely bit of sectarianism there.


Ahhh!  You haven't been following the Great Debate between myself and _Purple_.  I was remarking on the incredible consensus between FG, FF, SF, SDLP, FOT et. al.  and had dubbed it as pan nationalist.  _Purple _argued that since FG were Blueshirts this could not be called nationalist.  I didn't quite follow the argument but looked for a more definitive common denominator and "catholic" sort of jumped off the page.
_Purple _himself has come out that he is neither nationalist nor catholic.  I suppose he must be the exception that proves the rule.  Only I think _Purple _is in a different space from the pan nationalists (catholics).  I think he actually believes we will be plunged back to 1972 come November.  The pans are only using it as a bargaining tool.  And boy have they been successful. We have everybody from Pelosi to Barnier riffing on about the Peace Process.


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The customs border was imposed by the Free State to protect the fledgling economy.



Yes, and I think we are all agreed (?) that it was/is a bad idea.
Although what was the RUC officer was doing there if the UK was not imposing its own customs posts?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> A far cry from the project fear implosion of the Peace Process predicted (threatened) by the pan nationalist (catholic) front today.



There is no-one touting the return to violence of the past as a consequence of the border. The issue is the _prospect _of a return to violence. 
But before that, the collapse of the GFA is also a prospect. 
If NI is pulled out of EU then, depending on whatever future relationship is established between Ireland and UK, the prospect of a restoration of power-sharing becomes more remote (my opinion). 
Dissidents are feeding off this vacuum. And while Gerry Adams leadership kept a cohesion on all strands of republicanism within SF, my gut feeling is that Mary Lou and Michelle, while respected, do not resonate with hardcore faithful. 
Its not even about the lack of progress on Irish language rights, abortion etc...its the fact that Unionism can still stall progress where it suits them. 
Irish language rights should be inconsequential. Legislation that is passed and then left to dust, with ocassion for the odd inconvenience when one of the 1% invoke those rights.
But Unionism cannot even reach out that far. Cannot recognize the existence of its neighbors culture in their own country. Everything Irish, or rather Gaelic, to be treated with contempt. 
So no power sharing, a prospective border, and what protections will Irish nationalists from EU courts? Are they reliant on the judgement of British courts alone? 

Without power sharing, is it to be a return to direct rule? The Tories have already walked over the commitment in the GFA for the British government to exercise exclusive impartiality. 
If it is a return to direct rule, expect SF vote to drop dramatically. Some might welcome this, but I think it is dangerous. 
Pressure will come for SF from the heartlands to withdraw from Policing Board. 

We are back to a cold war in NI.


----------



## Early Riser (20 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I think he actually believes we will be plunged back to 1972 come November


 
I don't know about Purple but I have never heard anyone suggest that we will be plunged back to 1972 come November. But that is not to say that a hard Brexit is not playing with fire. There will be no alternative to a hard border ( talk about "we wont impose a border if you won't" is, at the very kindest, disingenuous - more likely plain dishonest) and that will be very alienating for nationalist people on people on both sides of the border - not to mention the economic consequences for both communities. As to where it will lead, who knows - but who could have foreseen 1972 from 1968?


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Aug 2019)

EmmDee said:


> all you have to do is go through Rachel Riley's twitter timeline over the last 6 or 9 months.



I been through it. It is awful. Full of inconsistencies and bogus assertions. She is typical of the mob that equates criticism of Israeli government policy and the murders by IDF of Palestinians with anti-semitism.

I recommend linking to her pinned post which she asserts is evidence of anti-semitism in the Labour party. It is no such thing. Just more unproven assertions.


----------



## EmmDee (20 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I been through it. It is awful. Full of inconsistencies and bogus assertions. She is typical of the mob that equates criticism of Israeli government policy and the murders by IDF of Palestinians with anti-semitism.
> 
> I recommend linking to her pinned post which she asserts is evidence of anti-semitism in the Labour party. It is no such thing. Just more unproven assertions.



Did you not see any problematic stuff directed at her? It is all bogus assertions?

It's not the critique of IDL that concerns me. It is the "Rothschild's rule the world" mentalists - that is literally out of the 1930's


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Aug 2019)

EmmDee said:


> Did you not see any problematic stuff directed at her? It is all bogus assertions?
> 
> It's not the critique of IDL that concerns me. It is the "Rothschild's rule the world" mentalists - that is literally out of the 1930's



The assertion made here is that Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic. He is not.
Riley is asserting anti-semitism within the UK Labour party. She has not provided evidence, as she claims to do, to substantiate those assertions. 

If people are directing bile anti-semitism towards her, what has that got to do with JC or the Labour party?


----------



## galway_blow_in (20 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> A
> 
> Ahhh!  You haven't been following the Great Debate between myself and _Purple_.  I was remarking on the incredible consensus between FG, FF, SF, SDLP, FOT et. al.  and had dubbed it as pan nationalist.  _Purple _argued that since FG were Blueshirts this could not be called nationalist.  I didn't quite follow the argument but looked for a more definitive common denominator and "catholic" sort of jumped off the page.
> _Purple _himself has come out that he is neither nationalist nor catholic.  I suppose he must be the exception that proves the rule.  Only I think _Purple _is in a different space from the pan nationalists (catholics).  I think he actually believes we will be plunged back to 1972 come November.  The pans are only using it as a bargaining tool.  And boy have they been successful. We have everybody from Pelosi to Barnier riffing on about the Peace Process.



Doubling down on the sectarianism. 

Beautiful


----------



## Sunny (20 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I been through it. It is awful. Full of inconsistencies and bogus assertions. She is typical of the mob that equates criticism of Israeli government policy and the murders by IDF of Palestinians with anti-semitism.
> 
> I recommend linking to her pinned post which she asserts is evidence of anti-semitism in the Labour party. It is no such thing. Just more unproven assertions.



Every time someone talks about conspiracies involving rich bankers trying to rule the Country, that in my opinion has very worrying undertones. We have been here before. If Corbyn doesn't have an anti-Semitic bone in his body, he can start by avoiding putting himself in the position where is sharing platforms with terrorists, holocaust deniers, Anti Israeli nut jobs and start dealing with the anti semitic problem in his own party that has been brought to his attention by people in his own party (Not by Jewish Bankers). He won't do that though. So the only conclusion can be that he shares the same views or he is an enabler for these views as he knows that these hard left nut job supporters are the ones keeping him in a job. Either way, he is not fit to lead the main opposition party.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (20 Aug 2019)

_Theobold_, the hopes for the end of sectarian division, which might have flowed from the GFA, are now in ruins.  Simon Varadkar has made this a winner takes all struggle.  Any sort of increased visibility of the border on the island and nationalists will have been deserted, a sea border inside the UK and unionists have been duped by a process which supposedly required their consent for any major change to NI's position within the UK.


----------



## Early Riser (20 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> She is typical of the mob that equates criticism of Israeli government policy and the murders by IDF of Palestinians with anti-semitism.



Anyone can criticise Israeli gov policy - it is easily done. That is not the same as consorting with Hamas who are committed to "driving the Jews into the sea" and obliterating the state of Israel - violently and indiscrimately. It is also different from promoting anti Jewish tropes.
Someone on this thread mentioned Bernie Sanders. He is someone who has ofetn criticised Israel - but he has not associated himself with the type of anti-semitism so often seen on Britain's far left (now controlling Labour).

Anyway, best to wait for the outcome ot the investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission - by the way, only the second time it has ever investigated a political party, the other being the BNP. Here's the ref:

_"We are using our powers under the Equality Act to open an investigation, which will look at:
_

_whether unlawful acts have been committed by the Party or its employees or agents  _
_the steps taken by the Party to implement the recommendations made in the reports on antisemitism by Baroness Royall, the Home Affairs Select Committee and in the Chakrabarti Report  _
_whether the Rule Book and the Party’s investigatory and disciplinary processes have enabled or could enable it to deal efficiently and effectively with complaints of race or religion or belief discrimination and racial harassment or victimisation, including whether appropriate sanctions have been or could be applied   _
_whether the Party has responded to complaints of unlawful acts in a lawful, efficient and effective manner."_






						Investigation into the Labour Party | Equality and Human Rights Commission
					






					www.equalityhumanrights.com


----------



## Sunny (20 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Theobold_, the hopes for the end of sectarian division, which might have flowed from the GFA, are now in ruins.  Simon Varadkar has made this a winner takes all struggle.  Any sort of increased visibility of the border on the island and nationalists will have been deserted, a sea border inside the UK and unionists have been duped by a process which supposedly required their consent for any major change to NI's position within the UK.



How were Unionists duped and by who? They were duped by the people that they are so keen to align to. The majority of people in Northern Ireland voted against Brexit. The politicians and people in the mainland UK never gave NI a second thought when voting for Brexit. The position of the Irish Government hasn't changed once. They looked at alternatives to the back stop and never found one. The UK still haven't suggested one apart from fluffy language around promises and technology that doesn't exist. The UK signed the GFA. The UK decided to hold a referendum to vote to leave the EU. The UK voted to leave the EU. It is not up to Ireland to square that circle for the UK. They created the mess. They now have to either accept the consequences or offer an alternative that Ireland and the EU can live with. It hasn't happened and the fault to that lies in London. Not in Dublin.


----------



## EmmDee (20 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> The assertion made here is that Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic. He is not.
> Riley is asserting anti-semitism within the UK Labour party. She has not provided evidence, as she claims to do, to substantiate those assertions.
> 
> If people are directing bile anti-semitism towards her, what has that got to do with JC or the Labour party?



She has actually. At local Councillor and Local branch level there is a significant amount of holocaust denial, "Rothschild" conspiracy and "Middle East" one nation solution material shared by her and others. What it has to do with the Labour party is that they are party officials and representatives. 

I don't know whether Corbyn is or isn't supportive. But he has put in charge of the investigation team people that have been pretty explicit in the past. A big issue is that complaints are being ignored or not dealt with and that there has been interference in the process. Alongside that, the failure to adopt a recognised policy (and the subsequent investigation as mentioned). So, at the very least he is open to the accusation of being complacent about it.


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Aug 2019)

Sunny said:


> Every time someone talks about conspiracies involving rich bankers trying to rule the Country, that in my opinion has very worrying undertones



What has that got to do with Jeremy Corbyn?



Sunny said:


> If Corbyn doesn't have an anti-Semitic bone in his body, he can start by avoiding putting himself in the position where is sharing platforms with terrorists, holocaust deniers, Anti Israeli nut jobs



Jeremy Corbyn has been a political activist for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Palestine and Israel. He is the leader of the Labour party in UK. 
He is duty bound to talk and meet to whoever he considers capable of bringing one or both, or all, sides to a peaceful resolution. 
If I were to label Israeli government as anti-Palestinian terrorist nut jobs, presumably I would be labelled anti-semitic? 




Sunny said:


> and start dealing with the anti semitic problem in his own party that has been brought to his attention by people in his own party (Not by Jewish Bankers). He won't do that though.



But he is. He may not have made a good job of it, he may not have recognized anti-semitism within the Labour party (probably because it is at minutiae levels).
But to say he wont do anything about it, is again false. 
Go to UK Labour party website and search anti-semitism









						Tackling Antisemitism - The Labour Party
					

See how the Labour Party is responding to the EHRC report on its investigation into Antisemitism in the Labour Party




					labour.org.uk
				






Sunny said:


> So the only conclusion can be that he shares the same views or he is an enabler for these views as he knows that these hard left nut job supporters are the ones keeping him in a job.



