A101 wrote:

Well its not a decision I take lightly and it does have serious implications and sets a dangerous precedent.

Firstly I don't think he will do it,
Secondly parliament voted to invoke A50 and knew the default position, if you don't like the default potential outcome then they should not have invoked
Thirdly it gives the PM some breathing space to actually go to Brussels to see if they will renegotiate the WA with out the noise of parliament jettisoning no deal,

Fourthly you wanted someone and parliament to make a stand and he's doing it and we will see a result one way or another.

Do I agree with how the process has reached this point, no I don't. Do I think its a necessary evil yes, the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU Parliament also voted to leave the EU, what ever the outcome we will leave with an agreement or not

If you filter down all your argumentation it boils down to, yes I am willing to give up democracy to enforce Brexit. Don't flatter yourself with given all kinds of reasons, that is your point of view.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

You have no idea why I said yes, but continue on your little rant

So, mister, perhaps you want to enlighten us? Why did you say YES to suspending democracy to have your little Brexit.

Well its not a decision I take lightly and it does have serious implications and sets a dangerous precedent.

Firstly I don't think he will do it,
Secondly parliament voted to invoke A50 and knew the default position, if you don't like the default potential outcome then they should not have invoked
Thirdly it gives the PM some breathing space to actually go to Brussels to see if they will renegotiate the WA with out the noise of parliament jettisoning no deal,

Fourthly you wanted someone and parliament to make a stand and he's doing it and we will see a result one way or another.

With your second point, Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 in good faith that the government would negotiate a deal that would be acceptable to all. If it's clear the government negotiated a bad deal or it's clear that it's unworkable, or even rejected the WA multiple times, Parliament also has the right (and should) to intervene and set a new course. It also shows that both the government and Parliament should have thought this through and agreed upon what they want from the offset before triggering Article 50. Instead, we had soundbites such as "Brexit means Brexit", various interpretations being bandied around and time wasted by calling an election at both general and Conservative party levels.

That the WA has been rejected multiple times, no common consensus can be found besides a very narrow defeat for remaining in the customs union and no appetite for no deal suggests to me that nobody really knows what they want. It does not mean that Brexit must happen at any cost and especially by the end of October.

Remember, Parliament also has the right to immediately call for a vote of no confidence in the new PM and Johnson may not be in power for long if he pursues a no-deal Brexit or attempts to prorogue Parliament to achieve that. It's also not guaranteed that all Tory MP's will immediately fall in line and back the new PM in a snap VNC, particularly those who are not only prepared to vote against no deal but are also prepared to place a no confidence vote in order to stop no deal.

With your third point, that's academic because the EU have made it clear the WA will not be re-opened. The sooner some accept this, the sooner everyone can get on with it and work towards agreeing upon something that ensures parts of the WA that's a bone of contention for some such as the Irish backstop needn't be required. If people can't live with the backstop then at that point the penny should drop that Brexit at this time is unworkable and shouldn't be pursued.

A101 wrote:

Firstly I don't think he will do it,
Secondly parliament voted to invoke A50 and knew the default position, if you don't like the default potential outcome then they should not have invoked
Thirdly it gives the PM some breathing space to actually go to Brussels to see if they will renegotiate the WA with out the noise of parliament jettisoning no deal,
Fourthly you wanted someone and parliament to make a stand and he's doing it and we will see a result one way or another.

Firstly, I don't think he'll be allowed to do it by Parliament, given what a bomb under the British Constitution this would mean.
Secondly, it's the leave camp which has been frustrating the outcome: pro-remain MPs have largely honoured the referendum result and voted in accordance to it and against their own belief, it's the leave camp which keeps on asking for ever more 'freedom' than what was only asked for during their campaign, mainly because they sense they can get far more than they had ever hoped for by never agreeing to anything which is the fruit of compromise.
Thirdly, that is just window dressing: there's no time to renegotiate the WA given BoJo's 'do or die' by October 31st deadline, even should there be any sort of a desire in Brussels, so this is just an excuse really to prorogue 'on good grounds'.
Fourtly, so you basically gamble?

Boeing74741R wrote:

That the WA has been rejected multiple times, no common consensus can be found besides a very narrow defeat for remaining in the customs union and no appetite for no deal suggests to me that nobody really knows what they want. It does not mean that Brexit must happen at any cost and especially by the end of October.

Parliament is entitled to change its view at any time it wishes in a democracy: proroguing it prevens it from doing so.
So far Parliament hasn't dared to do so because it fears the outcry from it's failure to translate a simple and binary direct democratic process into a more detailed and workable representative process, but at some point in time it's going to have to come to terms with the idea that you can not possibly just deliver upon conflicting Brexit promisses and they will have to make a choice on behalf of the people they represent which of them was most important. .or revert it back to the people to decide.
It seems to me that those advocating proroguing Parliament simply fear exactly this, as they are unsure what the outcome of it might be.
The will of the people musn't be too defined or too recent, for it to be useful, it seems.