Your conclusion is based on false premise.


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> A
> 
> Ahhh!  You haven't been following the Great Debate between myself and _Purple_.  I was remarking on the incredible consensus between FG, FF, SF, SDLP, FOT et. al.  and had dubbed it as pan nationalist.  _Purple _argued that since FG were Blueshirts this could not be called nationalist.  I didn't quite follow the argument but looked for a more definitive common denominator and "catholic" sort of jumped off the page.
> _Purple _himself has come out that he is neither nationalist nor catholic.  I suppose he must be the exception that proves the rule.  Only I think _Purple _is in a different space from the pan nationalists (catholics).  I think he actually believes we will be plunged back to 1972 come November.  The pans are only using it as a bargaining tool.  And boy have they been successful. We have everybody from Pelosi to Barnier riffing on about the Peace Process.


I don't think we'll be plunged back to 1972 come November and I certainly don't want a united Ireland any time soon (not in the next 100 years). What I do think is that you are being incredibly naive if you think that Ireland moving on the backstop will result in an orderly Brexit. It will simply enable BoJo and the Tory extremists to redraw the line and start negotiating again. It's also naive to think that it's within our gift to fix this. We are part of the broader EU family and a minor one at that. 
Describing a general consensus by people and parties from a broad range of political, social and economic backgrounds as "pan nationalist" is just silly. This has nothing to do with nationalism, rather it is based on pragmatism and in dealing with the reality of the irrationality of one of the other protagonists.


----------



## Sunny (20 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> What has that got to do with Jeremy Corbyn?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Grand. Its all fake news and I fell for it...….


----------



## Early Riser (20 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Go to UK Labour party website and search anti-semitism


 Words, not actions. He may or may not personally be anti-semite. But many of his Momentum (any other) far left power base are. At the very least he tolerates it - any action taken has only been after public pressure being applied.


----------



## galway_blow_in (20 Aug 2019)

Sunny said:


> Every time someone talks about conspiracies involving rich bankers trying to rule the Country, that in my opinion has very worrying undertones. We have been here before. If Corbyn doesn't have an anti-Semitic bone in his body, he can start by avoiding putting himself in the position where is sharing platforms with terrorists, holocaust deniers, Anti Israeli nut jobs and start dealing with the anti semitic problem in his own party that has been brought to his attention by people in his own party (Not by Jewish Bankers). He won't do that though. So the only conclusion can be that he shares the same views or he is an enabler for these views as he knows that these hard left nut job supporters are the ones keeping him in a job. Either way, he is not fit to lead the main opposition party.



Who here claimed that any banker of a particular ethnicity was behind the corbyn takedown attempt? 

I used the term 1%, there are probably people of all faiths and none anxious about a potential corbyn premiership and willing to act to prevent same. 

I would not vote for Labour under corbyn, I don't agree with him on the economy at all but I don't believe he should be subject to a dirty tricks campaign either


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Aug 2019)

EmmDee said:


> At local Councillor and Local branch level there is a significant amount of holocaust denial, "Rothschild" conspiracy and "Middle East" one nation solution material shared by her and others. What it has to do with the Labour party is that they are party officials and representatives.



My bad. There are examples of anti-semitism of this nature. My point is geared towards the assertion made here that JC is anti-Semitic. He is not. 
Nor is the UK Labour party, a party of anti-semitism. 
In incidences where anti-Semitic views have been expressed, the Labour party has failed to act appropriately. This is changing, councillors are being suspended and Labours stance against anti-Semitism stands.


----------



## galway_blow_in (20 Aug 2019)

Early Riser said:


> Anyone can criticise Israeli gov policy - it is easily done. That is not the same as consorting with Hamas who are committed to "driving the Jews into the sea" and obliterating the state of Israel - violently and indiscrimately. It is also different from promoting anti Jewish tropes.
> Someone on this thread mentioned Bernie Sanders. He is someone who has ofetn criticised Israel - but he has not associated himself with the type of anti-semitism so often seen on Britain's far left (now controlling Labour).
> 
> Anyway, best to wait for the outcome ot the investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission - by the way, only the second time it has ever investigated a political party, the other being the BNP. Here's the ref:
> ...



I pointed to bernie sanders, he is constantly railing against the 1% in America, I posed the idea of him being accused of anti semetism ( despite being Jewish) to highlight how hanging the label is a weapon, who it's on is irrelevant


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2019)

Early Riser said:


> Words, not actions. He may or may not personally be anti-semite. But many of his Momentum (any other) far left power base are. At the very least he tolerates it - any action taken has only been after public pressure being applied.


He's a fellow traveller with the anti semitic far left but it is his far left marxism, coupled with his contempt for democracy (as seen by his actions within his own party) that make him unsuitable for any form of leadership.


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2019)

galway_blow_in said:


> I pointed to bernie sanders, he is constantly railing against the 1% in America, I posed the idea of him being accused of anti semetism ( despite being Jewish) to highlight how hanging the label is a weapon, who it's on is irrelevant


Very true; criticism of Israel is not the same as anti semitism. It is certainly the case that many of on the right throw the term around far too easily. 

That doesn't mean the UK Labour Party is not anti semitic though, as demonstrated by the fact that they have acted against it only due to public and media pressure and not out of any real conviction that it was a problem for them.


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Aug 2019)

Early Riser said:


> Words, not actions. He may or may not personally be anti-semite. But many of his Momentum (any other) far left power base are. At the very least he tolerates it - any action taken has only been after public pressure being applied.



Where there are incidences of anti-semitism the Labour party has been slow to act appropriately. 
But its policies are now, as they have always been, to rail against all forms of racial and sectarian bigotry, including anti-semitism.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (20 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> Describing a general consensus by people and parties from a broad range of political, social and economic backgrounds as "pan nationalist" is just silly. This has nothing to do with nationalism, rather it is based on pragmatism and in dealing with the reality of the irrationality of one of the other protagonists.


_Purple _ever do Venn diagrams at school.  Imagine a Venn diagram with Irish people north and south as the Universe.  Now draw the following circles.  Those describing themselves as nationalist.  Those describing themselves as unionists.  Catholics.  Protestants.  Those for the sea border.  Those against the sea border.  You will find the Universe splits into two sets of 3 circles which themselves overlap to a degree which makes them almost indistinguishable.
Oh and you will be that little dot which is in none of the circles except that you are for a sea border.


----------



## Early Riser (20 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> But its policies are now, as they have always been, to rail against all forms of racial and sectarian bigotry, including anti-semitism.



Yes, railing against things of one sort or another tends to come easily to the hard left. Up to now the railing about anti-semitism in general terms hasn't been matched by actions in relation to specific individulals.


----------



## galway_blow_in (20 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> Very true; criticism of Israel is not the same as anti semitism. It is certainly the case that many of on the right throw the term around far too easily.
> 
> That doesn't mean the UK Labour Party is not anti semitic though, as demonstrated by the fact that they have acted against it only due to public and media pressure and not out of any real conviction that it was a problem for them.



I don't think Israel has anything to do with the smear campaign, it's all about pegging dirt, anti semetism label does the job

You hear the IRA buddy as well


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Oh and you will be that little dot which is in none of the circles except that you are for a sea border.


I'm not in favour of a sea border. I'm interested in the East-West trade, the land bridge through Britain to the mainland. Northern Ireland is a tribal backwater and a failed political and economic entity. They will be poor and live on handouts no matter what happens with Brexit. I care about Ireland and the people were. I'd be happy to live within a federal Europe but not as a British colony as we did for so long. I detest Nationalism but I am a republican in that I support the ideals of a republic. 
So' I'm not Catholic, not nationalist and not in favour of a border on the Irish Sea. Those who disagree with your view on the position of the Irish Government on Brexit, in that they agree with the position of the government, are not some homogeneous group who are blinded by emotion or history. Maybe they are just being rational and pragmatic.


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> But its policies are now, as they have always been, to rail against all forms of racial and sectarian bigotry, including anti-semitism.


I dunno about that. I've often heard those on the left talking about the "employer classes" (as if such a thing exists) and how they exploit the "wurkers". What's more bigoted than that?


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Simon Varadkar has made this a winner takes all struggle. Any sort of increased visibility of the border on the island and nationalists will have been deserted,



Not "any sort of increased visibility" - that is surely the technological solutions we are being promised?

It is a hard border. Plain and simple. The permanent fixture of customs posts that require Irish people, in Ireland, to stop their vehicles and declare goods, provide id, etc while going about their business. 
BJ promises, that under no circumstances, will the UK impose checks on their side.
But this is completely at odds, once again, with what Brexit is supposed to be about. 
The end of FoM, taking control of borders, making own rules and regulations. While simultaneously, leaving its land border with EU wide open for anyone and everything to come and go as they please without any regard for border controls, FoM, and any new rules and regulations. 

What are the rights of a Polish lorry driver working for a distribution company in Dundalk making deliveries to Newry? 
Is that person allowed into UK? 
If involved in an accident in NI, is the company insured for damage to vehicle?
Is the driver insured against injury?
Is he covered by NHS?

What does the UK intend to do in such circumstances, relative to its commitment to end FoM on 1st November? 
Without answers this is an affront to Irish people and businesses and EU citizens who enjoy rights and entitlements on this island




Duke of Marmalade said:


> a sea border inside the UK and unionists have been duped by a process which supposedly required their consent for any major change to NI's position within the UK



How does a sea border in any way change NI's position within the UK? 
Considering both DUP and British government are already certain that Brexit Britain will be different to Brexit NI (no border controls, FoM)


----------



## Early Riser (20 Aug 2019)

galway_blow_in said:


> I pointed to bernie sanders, he is constantly railing against the 1% in America, I posed the idea of him being accused of anti semetism ( despite being Jewish) to highlight how hanging the label is a weapon, who it's on is irrelevant



I don't think it is irrelevant. I am not aware of Bernie Sanders being accused of anti-semitism but if some have (other than hypothetically positing it) it could easily be refuted by reference to his even handed criticisms of both sides in the conflict. That is criticism of the leadership and extremists on both sides. He also references the rights of people on both sides. 
References to the conflict (and to Jews more generally) from Momentumists have been far from even-handed. Indeed, it is ironic that if Sanders was not the figurehead for what passes for the left in the US (which is very far from Momentum) he is just the type of "Jew" who they would denigrate - as a volunteer Kibbutz worker in his youth (a Zionist!).


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> I dunno about that. I've often heard those on the left talking about the "employer classes" (as if such a thing exists) and how they exploit the "wurkers". What's more bigoted than that?



I don't think employers are a race or a religion? 
Talk of worker exploitation by employers is just that, perceived or real, people are entitled to feel they are getting a raw deal or being exploited. 
But its not against all employers, only those that unduly exploit. Most workers will recognize when they are working for decent employers.


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I don't think employers are a race or a religion?
> Talk of worker exploitation by employers is just that, perceived or real, people are entitled to feel they are getting a raw deal or being exploited.
> But its not against all employers, only those that unduly exploit. Most workers will recognize when they are working for decent employers.


Do you think there's such thing s "the employer classes" or are there just employers?
I think suggesting that the left has a great record on tackling exploitation and injustice is very one-eyes. They certainly protect the interests of their own but so does everyone. Virtue signalling and virtue are not the same thing.


----------



## Sunny (20 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Purple _ever do Venn diagrams at school.  Imagine a Venn diagram with Irish people north and south as the Universe.  Now draw the following circles.  Those describing themselves as nationalist.  Those describing themselves as unionists.  Catholics.  Protestants.  Those for the sea border.  Those against the sea border.  You will find the Universe splits into two sets of 3 circles which themselves overlap to a degree which makes them almost indistinguishable.
> Oh and you will be that little dot which is in none of the circles except that you are for a sea border.



Maybe Purple like the UK will be just fine in their splendid isolation!


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2019)

Sunny said:


> Maybe Purple like the UK will be just fine in their splendid isolation!


I don't think my position makes me an outlier. Those who don't buy the Tory line that this is all Leo's fault aren't all part of a Catholic Nationalist cabal.


----------



## Sunny (20 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> I don't think my position makes me an outlier. Those who don't buy the Tory line that this is all Leo's fault aren't all part of a Catholic Nationalist cabal.



You mean you don't meet up in smokey rooms with your secret handshakes and saying the rosery while ploting plans to screw the Unionists??? That's a bit disappointing. Like discovering there aren't really bankers from the city of London doing the same thing to plot against Jeremy Corbyn....


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (20 Aug 2019)

_Purple _I have followed the likes of Eoghan Harris and Dan O'Brien in referring to the pan nationalist consensus. It is quite an accurate description IMHO and really not seen since the days of the Falklands War.
One might refer to the pan scientific consensus on climate change.  Doesn't mean that  one believes that all scientists are doomsayers and nor does it mean that non scientists do not share this consensus.
I apologise if you interpreted my use of the term as implying that you too had gone down the pan.  I commend your brave action in coming out and admitting that you are neither nationalist nor catholic.


----------



## Sunny (20 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Purple _I have followed the likes of Eoghan Harris and Dan O'Brien in referring to the pan nationalist consensus. It is quite an accurate description IMHO and really not seen since the days of the Falklands War.
> One might refer to the pan scientific consensus on climate change.  Doesn't mean that  one believes that all scientists are doomsayers and nor does it mean that non scientists do not share this consensus.
> I apologise if you interpreted my use of the term as implying that you too had gone down the pan.  I commend your brave action in coming out and admitting that you are neither nationalist nor catholic.



Don't start getting all reasonable. This is a discussion about Northern Ireland and Brexit. Reasonable, rational and respectful discussion has no place here...…. So basically you were saying Purple was a member of the IRA and/or a Catholic Priest and along with Leo and Simon hated the Unionist community in the North???


----------



## galway_blow_in (20 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Purple _I have followed the likes of Eoghan Harris and Dan O'Brien in referring to the pan nationalist consensus. It is quite an accurate description IMHO and really not seen since the days of the Falklands War.
> One might refer to the pan scientific consensus on climate change.  Doesn't mean that  one believes that all scientists are doomsayers and nor does it mean that non scientists do not share this consensus.
> I apologise if you interpreted my use of the term as implying that you too had gone down the pan.  I commend your brave action in coming out and admitting that you are neither nationalist nor catholic.



Dan o Brien is an excellent numbers man, he is all about the data, I like him, however when it comes to the long standing political nuances of the irish border, he is tone deaf, he likes to utter aloof disapproval of tribalist tendencies. 

Harris is a narcissistic loon bag who views everything through the prism of his hatred for SF

SF feature in every single column he writes, even if it's about the rose of tralee


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (20 Aug 2019)

Sunny said:


> Don't start getting all reasonable. This is a discussion about Northern Ireland and Brexit. Reasonable, rational and respectful discussion has no place here...…. So basically you were saying Purple was a member of the IRA and/or a Catholic Priest and along with Leo and Simon hated the Unionist community in the North???


Yes he seems to have interpreted it that way.  I hope he accepts my apology.


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Yes he seems to have interpreted it that way.  I hope he accepts my apology.


I'll say a decade of the Rosary for you, but you'll still burn in hell. I'll see you there.

(on a side note is it just me or for a chap who supposedly created everything does God seem to have really low self esteem, what with the believe in me or I'll burn you forever stuff?)

Edit; Oh, and this is just the internet. Nothing said here it to be taken personally.


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2019)

The last line of my last comment was directed at both the Duke and God, in no particular order.


----------



## Early Riser (20 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> The last line of my last comment was directed at both the Duke and God, in no particular order.



You never know who is behind a username - they could be one and the same !


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2019)

Early Riser said:


> You never know who is behind a username - they could be one and the same !


I've suspected the same.


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I have followed the likes of Eoghan Harris



Why? 
I decided to check out his Wiki page to remind myself of his irrelevance. 

A member of Official SF in the 1970's that moved to Marxism at the very time that the national question would engulf politics once again. 

When Official SF became sidelined it became the Workers Party, itself destined to extinction.  He would abandon the Workers Party and Marxism in support of social democracy. The Democratic Left emerged and this party would eventually demise and be subsumed into the Labour party. 

He worked with Mary McAleese in RTE and would deride her candidacy for President, only to regret his views about her.

He was a prominent critic of John Hume who would subsequently be honoured the Nobel Peace prize and is broadly considered one of Ireland's greatest statesmen and a prominent architect of the GFA which Harris would subsequently support.

An unrepentant supporter of the US 2003 invasion of Iraq. He derided the work of renowned journalist Robert Fisk. 

With a total abandonment of his Marxist views he embraced full-on neo-liberal economics of the FF and PDs and remained a steadfast Bertie supporter right up to those economic policies would crash the economy. 

Today, his weekly column reads as a bitter chip on both shoulders against SF. 

He has taken the side of ditching the backstop and blaming Varadaker for the current impasse. 
Going by his track record, I wouldn't put too much weight on his views.


----------



## Firefly (21 Aug 2019)

Key meeting between Boris and Angela today. I think it will be clear what kind of Brexit we can expect this evening...


----------



## EmmDee (21 Aug 2019)

Interesting that it's coming out that the UK position is that Ireland should remain aligned to UK standards and diverge from EU - that's their solution. You'd think that might need a referendum

But it's the backstop that's "undemocratic"


----------



## Purple (21 Aug 2019)

Firefly said:


> Key meeting between Boris and Angela today. I think it will be clear what kind of Brexit we can expect this evening...


I can't see much of a change.


----------



## Firefly (21 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> I can't see much of a change.



Me neither. I think both will stick to their guns. Could be the point of no return though..


----------



## Sunny (21 Aug 2019)

Someone recently told me that if I want a true picture of Brexit on the ground from a UK point of view, I should look at the comments on any Brexit Story on the Daily Mail Online. It would make you fear for the UK if the comments weren't so funny.... People actually believe that they can walk away from the EU, not pay their obligations and not need a trade agreement with the EU because the rest of the world will trade with them...Britain will be great again.....


----------



## Sunny (21 Aug 2019)

This sums up Brexit 

[broken link removed]


----------



## Ciaran@70 (21 Aug 2019)

Firefly said:


> Me neither. I think both will stick to their guns. Could be the point of no return though..


Well way back in 1968, The applicant countries wanting to join the then E.E.C. namely U.K. and Ireland had to partake in hard negotiations with the Commission as then structured. This meant putting the respective criteria, or terms and conditions to the applicants in order to join, and if successful would have abide by them. There was one significant French political figure, Charles de Gaulle, who vetoed the U.K. application, thus ending the process. As Ireland's application was running in Tandem, our plan to join ended as well, although whether Ireland was asked to withdraw it's application, or volunteered to do so I do not know. Ireland's trade was mainly with the U.K. at the time. One of De Gaulle's reasons for vetoing, was the U.K.'s economic model did not fit in with the European one. If there were De Gaulle type political figures who kept vetoing these applications, and kept the U.K. & Ireland out of E.E.C. membership, perhaps No Brexit at all! Remember Eamon De Valera was not very enthusiastic about this process. At this period as well, Left wing parties were also not very keen to join the E.E.C., this came out in the referendum of 1972 (Proposed 3rd amendment to the constitution bill) in their Literature. The main political parties (F.F. & F.G.) were very keen to enlist in the project.


----------



## Purple (21 Aug 2019)

Ciaran@70 said:


> Well way back in 1968, The applicant countries wanting to join the then E.E.C. namely U.K. and Ireland had to partake in hard negotiations with the Commission as then structured. This meant putting the respective criteria, or terms and conditions to the applicants in order to join, and if successful would have abide by them. There was one significant French political figure, Charles de Gaulle, who vetoed the U.K. application, thus ending the process. As Ireland's application was running in Tandem, our plan to join ended as well, although whether Ireland was asked to withdraw it's application, or volunteered to do so I do not know. Ireland's trade was mainly with the U.K. at the time. One of De Gaulle's reasons for vetoing, was the U.K.'s economic model did not fit in with the European one. If there were De Gaulle type political figures who kept vetoing these applications, and kept the U.K. & Ireland out of E.E.C. membership, perhaps No Brexit at all! Remember Eamon De Valera was not very enthusiastic about this process. At this period as well, Left wing parties were also not very keen to join the E.E.C., this came out in the referendum of 1972 (Proposed 3rd amendment to the constitution bill) in their Literature. The main political parties (F.F. & F.G.) were very keen to enlist in the project.


Imagine what an utter basketcase of an economy we'd be now if we hadn't joined.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (21 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> Imagine what an utter basketcase of an economy we'd be now if we hadn't joined.


Though maybe we would have enough houses to go around.  The population has increased from 3m to 5m during our membership of the EEC/EU, largely driven by EU immigration and reverse Irish emigration.  This is squeezing our young people out of the housing market, producing sky high rents and of course a homelessness crisis.
Maybe we could do with a Brexit cold shower.


----------



## Early Riser (21 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Though maybe we would have enough houses to go around.  The population has increased from 3m to 5m during our membership of the EEC/EU, largely driven by EU immigration and reverse Irish emigration.  This is squeezing our young people out of the housing market, producing sky high rents and of course a homelessness crisis.
> Maybe we could do with a Brexit cold shower.



Sure. 50 years of emigration and a stagnant economy linked to a stagnant UK economy and we wouldn't have a housing crisis now. Except maybe the problem of what to do about the deserted villages, towns, countryside, etc.


----------



## Sunny (21 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Though maybe we would have enough houses to go around.  The population has increased from 3m to 5m during our membership of the EEC/EU, largely driven by EU immigration and reverse Irish emigration.  This is squeezing our young people out of the housing market, producing sky high rents and of course a homelessness crisis.
> Maybe we could do with a Brexit cold shower.



And we could all have houses with white picket fences, we would have full employment, there would be no crime and we would all be speaking Irish.....


----------



## galway_blow_in (21 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Though maybe we would have enough houses to go around.  The population has increased from 3m to 5m during our membership of the EEC/EU, largely driven by EU immigration and reverse Irish emigration.  This is squeezing our young people out of the housing market, producing sky high rents and of course a homelessness crisis.
> Maybe we could do with a Brexit cold shower.




Wait? 

Your Irish?


----------



## Purple (21 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Though maybe we would have enough houses to go around.  The population has increased from 3m to 5m during our membership of the EEC/EU, largely driven by EU immigration and reverse Irish emigration.  This is squeezing our young people out of the housing market, producing sky high rents and of course a homelessness crisis.
> Maybe we could do with a Brexit cold shower.


We have the downsides of one of the most successful economies in the world. 

Populist politicians and grossly inefficient Public Sector structures waste vast amounts of our citizens money thus causing high property prices, homelessness, bad value educational services and bad health services. I see no reason why that would change if we didn't have such a successful economy.