Boeing74741R wrote:

With your third point, that's academic because the EU have made it clear the WA will not be re-opened. The sooner some accept this, the sooner everyone can get on with it and work towards agreeing upon something that ensures parts of the WA that's a bone of contention for some such as the Irish backstop needn't be required. If people can't live with the backstop then at that point the penny should drop that Brexit at this time is unworkable and shouldn't be pursued.

It's ironic for those against to WA to ask the EU to open up trade negotiations as a way to avoid signing up to the WA, knowing the FTA will have to build upon and thus start from the provisions of the WA! Being against the provisions in the WA is the same as being against a FTA with the EU in fact...
And that is indeed the whole point which is so far not mentioned at all:
Brexit is being played by a very wealthy Tory elite to turn the UK into a completely deregulated country to the image of the USA, something very few ordinary people in Britain want to see happen. In this context it is interesting how an internal leak from within the Tory government was deliberately set up to get rid of the British ambassador to the US, so he can be replaced by somebody who's going to be very helpful I'm sure in persuing an agenda to bring the UK and the US much closer... you can bet the NHS, worker rights as well as food and environmental standards are going to be on the menu pretty soon. Britain is going to be turned into the 51st state of the USofA, economically, if they get their way.

Dutchy wrote:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/labour-backs-remain-against-no-102559724.html

There you have it, suspend democracy itself to force a no-deal Brexit, force Britain in a constitutional crisis. Brexitremist. Quite bizarre, whom could have thought that Brexitremist will go so far to force their view on the British.

So simple question for our Brexitremist, would you support such a move? It is a yes or no question. Don't expect KLDC10, A101 and noviorbis77 and others to give a straight-up answer though.

Since you have mentioned me by name, I would have reservations about doing so. It really is the "nuclear option" and should not be deployed lightly - not least because it risks dragging Her Majesty into a political maelstrom. I would not oppose such a move, but I would only support it if I were absolutely, categorically sure that all other reasonable options had been exhausted. For that matter, I don't think that this is a decision Boris Johnson would take lightly either - in fact, it seems to me that he would be incredibly averse to doing so, but is quite reasonably refusing to rule anything out.

That said, I would contest the notion that doing so would force Britain into a constitutional crisis. Constitutionally-speaking, prorogation of Parliament is solely within the gift of Her Majesty and the process is very clearly defined in law. Doing so would not be illegal or unconstitutional at all - don't forget that Parliament derives its authority not from the people, but from the Crown. That is also why Parliament may not sit or pass laws without the Royal Mace being present in the chamber; it represents the Monarch's ultimate authority over proceedings. The risk is of the appearance of the Queen becoming involved in what is, politically, a hot potato, rather than a constitutional crisis per se.

KLDC10 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/labour-backs-remain-against-no-102559724.html

There you have it, suspend democracy itself to force a no-deal Brexit, force Britain in a constitutional crisis. Brexitremist. Quite bizarre, whom could have thought that Brexitremist will go so far to force their view on the British.

So simple question for our Brexitremist, would you support such a move? It is a yes or no question. Don't expect KLDC10, A101 and noviorbis77 and others to give a straight-up answer though.

Since you have mentioned me by name, I would have reservations about doing so. It really is the "nuclear option" and should not be deployed lightly - not least because it risks dragging Her Majesty into a political maelstrom. I would not oppose such a move, but I would only support it if I were absolutely, categorically sure that all other reasonable options had been exhausted. For that matter, I don't think that this is a decision Boris Johnson would take lightly either - in fact, it seems to me that he would be incredibly averse to doing so, but is quite reasonably refusing to rule anything out.

That said, I would contest the notion that doing so would force Britain into a constitutional crisis. Constitutionally-speaking, prorogation of Parliament is solely within the gift of Her Majesty and the process is very clearly defined in law. Doing so would not be illegal or unconstitutional at all - don't forget that Parliament derives its authority not from the people, but from the Crown. That is also why Parliament may not sit or pass laws without the Royal Mace being present in the chamber; it represents the Monarch's ultimate authority over proceedings. The risk is of the appearance of the Queen becoming involved in what is, politically, a hot potato, rather than a constitutional crisis per se.

You use a lot of words, but if you go to the core, you say yes, I would suspend democracy itself to force Brexit through.

We are talking about this because it, cause we are there: the last resort. Forcing the Queen making such a decision, that is like going back centuries. You are asking the Queen to make a highly political decision, thus routing at the core of constitutional democracy. What is a constitutional crisis, if this isn't one? Although the UK doesn't have a constitution perse.

The notion that the EU will negotiate a negotiated deal is foolish especially the deadline Johnson imposed on himself. The withdraw agreement itself will not be negotiated, the EU is on record saying that the non-binding political statement can. The WA will not be passed by the House of Commons, Theresa May could not do it in 3 attempts, on the EU side, it has been passed by 26 countries. In real terms, there is only October to make such a deal, since Johnson needs to prove himself, he will not be able to give in, politically.

Still remarkable that the remaining EU members are more aligned than a single Parliament.

Dutchy wrote:

You use a lot of words, but if you go to the core, you say yes, I would suspend democracy itself to force Brexit through.

We are talking about this because it, cause we are there: the last resort. Forcing the Queen making such a decision, that is like going back centuries. You are asking the Queen to make a highly political decision, thus routing at the core of constitutional democracy. What is a constitutional crisis, if this isn't one? Although the UK doesn't have a constitution perse.