----------



## Purple (21 Aug 2019)

Sunny said:


> And we could all have houses with white picket fences, we would have full employment, there would be no crime and we would all be speaking Irish.....


And comely maidens. Don't forget about the comely maidens.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (21 Aug 2019)

galway_blow_in said:


> Wait?
> 
> Your Irish?


The title confuses you?!  I suppose I'm Anglo Irish gentry, born and reared in West Belfast


----------



## galway_blow_in (21 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The title confuses you?!  I suppose I'm Anglo Irish gentry, born and reared in West Belfast



Thought you were an anti Irish Brit?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (21 Aug 2019)

galway_blow_in said:


> Thought you were an anti Irish Brit?


Oh no! I really enjoyed the Ray Houghton goal. Would have been even better if he was Irish.


----------



## cremeegg (21 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Purple _ever do Venn diagrams at school.  Imagine a Venn diagram with Irish people north and south as the Universe.  Now draw the following circles.  Those describing themselves as nationalist.  Those describing themselves as unionists.  Catholics.  Protestants.  Those for the sea border.  Those against the sea border.  You will find the Universe splits into two sets of 3 circles which themselves overlap to a degree which makes them almost indistinguishable.
> Oh and you will be that little dot which is in none of the circles except that you are for a sea border.



You love labelling people, and putting them in Venn diagrams is the mathematicians version of pigeon-holing them.


----------



## Peanuts20 (21 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Though maybe we would have enough houses to go around.  The population has increased from 3m to 5m during our membership of the EEC/EU, largely driven by EU immigration and reverse Irish emigration.  This is squeezing our young people out of the housing market, producing sky high rents and of course a homelessness crisis.
> Maybe we could do with a Brexit cold shower.


Im one of those returned emigrants who moved out of Dublin 15 years ago.  There are plenty of houses in Ireland if people are prepared not to live in Dublin. In the country town I live in 45 minutes from the Red Cow there are over 100 houses for sale for less then €250k. There is another town 15-20 minutes from the Cow with 20 houses for sale for less then €250k. The housing crisis has been caused by incompetent planning and allowing multinationals create a technical ghetto in a place where people outside of Dublin can't easily get to, not by the EU


----------



## john luc (21 Aug 2019)

The very stupid comments from the soccer pundit is where most of the problem with Brexit lies. Nit picking aside the simple fact is that all EU member States control 99% of their own economic domestic policy and laws. A cursory look at Britain's economic policy of the last 100 years has seen the decline of the north and midlands of England in favour of the south and with only the crumbs of economic development for Wales and Scotland. This was UK government policy and not EU. We also control our own policies and our problems are ours, created by us. We have more land per head than any other EU member State yet we allow so few to control land prices.


----------



## Sunny (21 Aug 2019)

So boris has 30 days to come up with an acceptable solution that they have failed to offer during the past three years. And brexiteers are claiming victory and a sign that the EU are faltering.........delusion is alive and well.


----------



## EmmDee (21 Aug 2019)

Sunny said:


> So boris has 30 days to come up with an acceptable solution that they have failed to offer during the past three years. And brexiteers are claiming victory and a sign that the EU are faltering.........delusion is alive and well.



I think they are just realising what he said. The denials are coming out already.

It's like "The Thick of It" only worse


----------



## Firefly (22 Aug 2019)

Sunny said:


> So boris has 30 days to come up with an acceptable solution that they have failed to offer during the past three years. And brexiteers are claiming victory and a sign that the EU are faltering.........delusion is alive and well.



OK....here's how I think it may play out. Boris realised he was revving a Micra against the EU's British Racing Green, Ranger Rover () in a game of Chicken. Merkel pulled a master stroke offering Boris a 30 day lifeline _in public_. This gives Boris a window to work some magic towards the end of which the UK will come up with something that _may_ work in 2 years time. Queue the withdrawal phase until 2021 that was already agreed. In other words, the can may well be kicked down the road yet again....


----------



## Purple (22 Aug 2019)

john luc said:


> The very stupid comments from the soccer pundit is where most of the problem with Brexit lies. Nit picking aside the simple fact is that all EU member States control 99% of their own economic domestic policy and laws. A cursory look at Britain's economic policy of the last 100 years has seen the decline of the north and midlands of England in favour of the south and with only the crumbs of economic development for Wales and Scotland. This was UK government policy and not EU.


I think that's an extremely important point.
Brexit is a brilliant piece of misdirection by the Etonian old boys who those in the areas outside the South East should be angry with.


----------



## Purple (22 Aug 2019)

Firefly said:


> Boris realised he was revving a Micra against the EU's British Racing Green, Ranger Rover


Why would the EU be driving an Indian car?


----------



## Firefly (22 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> Why would the EU be driving an Indian car?



My mistake, I thought it was still owned by BMW!


----------



## Purple (22 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The title confuses you?!  I suppose I'm Anglo Irish gentry, born and reared in West Belfast


I heard someone up that way was shot in the ardoyne. Being a local can you tell me what part of the body your ardoyne is in?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (22 Aug 2019)

john luc said:


> We have more land per head than any other EU member State ...


Except for Sweden, Finland, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (22 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> I heard someone up that way was shot in the ardoyne. Being a local can you tell me what part of the body your ardoyne is in?


Just above the shankle.


----------



## Purple (22 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Just above the shankle.


Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Purple (22 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Except for Sweden, Finland, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia


And we have vast areas which are virtually uninhabitable (the midlands, Kerry, most of Cork and just about everything west or the Shannon) our population density per livable square meter must not be far behind Holland.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (22 Aug 2019)

Macron is prepared to let Barnier tweak the WA.  Euro falls 1p.


----------



## Early Riser (22 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Macron is prepared to let Barnier tweak the WA.  *Euro falls 1p*.


Ha ha ! In other News, a mouse leads cat on a chase before deciding to feed it, and the earth has departed from several aircraft.


----------



## Firefly (22 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Macron is prepared to let Barnier tweak the WA.



Do you have a source for that, other than the Torygraph which is behind a paywall?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (22 Aug 2019)

Firefly said:


> Do you have a source for that, other than the Torygraph which is behind a paywall?


https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/gbp-live-today/11923-gbp-to-eur-and-usd-macron-headlines
He actually said the backstop can be tweaked.  Is he following the Duke on AAM?


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Aug 2019)

‘The future of the UK is in Europe,’ Macron says ahead of Brexit talks with Boris Johnson
					

French President Emmanuel Macron welcomed Boris Johnson for Brexit talks Thursday, with Macron saying ahead of the meeting he hopes the British prime minister will offer some "clarification" on his plans…




					www.france24.com
				




Hmmm....so many mixed signals.


----------



## Sunny (22 Aug 2019)

Hmmmm. I think the comments yesterday and today have worried the Government. Coveney issued a very defensive statement saying all eyes are on how Ireland are treated by the EU as a small nation. To be honest, I have not seen anything from the French and Germans that hasn't been said before. Come up with an alternative solution or the backstop stays. That was always the position so no idea why the UK think this is some sort of victory.

I then see Borris saying they will never put checks of any sort on the border. I thought one of the main ideas of Brexit was to get control of your borders. What now is there to stop all those dastardly Eastern Europeans from entering the Uk through the North. We won't stop them as they are entitled to be here. So where will the checks be?? Oh yes the airports and ports between the North and the rest of the UK. So again the North is having a border imposed by London and the DUP are silent. I really don't get it.


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Aug 2019)

Sunny said:


> I thought one of the main ideas of Brexit was to get control of your borders



Exactly. Brexit Britain is becoming increasingly separate from Brexit NI.
The DUP argue they cant be treated separately, but they are on record for supporting open border, CTA (presumably EU citizens and frictionless trade between UK/EU in Ireland).
Brexit Britain is all about border controls, end of FoM and making their own rules for trade.

Another profound factor is that Brexiteers want to end jurisdiction of ECJ.
This will simply be unacceptable to Nationalist communities of the north (and those of us in south who pre-disposed to ending British rule in Ireland once and for all) and will herald an absolute collapse of GFA.
A no deal Brexit, or a hard Brexit, will once again, confirm that in the interests of Ireland are a distant second to the interests of Britain in the 'United' Kingdom.


----------



## elacsaplau (22 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/gbp-live-today/11923-gbp-to-eur-and-usd-macron-headlines
> He actually said the backstop can be tweaked.



In the press conference, the link of which was helpfully provided by the Wolf, at no time whatsoever did Macron specifically say that the backstop could be tweaked! As Sunny correctly points out, there was absolutely nothing new in what Macron said. Nothing, nada, zilch, meme rien...…….

I know your sources are typically unimpeachable (E. Harris & Co.) but I'm not sure if we can trust verbatim everything from _poundsterlinglive.com!_


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (22 Aug 2019)

elacsaplau said:


> In the press conference, the link of which was helpfully provided by the Wolf, at no time whatsoever did Macron specifically say that the backstop could be tweaked! As Sunny correctly points out, there was absolutely nothing new in what Macron said. Nothing, nada, zilch, meme rien...…….
> 
> I know your sources are typically unimpeachable (E. Harris & Co.) but I'm not sure if we can trust verbatim everything from _poundsterlinglive.com!_


The money boys haven’t a political principle in their bodies.  Their motives are beneath all suspicion.  They have only one goal - £$¥€.  So when a large movement takes place in a currency it truly reflects their assessment.  Their assessment may be wrong but we know it is not influenced by anything resembling a political motivation.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (22 Aug 2019)

Sunny said:


> What now is there to stop all those dastardly Eastern Europeans from entering the Uk through the North. We won't stop them as they are entitled to be here. So where will the checks be?? Oh yes the airports and ports between the North and the rest of the UK. So again the North is having a border imposed by London and the DUP are silent. I really don't get it.


There is a big misunderstanding of the Common Travel Area.  It was there long before the EEC/EU.  It allows paddies and limeys to more or less treat the British Isles as their home, same access to jobs, social welfare, voting rights etc.  Britain had immigration controls in those days but it did not affect the CTA.  There is a huge difference between the right to be treated as a citizen of a country and the possibility to illegally enter that country. Ireland has always been a means for illegal entry into the UK under CTA.


----------



## Early Riser (22 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The money boys haven’t a political principle in their bodies.  Their motives are beneath all suspicion.  They have only one goal - £$¥€.  So when a large movement takes place in a currency it truly reflects their assessment.  Their assessment may be wrong but we know it is not influenced by anything resembling a political motivation.



The money boys are gamblers - they win some, they lose some. There will be many fluctuations of sterling before this is finished. Don't read too much into any one move. What is the trend over recent months?

I can't see any movement in substance from Johnson's meeting with Merkel and Macron. They have confirmed the backstop and the sanctity of the Single Market (ie no free access to the EU for British exports through the Irish border short of the backstop or, in the longer term, equivalent alignment). They have told Johnson that he must come up with something that would be equivalent to the backstop if he wants it to be considered, while knowing that nothing has been produced in the past 3  years. In effect they are saying "we are all ears but if (as we believe) you can't produce the goods then it is the Withdrawal Agreement as is (plus a reworked Political Declaration), or its No Deal - and the latter won't be our fault mate. We gave you every chance".


----------



## elacsaplau (22 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The money boys haven’t a political principle in their bodies.....



Unlike, Faithful to a Fault Boris, I suppose?!

Anyway, I shall take your diversion as an admission that Macron did not _dit_ what you claimed he _dit…._

[You need to be careful, dear chap...….didn't poor oul Boris get fired from The Times for saying someone had said things he hadn't?]


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Britain had immigration controls in those days but it did not affect the CTA.



And long may it continue. 
Difference between then and now was back then, Ireland was an economic basket case.
Today its economy, and society, is fundamentally changed. With 16% of those who reside here not having been born here. 

Illegal immigration isnt the issue, there has always been illegal immigrants. Mostly African, Asian and South American. Now the UK will be able to add Europeans, like French people, to that list. 
Although listening to Boris fawning over the historical, cultural and economic ties between UK and France that simply does not seem realistic - to paraphrase Johnson "London is France's biggest city outside UK"

Reading between the lines, I do get the impression that the longer Boris spends in the splendid surronds of the Élysée Palace the drum-beating from the Northeast of Ireland becomes more muted. 

As you correctly pointed out, the moneymen have no political principles. So it might be worth considering that the pound strengthening occurred during Boris's trips to Paris and Berlin and not Belfast. 

Is Boris really going to splinter the economic ties between UK, France and Germany (and Ireland for that matter) in favor of the economic ties between NI and GB? 
If you were a money man, which way would you bet?


----------



## cremeegg (23 Aug 2019)

Sunny said:


> So where will the checks be?? Oh yes the airports and ports between the North and the rest of the UK. So again the North is having a border imposed by London and the DUP are silent. I really don't get it.



I think this may be the direction things are moving.

Simon Jenkins in the Guardian is certainly recommending it. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/22/brexit-northern-ireland-border

And though now past his best Simon used to be both the measure and the influencer of middle Britain England.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (23 Aug 2019)

cremeegg said:


> Simon Jenkins in the Guardian is certainly recommending it. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/22/brexit-northern-ireland-border


Yes, excellent article.  It would need a GE though to remove the DUP's leverage at Westminster.


----------



## Early Riser (23 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It would need a GE though to remove the DUP's leverage at Westminster.



Which is quite a strong possibility. Might even get the DUP out of the hole they have dug for themselves.


----------



## WolfeTone (23 Aug 2019)

Macron insists any Brexit deal must guarantee stability in North
					

French president agrees to listen to British proposals to change withdrawal agreement




					www.irishtimes.com
				




Interesting choice of words from Macron. 

_"I consider that Irish peace is European peace. We must not allow it to be threatened by a political and institutional crisis in Britain.”
_
Mr Macron also said Irish reunification and integration of the entire island in the EU _“would solve all the problems, but it is not up to France”._


----------



## WolfeTone (25 Aug 2019)

Eoghan Harris this morning;

'_I believe the British government when it pledged last week it would "not put in place infrastructure, checks, or controls at the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland".'_

Im curious, if there is no need for infrastructure, checks, or controls at the border between UK/EU in Ireland, is there any need for infrastructure, checks or controls at borders between UK/EU in Britain?

The rest of his piece is a typical diatribe of nationalists being "inflammatory" by pursuing legitimate political aspirations through democratic means.

Harris has reduced the backstop issue to an Ireland v Britain issue, and Ireland being the mouse, should back off. He is devoid of the other prominent, more significant factor - France, Germany and rest of EU.

He has literally ignored their input in all of this. As if mere bystanders, they have no stake in all of this, ignoring two years of negotiations with UK that arrived at the WA.

He overplays the dissident threat also. The border wont ignite the flames anymore than it ignites them today, but it is a step toward igniting those flames. First a border, then a SF split, then an end to power-sharing (permanent), then an end to ECJ, then an end to the policing board, then an end to the GFA itself.
That is the walk into the hands of dissidents.

Im beginning to learn what the GFA being registered in the UN means. It means international support for an agreement that determines it is for the people of Ireland alone, to determine their future constitutional status. Without external impediment.
As Macron said, a British constitutional crisis should not be allowed to impact that.
Ireland and EU are playing by the rules. It is the British that are trying to railroad their way through those rules.

Martina Devlin has a more succinct piece in the Sindo.


----------



## cremeegg (25 Aug 2019)

We had some visitors recently, from one of the small rich EU countries.

They were shocked at the idea that Ireland might seek to negotiate a soft border with the UK.

They see the WA as something negotiated by the EU with the UK, which includes major elements that reflect Ireland's interests, put in at Irelands request.

They take Angela Merkel's statement that she grew up behind a border and will not see new borders being imposed at face value.

Were Ireland at this point to seek to undermine the WA, it would be seen as very bad faith in the EU.


----------



## galway_blow_in (25 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> And long may it continue.
> Difference between then and now was back then, Ireland was an economic basket case.
> Today its economy, and society, is fundamentally changed. With 16% of those who reside here not having been born here.
> 
> ...



We just need to not buckle until such time Borris no longer has any use for the DUP 

Unfortunate to see elements of the irish media getting nervous


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (25 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> He overplays the dissident threat also. The border wont ignite the flames anymore than it ignites them today, but it is a step toward igniting those flames. First a border, then a SF split, then an end to power-sharing (permanent), then an end to ECJ, then an end to the policing board, then an end to the GFA itself.
> That is the walk into the hands of dissidents.


Project Fear?  Or is it Project Terror?



			
				EH said:
			
		

> That is why neither the British nor Irish Governments should make pacifying the dissidents a matter of national policy.


Hear! Hear!
​


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (25 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Eoghan Harris this morning;
> 
> '_I believe the British government when it pledged last week it would "not put in place infrastructure, checks, or controls at the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland".'_
> 
> Im curious, if there is no need for infrastructure, checks, or controls at the border between UK/EU in Ireland, is there any need for infrastructure, checks or controls at borders between UK/EU in Britain?


There is no problem here.  For a start the UK has no need at all for regulatory checks on EU goods.  It is happy with EU regs, in fact, it believes they are OTT.
It might have to impose WTO tariffs but it does not have to enforce them.  After all the UK wants free trade with the whole world.  If cheap food is still available from the EU then that is no problem.  They will want to enforce tariffs on cars and heavy machinery but that will not represent a problem.  For example, EU sourced cars will have to be registered just as all imported cars in Ireland have to be registered and that does not require border infrastructure.


----------



## WolfeTone (25 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Project Fear? Or is it Project Terror?



Not at all, it is simply wanting to avoid a set of circumstances where one action has a reasonable probability of leading to another action that effectively unpicks the GFA. 
While all the fuss is about the border, it is the ending of the jurisdiction of the ECJ is the elephant in the room. 
Given your own background and knowledge of northern affairs, can you see SF sitting in Stormont, with the British Supreme Court as the final arbitrator of all legal and constitutional disputes? I cant.


----------



## WolfeTone (25 Aug 2019)

I understand the general jist of your second post but this gave a giggle.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> It is happy with EU regs





Duke of Marmalade said:


> in fact, it believes they are OTT


Really? 


Duke of Marmalade said:


> It might have to impose WTO tariffs but it does not have to enforce them



If tariffs are enforced on its exports, they will enforce them on imports.


----------



## Early Riser (25 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It might have to impose WTO tariffs but it does not have to enforce them. After all the UK wants free trade with the whole world. If cheap food is still available from the EU then that is no problem.



As I understand it, in the event of a no deal and the UK reverting to WTO rules, then the EU becomes a "third country". Any tarriffs that the UK applies (or doesn't apply) to EU imports, including food, would have to be made available to all other WTO members. So if it zero tariffs EU food imports it would also have to  zero tariff  South American (for example) food imports. Where would this leave UK farmers - including NI farmers?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (25 Aug 2019)

Early Riser said:


> As I understand it, in the event of a no deal and the UK reverting to WTO rules, then the EU becomes a "third country". Any tarriffs that the UK applies (or doesn't apply) to EU imports, including food, would have to be made available to all other WTO members. So if it zero tariffs EU food imports it would also have to  zero tariff  South American (for example) food imports. Where would this leave UK farmers - including NI farmers?


It will follow WTO rules.  But I think Eoghan Harris is right, Boris will keep his word on the border.  If he were bluffing or lying then there would need to be now lots of preparations taking place - I think we can take it that no such preparations are taking place.  He could do nothing for at least 6 months without the sky falling in.  In fact the UK's greatest tactic in a No Deal is to do nothing.  That forces the EU to be the aggressor - they can't allow No Deal to be a non event. And it will look to many in France/Germany etc. that it is the EU who are being bloodyminded.  After all how can British goods overnight fail to meet EU regulations?  But if Leo is good to his word he will tell the EU to keep their aggression out of Ireland.
Boris' plan starts to look not so crazy as the Green Groupthink pan nationalists/catholics keep convincing themselves.


----------



## galway_blow_in (25 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It will follow WTO rules.  But I think Eoghan Harris is right, Boris will keep his word on the border.  If he were bluffing or lying then there would need to be now lots of preparations taking place - I think we can take it that no such preparations are taking place.  He could do nothing for at least 6 months without the sky falling in.  In fact the UK's greatest tactic in a No Deal is to do nothing.  That forces the EU to be the aggressor - they can't allow No Deal to be a non event. And it will look to many in France/Germany etc. that it is the EU who are being bloodyminded.  After all how can British goods overnight fail to meet EU regulations?  But if Leo is good to his word he will tell the EU to keep their aggression out of Ireland.
> Boris' plan starts to look not so crazy as the Green Groupthink pan nationalists/catholics keep convincing themselves.




Eoghan Harris has never been right about anything, he's know as typhoid Mary in some circles 

Harris only concern is pleasing ulster unionists, he fetishises the ulster Scots, Borris Johnson will cut loose the DUP if blue England desires it


----------



## WolfeTone (25 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> If he were bluffing or lying then there would need to be now lots of preparations taking place - I think we can take it that no such preparations are taking place. He could do nothing for at least 6 months without the sky falling in. In fact the UK's greatest tactic in a No Deal is to do nothing



Soooo.....they leave the EU, but still act as if they are in the EU? 
No ending of FoM?, apply EU law to all trade? 

Is this the dream of Brexiteers? 

The gaping flaw in this cunning plan is that the EU will act in accordance with the law. FoM will end for UK citizens on 1st November. Tariffs will apply to UK goods. 

Far from being the 'aggressor' , the EU will be the ones to implement Brexit for the UK. 
This is the insanity in all of this - the EU implementing a no-deal Brexit and the Brits thinking that this is aggressive.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (25 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Soooo.....they leave the EU, but still act as if they are in the EU?
> No ending of FoM?, apply EU law to all trade?
> 
> Is this the dream of Brexiteers?
> ...


Let's stick to Ireland, Theobold.  I think Boris could easily follow a do nothing strategy in Ireland for quite some time.  Even smugglers and Bulgarians etc. need a little time to exploit any gaps.  So that really puts it up to EU/Ireland.  If EU similarly do nothing then Boris has won - this whole thing about the border was bogus all along.  But the EU have to do something and that really puts Leo on a spot.


----------



## WolfeTone (25 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I think Boris could easily follow a do nothing strategy in Ireland for quits some time.



Are you suggesting that Boris should treat NI differently, separate....from the rest of the UK?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (25 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Are you suggesting that Boris should treat NI differently, separate....from the rest of the UK?


Don't be silly Theobold.  The Republic will be treated differently from France et. al.
Not sure about Spain - I think it is in the WA what happens on the Gibraltar/Spain interface.  Anyway no threats of dire consequences from that quarter.


----------



## WolfeTone (25 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The Republic will be treated differently from France et. al.



Without wanting to go around in circles. It appears that Brexit on the island of Ireland will be a different, separate beast, to Brexit on the island of Britain.


----------



## Early Riser (25 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But I think Eoghan Harris is right



 I haven't read Harris for a long time. Is he still finding time in his weekly column to complain that RTE haven't found a place on their panels for the most insightful political analyst of his generation? If he was less modest he would say the greatest analytical mind since Aristotle - and even this would be an understatement.

The fact that he was a longstanding critic of both John Hume and the peace process in no way undermines this. Sure, he was almost right when he forecast that persisting with it "will end with sectarian slaughter in the North, with bombs in Dublin, Cork and Galway, and with the ruthless reign by provisional gangs over the ghettos of Dublin.  The only way to avoid this abyss is to cut the cord to John Hume" . 
Nor does it take from his credibility that he predicted that the invasion of Iraq would result not only in peace and security for that country but an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement. His sound judgement was demonstrated by his endorsement of his pal, Ahmed Chalabi, who played a major role in fabricating the "evidence" used to justify that invasion.

 So he has some "insights" you say? That the EU should allow the UK to have its cake and eat it ?


----------



## galway_blow_in (25 Aug 2019)

Early Riser said:


> I haven't read Harris for a long time. Is he still finding time in his weekly column to complain that RTE haven't found a place on their panels for the most insightful political analyst of his generation? If he was less modest he would say the greatest analytical mind since Aristotle - and even this would be an understatement.
> 
> The fact that he was a longstanding critic of both John Hume and the peace process in no way undermines this. Sure, he was almost right when he forecast that persisting with it "will end with sectarian slaughter in the North, with bombs in Dublin, Cork and Galway, and with the ruthless reign by provisional gangs over the ghettos of Dublin.  The only way to avoid this abyss is to cut the cord to John Hume" .
> Nor does it take from his credibility that he predicted that the invasion of Iraq would result not only in peace and security for that country but an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement. His sound judgement was demonstrated by his endorsement of his pal, Ahmed Chalabi, who played a major role in fabricating the "evidence" used to justify that invasion.
> ...



You forgot how he used to brag about his friendship ( well Harris saw it that way) with arch neo con war monger Richard perle.


----------



## john luc (25 Aug 2019)

Not an expert on international law but if WTO rules are to apply on 1st November and  British government were to ignore it or think to pick and choose,then they would come up against fellow WTO country's taking legal action. Previous British government's have always upheld their commitment to international agreements and do not like to be seen to be outside the legal camp so to speak.


----------



## cremeegg (25 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But I think Eoghan Harris is right, Boris will keep his word on the border.



HoHoHo, HaHaHa, HeHeHe, Thank you Duke, I haven't laughed out loud like that in some time.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Aug 2019)

Early Riser said:


> I haven't read Harris for a long time. Is he still finding time in his weekly column to complain that RTE haven't found a place on their panels for the most insightful political analyst of his generation? If he was less modest he would say the greatest analytical mind since Aristotle - and even this would be an understatement.
> 
> The fact that he was a longstanding critic of both John Hume and the peace process in no way undermines this. Sure, he was almost right when he forecast that persisting with it "will end with sectarian slaughter in the North, with bombs in Dublin, Cork and Galway, and with the ruthless reign by provisional gangs over the ghettos of Dublin.  The only way to avoid this abyss is to cut the cord to John Hume" .
> Nor does it take from his credibility that he predicted that the invasion of Iraq would result not only in peace and security for that country but an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement. His sound judgement was demonstrated by his endorsement of his pal, Ahmed Chalabi, who played a major role in fabricating the "evidence" used to justify that invasion.
> ...


Wow!  This was an eye opener, especially the bit about John Hume.  I had to check this in Wikipedia and everything is as you say.  EH is a deplorable egotist who wallows in thinking he is a supreme intellect by taking the contrarian view.  Despite having been proven spectacularly wrong on many occasions.  The mystery is that he has achieved credibility with the likes of Aherne, Bruton etc.
Anyway, my point was that I think Bojo will keep his word on the border.  Not because he is an honourable man, he is only a shade behind EH in deplorability.  But because it is such an easy tactic to follow.  He can easily outstay Ireland/EU with this tactic.  For if we too do nothing on the border it only proves it was all a bogus issue.  The EU cannot let that happen.


----------



## galway_blow_in (26 Aug 2019)

Lucinda creighton calls for a truce from the Irish government re_ the backstop.

Unlike Harris, she has credibility, I think she means well but London will see this as us buckling


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> For if we too do nothing on the border it only proves it was all a bogus issue.



You mean if we do nothing, and the UK does nothing, and we carry on regardless implementing the same rules and regulations as before 31 Oct? 

Isnt that the backstop, through the back door?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> You mean if we do nothing, and the UK does nothing, and we carry on regardless implementing the same rules and regulations as before 31 Oct?
> 
> Isnt that the backstop, through the back door?


UK does nothing* in respect of the Irish border*
Yes we would probably like that.
The EU would hate it.  It would be the UK having its cake and eating it?  What about the 39bn?  What about the ECJ?  But most important of all what about all the concessions the EU expect to prise out of the UK in subsequent FTA talks, including some continuing contributions to the EU budget?


			
				Theobold said:
			
		

> Without wanting to go around in circles. It appears that Brexit on the island of Ireland will be a different, separate beast, to Brexit on the island of Britain.


 I don't know about circles but I feel I am slipping once more into a parallel universe where I haven't a clue what Theobold is on about.


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I don't know about circles but I feel I am slipping once more into a parallel universe where I haven't a clue what Theobold is on about.



Oh dear, we are descending into attacking the man instead of attacking the ball. Not a good sign. 
Everything I have pointed out holds. 

DUP claim NI cannot be treated separately from rest of UK. It cannot diverge from UK law after Brexit. 
- control of borders
- end FoM
- make own rules and regulations for trade.

But in practice, it is the UK gov, the Brexiteers and the DUP who are heralding a divergence from Brexit in NI 

- no border controls 
- keep same trade rules and regulations 
(this is not Brexit) 

The counter argument goes something like "thats just for Ireland. Because the UK is free and independent, it can apply whatever rules it likes to whatever country it likes." 
True. 
And as stated previously, the historical, cultural and economic ties between Britain and France are as every bit strong as between Ireland and Britain, so not beyond reason the UK applying same for French citizens, goods and services, in and out of UK either? 
Or can France expect the full hard Brexit treatment? 

Ditto the Germans and Italians, the Spanish, and the Swedes, Belgians, Dutch and Portuguese?

Where will it all end? Before you know it, we will be back to where we are right now.


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> What about the ECJ?



Kind of important I would think.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Oh dear, we are descending into attacking the man instead of attacking the ball. Not a good sign.
> Everything I have pointed out holds.
> 
> DUP claim NI cannot be treated separately from rest of UK. It cannot diverge from UK law after Brexit.
> ...


I am sure there are plenty of circles in that explanation but if your main point is that you have the DUP on a “gotcha” you haven’t.  The DUP have stated that they are against a hard border in Ireland but even more against a sea border between them and the rest of the UK.  They have no problem with Dundalk being treated differently from Calais, doesn’t weaken the United Kingdom.


----------



## Early Riser (26 Aug 2019)

So, Johnson is in full election mode. I suspect the game plan is to talk "tough" (ie, bombastic hot air) on Brexit for the next few weeks and then face an election (called or facilitated by himself) where he will outflank the Brexit Party, aim for an overall Tory majority and ditch the DUP. Then it will be back to some version of the NI only backstop - perhaps rephrased and slightly modified to make it seem like compromise (or "victory").

The rhetoric about reneging on the "divorce bill", etc is rubbish and an election ploy red meat for the rabid Brexiter Daily Mail/Expressers. Approximately 50% of the UKs trade is with the EU who have made it clear that there will be no trade deal without this being settled.


----------



## Sunny (26 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Wow!  This was an eye opener, especially the bit about John Hume.  I had to check this in Wikipedia and everything is as you say.  EH is a deplorable egotist who wallows in thinking he is a supreme intellect by taking the contrarian view.  Despite having been proven spectacularly wrong on many occasions.  The mystery is that he has achieved credibility with the likes of Aherne, Bruton etc.
> Anyway, my point was that I think Bojo will keep his word on the border.  Not because he is an honourable man, he is only a shade behind EH in deplorability.  But because it is such an easy tactic to follow.  He can easily outstay Ireland/EU with this tactic.  For if we too do nothing on the border it only proves it was all a bogus issue.  The EU cannot let that happen.



But Borris has to do something with the border. He can't just ignore it. It was fine when Ireland and Britain were bound by the immigration rules but that is not the case anymore. He has already committed to no checks on the border. He has committed that the Common Travel Area will still apply so where is he going to do the immigration checks for EU citizens who are entitled to go and work in Ireland but are not entitled to work in the North?? Is he saying that Dublin has to set up checks to stop Polish and Romanian people entering the UK from the South. Not going to happen. So how exactly does the UK have control of their border which is what they are all claiming Brexit will deliver. There is only option then. Let these people enter NI but stop them entering the rest of UK through border checks between Northern Ireland and the Mainland. Just like despite the Common Travel Area, Irish people will face increased border checks going to the UK.

With trade, is Boris really going to abandon Northern


Early Riser said:


> So, Johnson is in full election mode. I suspect the game plan is to talk "tough" (ie, bombastic hot air) on Brexit for the next few weeks and then face an election (called or facilitated by himself) where he will outflank the Brexit Party, aim for an overall Tory majority and ditch the DUP. Then it will be back to some version of the NI only backstop - perhaps rephrased and slightly modified to make it seem like compromise (or "victory").
> 
> The rhetoric about reneging on the "divorce bill", etc is rubbish and an election ploy red meat for the rabid Brexiter Daily Mail/Expressers. Approximately 50% of the UKs trade is with the EU who have made it clear that there will be no trade deal without this being settled.



They don't care about EU trade. The US are going to buy all the pork pies and toilet seats......


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> They have no problem with Dundalk being treated differently from Calais,



Can we clarify one thing? When talking of being "treated differently" we are talking about different rules and regulations being set. 
To treat Dundalk differently to Calais, the UK will have different rules and regulations applicable to Dundalk as it will to Calais. 
This is divergence.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Aug 2019)

_Sunny _yes Britain can't maintain a do nothing stance in Ireland for ever.  My point is they have much more time on their hands than Ireland/EU. The UK can do nothing for years.   The EU will be forced to move almost immediately else the UK will have its cake and eat it.  Leo will be in a very sticky situation.  Does he put up physical barriers to defend the Single Market?  Or does he after all have alternative solutions like trusted trader?  Boris is in a very good position to call the backstop bluff.


----------



## Early Riser (26 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Does he put up physical barriers to defend the Single Market?



In the event of No Deal there will indoubtedly have to be some sort of regulatory and tarriff checks in Ireland to protect the integrity of the Single Market. How long can British business survive without a trade deal with the EU - by far its biggest market (46% if British exports)?


----------



## Sunny (26 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Boris is in a very good position to call the backstop bluff.



Except he is not is he? He is so fixated on the backstop that he is beginning to think he can just away on the 31st October, not pay the divorce bill and then start trade deal negotiations. (and he needs a trade deal with the EU). It's a delusion. 

A hard Brexit is going to impact Ireland and the EU but the UK seems to think that because they buy a lot of German cars, that Europe need them much more than the UK needs them. As I say, it is delusional...…. Europe and Ireland will find a solution that works for their relationship because they are being forced to find a solution. And they will.  
The difference is that the UK think they can vote for Brexit but then expect Ireland and the EU to do all the work to make it work for them. Good luck Boris. Still not one alternative solution to the backstop. Not one since all they hype of last week. Did they just start working on it last week or something??


----------



## EmmDee (26 Aug 2019)

Why are we all looking for logical well thought long term thinking from what is being said by Boris (and others) at the moment. That isn't what they are doing. They are muddying the waters, giving responses which they hope will either distract from a fundamental issue or throwing out sound bites that will play well in certain quarters - probably with a view to winning an election. They won't feel bound by any of these comments nor will they be able to keep most of them. They are purely designed to get them through the next few weeks. They (rightly) assume they will never be held to them - or they will be able to wrangle out of them using another slogan

So when they say "we won't put up a border", they are just avoiding having to answer the difficult question. And doing so in a way that can be a slogan or meaningless word salad to avoid hard truths. Any trade deal signed - doesn't matter with who - assumes you have control over your borders. Otherwise what's the point... if I give you preferential access to my markets in exchange for reciprocal access, but I don't control my borders so everyone has access really, then why would you bother.

So of course they will have to have controls. But their assumption is that they can deal with that when they get there. For the moment just give a nonsense answer that gets you through the next few weeks, win an election and then worry about it. The concern is that if people eventually see through it, there could be an almighty backlash.  

But parsing the statements and asking what they mean - or what is their long term strategy - is a fruitless exercise I think


----------



## cremeegg (26 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Sunny _yes Britain can't maintain a do nothing stance in Ireland for ever.  My point is they have much more time on their hands than Ireland/EU.



I dont see why you say this.

On Nov 1st Leo can set up a working group to investigate how to administer the border now that the UK is a third country. I would imagine that would take months, if not years.

What pressure would we be under.

Irish goods exports to NI, no problem for us.
NI or other UK citizens crossing south. No problem for us.
Anyone at all crossing North. No problem for us.

Non EU citizens crossing south. OK something we would wish to regulate, but hardly an urgent matter. People crossing the border illegally is of course illegal. People driving in excess of the speed limit is also illegal. We do not monitor every road 24/7 to prevent illegal speeding.

Goods entering the EU without proper regulatory checks. This is the big issue. There are many ways that this could responded to without border guards. For example if Tesco are found to be selling illegally imported goods they can be fined. Not as effective a seal as a hard border, but an adequate initial response. Our EU partners would obviously be putting pressure on us to act but they have indicated that they understand how difficult a hard border would be for us.

The UK on the other hand if they wish to operate under WTO rules must adopt the same procedures for all trading partners. If they allow Irish beef in they must allow Argentine beef in. And the Argentine (just as an example, the logic applies to every third country) government have every incentive to push them on this from the start.

It seems to me that the UK will be the one under pressure to resolve it approach to its borders.


----------



## Firefly (26 Aug 2019)

I think the EU has been too patient with the UK to be honest. The UK wants to leave and an agreement was signed. Either honour it or all bets are off.
" _**** or get off the pot _" comes to mind. There will be some short-term issues for us but given how little we now trade with the UK it will be manageable in the medium term. And wouldn't it be ironic if some of that 39bn made its way in reliefs to us!

The practical solution IMO would be NI to remain in the EU / bound by EU rules & regulations until these so-call alternative arrangements can be implemented. It's not like the EU wants to hang on to NI - FAR from it - the EU just wants to be done with the whole thing. The major risk with this for me is that it might whip up the whole united Ireland nonesense and then I really would consider selling the house.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Aug 2019)

cremeegg said:


> I dont see why you say this.
> 
> On Nov 1st Leo can set up a working group to investigate how to administer the border now that the UK is a third country. I would imagine that would take months, if not years.
> 
> ...


Yes, Ireland would love to keep going as if nothing has changed.  The pressure will come from the EU.  It is not so much to protect its Single Market, that would take some time to come under any significant threat given the UK is already compliant.  But, as Tusk said, the EU will not make No Deal easy.  This is a point of principle, a principle stated by Barnier at the very beginning - the UK cannot be better off outside the bloc than in it.  It is not revenge (although it has the same effect) it is a warning to other potential exiteers.
So on the Ireland backstop "Call my Bluff"  the UK has the stronger hand IMHO.  It will see an almost immediate confrontation between Ireland and the EU 26, or it will see that after all Ireland can manage a border without a descent into chaos.


----------



## cremeegg (26 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Yes, Ireland would love to keep going as if nothing has changed.  The pressure will come from the EU.  It is not so much to protect its Single Market, that would take some time to come under any significant threat given the UK is already compliant.  But, as Tusk said, the EU will not make No Deal easy.  This is a point of principle, a principle stated by Barnier at the very beginning - the UK cannot be better off outside the bloc than in it.  It is not revenge (although it has the same effect) it is a warning to other potential exiteers.



This seems perfectly reasonable.

The volume of goods and people that go over the Irish border are minuscule in comparison with the volumes that go across the Narrow Sea.

And the UK MUST find a way to keep that crossing open. That will be come critical for the UK in days not weeks.

The Dover Calais rules will become the Irish Border rules. But we can implement them in Irish time.


----------



## Purple (26 Aug 2019)

This is a very informative piece about the GFA, Brexit and the ECHR.
The main aim of the DUP, as I see it, is to unpick the GFA. They can only do that with the UK out of the ECJ and not bound by the ECHR.


----------



## cremeegg (26 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> This is a very informative piece about the GFA, Brexit and the ECHR.
> The main aim of the DUP, as I see it, is to unpick the GFA. They can only do that with the UK out of the ECJ and not bound by the ECHR.



I think you meant to include a link ?


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Aug 2019)

EmmDee said:


> So when they say "we won't put up a border", they are just avoiding having to answer the difficult question.



Totally agree. One question I would like put Boris is, if there is no need for border checks on the island of Ireland, then surely there is no need for border checks on the island of Britain?


----------



## Purple (26 Aug 2019)

cremeegg said:


> I think you meant to include a link ?


Sorry, link added.


----------



## Sunny (26 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> Sorry, link added.



Good article alright.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> This is a very informative piece about the GFA, Brexit and the ECHR.
> The main aim of the DUP, as I see it, is to unpick the GFA. They can only do that with the UK out of the ECJ and not bound by the ECHR.


Okay read the article.  Tony Connelly as usual well informed.  But I have a few bones to pick.  He states that the main diff between Sunningdale and GFA was the rights dimension.  Maybe so in the letter but my experience of the referendum on the GFA was that the rights issue was on nobody's radar, and indeed it produced no enhancement to their rights.  The GFA was summed up in the public's minds as 1. Power Sharing for catholics 2. Principle of consent for protestants.  3. Release from prison for terrorists. And of course the great majority across both communities dared to hope that the nightmare might be ending.
The ref was passed with about 99% of catholics in support and 50% of protestants.
Let's not get all in a twist on rights. Really we have little to moan about if we are concerned that Northern nationalists should be able to elect 1 of the 750 MEPs.
The British are renowned for their commitment to social justice and rights.  They fought two horrendous wars against those on the continent who brutally suppressed human rights.  Indeed they have been a leading influence on the EU in this area.
I don't think these days there is much difference between Western democracies on human rights but personally, if I had to chose, I would have more confidence in British long term commitment to human rights than our newly converted friends in Germany, Spain, Italy etc.


----------



## Sophrosyne (26 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Let's stick to Ireland, Theobold. I think Boris could easily follow a do nothing strategy in Ireland for quite some time. Even smugglers and Bulgarians etc. need a little time to exploit any gaps. So that really puts it up to EU/Ireland. If EU similarly do nothing then Boris has won - this whole thing about the border was bogus all along. But the EU have to do something and that really puts Leo on a spot.



It _is_ all bogus along with the feigned backstop outrage. It is just an excuse to reject the withdrawal agreement.

The backstop cannot be considered in isolation.

If the UK crashes out, how would it replace the current 46% of its trade with the EU plus the percentage of its trade with non-EU countries negotiated by EU trade deals?

It is not a case of putting it up to the EU or Ireland.

The UK _has_ to negotiate with the EU and it will not be easy.

Current UK posturing is just howling at the moon. How it handles EU withdrawal, including Northern Ireland issues, directly affects its future relations with the EU.

The EU with its power to block trade deals with any of its member states has the upper hand. Negotiations could last several years. In the meantime, loss of trade will begin to bite in all parts of the UK.

It is interesting to note that according to this briefing paper:

“Wales, followed by Northern Ireland and the North East of England had the highest percentage of goods exports going to the EU of all the countries and regions in the UK in 2018. The East of England followed by Northern Ireland had the joint highest proportion of goods imports from the EU.”

Of course, another point is that the UK will in future be a competitor with the EU for trade with non-EU countries. The UK is hardly in a position to negotiate the better trade deals.


----------



## Laughahalla (26 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The British are renowned for their commitment to social justice and rights.  They fought two horrendous wars against those on the continent who brutally suppressed human rights.



*Really?*

Slave trade
Irish Famine (Genocide by today's definition)
Partition of Ireland under threat of war
Boer concentration camps
Amritsar massacre
Partitioning of India
Mau Mau Uprising
Famines in India
Hooded Men
Birmingham six

I'm sure there is plenty more too. The first world came about because of alliances, imperialism, militarism and nationalism.  Nothing to do with human rights. WW2 came about because of WW1.


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Aug 2019)

There is a litany of people, republican and loyalist, Catholic and Protestant, Irish and British, trying to find out the truth of what happened to their loved ones during the conflict.
The British state is actively suppressing, delaying, obsfucating in releasing details to those families.
It only took the families of Bloody Sunday forty years to get the truth out. In the meantime, the families of;

Loughinisland
Greysteel
Birmingham
Omagh
Aiden McAnespie
Billy Wright
Miami Showband
Dublin/Monaghan
...and countless others.

all waiting for the truth to be outed, and to know what did agents of the British state know before, and after, the killings of their loved ones.

Putting human rights on paper through legislation is one thing, acting upon those rights is another.

There is no way the nationalist communities in the North would accept the British Supreme Court as a final arbitrator.


----------



## Purple (26 Aug 2019)

Laughahalla said:


> *Really?*
> 
> Slave trade
> Irish Famine (Genocide by today's definition)
> ...



Don't forget Hillsborough and the cover up after that as well.
Then there's their record of suppressing democracy in their former colonies and installing puppet regimes which are "friendly" to British economic interests. Of course they are far from alone in that but I certainly wouldn't put them up on a pedestal.

Not many countries started wars so that their drug traffickers could continue to sell their poison. The Opium Wars fought by the UK (and aided by France in the second war) saw China's GDP cut in half. Before then it had the biggest economy in the world, as had been the case for hundreds of years, and a large trade surplus with the West. They didn't recover for over a hundred years.

Their record in India is utterly appalling and more recently in the Middle East they fought some of those wars to protect dictators and suppress democracy.


----------



## Early Riser (26 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> Don't forget Hillsborough and the cover up after that as well.
> Then there's their record of suppressing democracy in their former colonies and installing puppet regimes which are "friendly" to British economic interests. Of course they are far from alone in that but I certainly wouldn't put them up on a pedestal.
> 
> Not many countries started wars so that their drug traffickers could continue to sell their poison. The Opium Wars fought by the UK (and aided by France in the second war) saw China's GDP cut in half. Before then it had the biggest economy in the world, as had been the case for hundreds of years, and a large trade surplus with the West. They didn't recover for over a hundred years.
> ...



Yeah - but they have been great for us here. Apart from dispossessing us, colonising us, disbarring us from owning property or practicing the professions, presiding over the famine, partitioning us (and a few other things) they have been very good really. I think we can trust them.


----------



## Sunny (26 Aug 2019)

I feel a Life Of Brian 'What did the Brits ever do for us?' moment coming on...………………


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Aug 2019)

These are very cheap shots. I would be further exacerbating my falling into the trap of Godwin's Law to give examples of astronomically greater atrocities committed in continental Europe.
If folk here are so narrow minded that they do not recognise Britain's worldwide reputation for promoting human rights and democratic principles, well what can I say?  Even the founders of this State who had to fight Britain to get independence had the sense to more or less follow the British model in establishing our democracy.
I cannot believe that anybody seriously thinks the basic rights of folk in Britain will be worse under Brexit.  Ok, JC riffs on a bit about workers' rights but by and large Remoaners have made no issue about the threat to rights.


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Aug 2019)

Purple said:


> Don't forget Hillsborough



Very true. Speaking of which.

*Link has gone behind a firewall. But basically the jist of it is that scousers are less euro sceptic, and the 'Dont buy The Scum' campaign is a significant factor. 
Sales went from 55,000 daily to 12,000 after Hillsborough.


----------



## Sophrosyne (26 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> If folk here are so narrow minded that they do not recognise Britain's worldwide reputation for promoting human rights and democratic principles, well what can I say?





Duke of Marmalade said:


> I remember the civil rights movement in NI. The banners shouted One Man One Vote. The burning issues were discrimination in housing, in public sector appointments, protestant domination of the main industries, a sectarian police force.



Promotion of human rights and democratic principles as applied to its citizens in Northern Ireland?


----------



## Purple (26 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> These are very cheap shots.


 No, they are the truth.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> If folk here are so narrow minded that they do not recognise Britain's worldwide reputation for promoting human rights and democratic principles, well what can I say?


 I'll say that you, and the rest of us, have a very anglocentric view of the world and the Brits are great self publicists. (just like the Irish)
I'll say that every colonial power built their colonies on blood, suffering, oppression and exploitation and the British are no better than anyone else.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> Even the founders of this State who had to fight Britain to get independence had the sense to more or less follow the British model in establishing our democracy.


 Yep, that great paragon of liberalism and tolerance, Cromwell, gave the world Parliamentary democracy. I think we followed the UK model and stayed in the Commonwealth because Dev thought it would make a united Ireland more likely. That idiot John A. Costello, in an attempt to wash some green into his blue shirt, pulled us out in 1949.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> I cannot believe that anybody seriously thinks the basic rights of folk in Britain will be worse under Brexit.


 Well I'm thinking specifically about Nationalists in Northern Ireland under a DUP lead devolved government, with no recourse to the ECJ.


----------



## Sunny (26 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> These are very cheap shots. I would be further exacerbating my falling into the trap of Godwin's Law to give examples of astronomically greater atrocities committed in continental Europe.
> If folk here are so narrow minded that they do not recognise Britain's worldwide reputation for promoting human rights and democratic principles, well what can I say?  Even the founders of this State who had to fight Britain to get independence had the sense to more or less follow the British model in establishing our democracy.
> I cannot believe that anybody seriously thinks the basic rights of folk in Britain will be worse under Brexit.  Ok, JC riffs on a bit about workers' rights but by and large Remoaners have made no issue about the threat to rights.



You are fond of your labels for people! Referring to people as remoaners belongs in the comments section of the daily mail.


----------



## Opus2018 (26 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> These are very cheap shots. I would be further exacerbating my falling into the trap of Godwin's Law to give examples of astronomically greater atrocities committed in continental Europe.
> If folk here are so narrow minded that they do not recognise Britain's worldwide reputation for promoting human rights and democratic principles, well what can I say?  Even the founders of this State who had to fight Britain to get independence had the sense to more or less follow the British model in establishing our democracy.
> I cannot believe that anybody seriously thinks the basic rights of folk like us worse under Brexit.  Ok, JC riffs on a bit about workers' rights but by and large Remoaners have made no issue about the threat to rights.



I have been following this thread for  while, and I have been getting increasingly angry with your condescending posts - it appears you would have us leave the EU along with the UK.  In other news the UK is great and are above reproach in your world view, which if you truly believe, I would worry about your general grasp on reality to be quite frank with you. 

To be honest, I think you should reflect on the crassness of your posts and think before you post again on this issue - at this stage you sound like an angry Colonel Blimp character which perfectly reflects the crassness of a Daily Mail or Daily Telegraph editorial.  All you need to add in is two world wars an and one world cup - at this stage you are a sad joke and an apologist for the UK.  Clearly, you don't appear to be happy in Ireland, perhaps you should consider leaving for the sunny uplands of Albion - which will be available on Nov 1, 2019 apparently.

In relation to Brexit, I say let them leave - we will be better off without the UK in the long run.  Another theme is that the UK feels that the EU needs them more than the UK - oh boy, will that be shown up as being WRONG! (Operation Yellowhammer -which is so out of date, Philip Hammond has said that it was compiled since the blonde moron has come to power).

Does Ireland have many failings? we sure do but our best strength is that we can adapt, the history of the UK in relation to this attribute has been very poor for the last few generations.  

I feel sorry for people in the UK who voted remain, I really do.  But to think the EU should facilitate the crass stupidity of 17.4 million people by allowing them the advantages of the single market without any of the responsibilities is frankly delusional.  If you believe the story wrought by Farage and his ilk, you must be a very silly man or if you seek it for your own advantage, then your posts take on a darker tone. 

Either way, you have zero credibility with regards to me and hopefully anyone else who has followed this thread. To be honest, you should hang your head in shame with the pure rubbish that you've posted here.  Hopefully the mods will put this thread out of its' misery and reflect on the "quality" of your postings.

Best regards,

Opus2018.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Aug 2019)

Sophrosyne said:


> Promotion of human rights and democratic principles as applied to its citizens in Northern Ireland?


Fair point _Soph_.  But I am looking for some sense of proportion here.  _Purple _gave us a link to a long article by Tony Connelly on rights, GFA and Brexit.  I saw only two examples cited of possible abuses of rights under Brexit.  The first was the possibility that in future to claim widow's pension you might actually need to be a widow.  This would affect all UK citizens but strangely has not arisen as a concern in their debate.  The second abuse of rights which would only apply to Northern nationalists is that they would be denied an MEP.  Note that this outrage would be perpetrated by the EU not by the evil Brits.  Any Northern nationalist who claims oppressed by this denial of an MEP has either a persecution complex or a nostalgia for the bad old days when she wallowed in her victim status on the world stage.


----------



## Early Riser (26 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> . I saw only two examples cited of possible abuses of rights under Brexit.



Here is another one, Duke: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ire...-finger-on-a-bizarre-brexit-anomaly-1.3795544

But there is a more general issue than listing individual examples. Given the history of NI it would be a bit naive to expect to "trust Britain" to protect human rights there post Brexit. I think access to the ECJ would be more reasssuring. There is also the concern that the same wing of the Tories who pushed Brexit have also been pushing for the UK to renounce the European Convention on Human Rights and leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Aug 2019)

Opus2018 said:


> I have been following this thread for  while, and I have been getting increasingly angry with your condescending posts - it appears you would have us leave the EU along with the UK.  In other news the UK is great and are above reproach in your world view, which if you truly believe, I would worry about your general grasp on reality to be quite frank with you.
> 
> To be honest, I think you should reflect on the crassness of your posts and think before you post again on this issue - at this stage you sound like an angry Colonel Blimp character which perfectly reflects the crassness of a Daily Mail or Daily Telegraph editorial.  All you need to add in is two world wars an and one world cup - at this stage you are a sad joke and an apologist for the UK.  Clearly, you don't appear to be happy in Ireland, perhaps you should consider leaving for the sunny uplands of Albion - which will be available on Nov 1, 2019 apparently.
> 
> ...


Chill out woman!
Mods I hope you do not close this debate.  It has been a useful airing of the many complexities of a very important imminent event for Ireland even if there are those who do want to hear any narrative alternative to their own.


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Aug 2019)

Well I for one would not wish this discussion to descend into some rudderless Brit bashing exercise. So for the record, I am an admirer of many things British. Mainly, its people. I have spent quite some time in Britain, mostly England, a while in Scotland, a short time in Wales. 
Edinburgh has been one of favourite cities to visit anywhere in the world despite experiencing some anti-Irish verbals (I put it down to Hearts v Hibs earlier in the day). 
As a life-long Liverpool FC fan, if I ever win the lotto, a season ticket in Anfield hospitality is a priority. London is a city that never lets me down. Cities such as York and Canterbury should not missed. Olde England is a truly wonderful sight. 
The humor, the generosity, the candour. 
Britain, its people, have much to be proud of, rightly so. Arts, culture, science and technology, Britain has been a leading innovator in generating higher standards of living across the world, and in adopting and setting principles of democracy and equality. 

None of that negates the subjugation, tyranny, oppression by its government and armed forces. In Ireland or elsewhere.

But we dont have to travel to far to know that governments (even 'democratic' ones) are prone to marginalizing, discrimination, incarceration of its own people. The Mother and Babies scandal (too light a word) is a shameful and despicable episode in our recent history. 
And while we cheerlead ourselves on the back for the liberalization of marriage for same sex couples, we would be minded to note that homosexuality as an offence was only repealed mid-1990's. An estimated 150 men, were convicted of this 'crime'. Not to mention the untold numbers who were blatantly discriminated against destroying their careers, shunning them from society. 

So back to Brexit and GFA. I have said it several times, Ireland's interests in the United Kingdom has always been, and is today, a distant second from Britains interests in the UK. 

Brexit has brought this fact to the surface once again. 

The existence of NI is out of threat of violence, and usurpation of democracy. In the last UK census, only 29% identify themselves as Northern Irish. 
This is not a nation. It was, ironically, a backstop for Unionists, back in 1921. 
It is a failed state in my opinion. Propped up by British financing, it has never established itself in any real way as a nation in itself that constitutes a nation of people. 
Its existence has two objectives. First is honourable - remain loyal to its monarch. 
Second is sinister - not to accept that the future of this island on a shared equal basis. 

The GFA is not a settlement. It offers the best prospect of a long-term settlement, albeit there are so many cracks showing now. 
At its gut, it the realization that British people in NI could live as being British without dilution of their identity. And Irish people could live as Irish people with all the aspirations, or none, of uniting the people of the country harmoniously over the future generations. 

Brexit, and Brexiteers, have thrown a spanner in all of that. No regard to Britains obligations under the GFA or to any possible consequences in Ireland was considered before the referendum. 

Ireland's interests are a distant second to Britains interests in the United Kingdom. 

I want Britain to leave EU, last March in fact. That is their right and entitlement. But it has obligations to Ireland and its people. The whole DUP argument is predicated on a notion that UK laws applicable to Britain cannot diverge from laws applicable to NI - bogus, a hoax! 
The NI only backstop is a trade arrangement that protects the integrity of the GFA. 
There is no border in the Irish sea. People travelling on UK passport from Belfast to Britain will not be subject to any checks. Goods manufactured in NI, labelled "made in UK" will not be subjected to tariffs in Britain. 

The crux of this issue is, once again, Ulster Unionisms refusal to reach out the hand and accept that this island is for us all to live, and prosper.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Aug 2019)

Wow _wolfie_ that excellent post is nearly enough to close this debate. Well done.


----------