The notion that the EU will negotiate a negotiated deal is foolish especially the deadline Johnson imposed on himself. The withdraw agreement itself will not be negotiated, the EU is on record saying that the non-binding political statement can. The WA will not be passed by the House of Commons, Theresa May could not do it in 3 attempts, on the EU side, it has been passed by 26 countries. In real terms, there is only October to make such a deal, since Johnson needs to prove himself, he will not be able to give in, politically.

Still remarkable that the remaining EU members are more aligned than a single Parliament.

Yes I used a lot of words. It's a complex subject which requires considered thought. You usually complain that answers from Brexiteers here are too simplistic.

It wouldn't quite be forcing the Queen to make a decision. She usually only acts on the advice of her Prime Minister, so it would be the Prime Minister's decision, but only she can actually do the prorogation. It isn't a Constitutional Crisis because the procedure for doing so already exists and is quite clearly defined. Actually, a Constitutional Crisis would only occur if the Queen were to refuse the Prime Minister's request, because that would place the Monarch in direct conflict with her own Government.

We need a deadline in order to eliminate uncertainty. Businesses should therefore prepare for the eventuality that we leave on October 31 with No Deal, in the knowledge that we will be out one way or another on November 1.

Obviously, we do not want the WA. It is a needlessly punitive treaty and has been thoroughly rejected by all sides.

KLDC10 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

You use a lot of words, but if you go to the core, you say yes, I would suspend democracy itself to force Brexit through.

We are talking about this because it, cause we are there: the last resort. Forcing the Queen making such a decision, that is like going back centuries. You are asking the Queen to make a highly political decision, thus routing at the core of constitutional democracy. What is a constitutional crisis, if this isn't one? Although the UK doesn't have a constitution perse.

The notion that the EU will negotiate a negotiated deal is foolish especially the deadline Johnson imposed on himself. The withdraw agreement itself will not be negotiated, the EU is on record saying that the non-binding political statement can. The WA will not be passed by the House of Commons, Theresa May could not do it in 3 attempts, on the EU side, it has been passed by 26 countries. In real terms, there is only October to make such a deal, since Johnson needs to prove himself, he will not be able to give in, politically.

Still remarkable that the remaining EU members are more aligned than a single Parliament.

Yes I used a lot of words. It's a complex subject which requires considered thought. You usually complain that answers from Brexiteers here are too simplistic.

It wouldn't quite be forcing the Queen to make a decision. She usually only acts on the advice of her Prime Minister, so it would be the Prime Minister's decision, but only she can actually do the prorogation. It isn't a Constitutional Crisis because the procedure for doing so already exists and is quite clearly defined. Actually, a Constitutional Crisis would only occur if the Queen were to refuse the Prime Minister's request, because that would place the Monarch in direct conflict with her own Government.

We need a deadline in order to eliminate the uncertainty. Businesses should, therefore, prepare for the eventuality that we leave on October 31 with No Deal, in the knowledge that we will be out one way or another on November 1.

Obviously, we do not want the WA. It is a needlessly punitive treaty and has been thoroughly rejected by all sides.

Because the decision to do this is controversial, it automatically results in a controversial decision by her Majesty, like it or not. In a constitutional democracy, you should never ever put the Crown in such a position.

Anyhow, in the end, it is simple, that's why I put forward a simple question, yes or no. Are you willing to cross the line or not and you are willing to cross the line to have a controversial, to say the least, decision forced upon a majority of the British people: hard Brexit.

If you want to eliminate the uncertainty - which is badly needed, BMW took the decision to leave partly due to Brexit - you could also go the other way and say, if we don't get what we need, we will revoke Article 50. It is as valid as what you are arguing here and you could do it in the same way as enforcing a hard Brexit. And don't bring the "leave=leave" mantra, because you just argued you are ok with suspending democracy.

On a personal note, I am truly shocked that people want to go this far to have a hard Brexit. It truly is extremism at it "finest". The poll taken among Tory members wasn't far off, albeit with N=2 sample.

Boeing74741R wrote:

With your third point, that's academic because the EU have made it clear the WA will not be re-opened. The sooner some accept this, the sooner everyone can get on with it and work towards agreeing upon something that ensures parts of the WA that's a bone of contention for some such as the Irish backstop needn't be required. If people can't live with the backstop then at that point the penny should drop that Brexit at this time is unworkable and shouldn't be pursued.

Help me to understand the points here, the EU has said the WA will not be re-opened, what parts of that will the UK find acceptable when it is an all or nothing?
The parliament gave the choice of Brexit to the people and they do not like the result, to not pursue Brexit because they do not want to is a cope out, all they had to do was to say they think the result was a mistake and vote again, the decisions they have taken in parliament have prolonged and made this worse.
Thankfully, if they go the course of not doing Brexit at this time the only malcontents will be the millions who voted leave, and since there were not well represented before the vote their effect on anything will be minimal.

The new EU Commission President-designate Ursula von der Leyen has today made it clear to the EP she's unwilling to re-open discussions on the WA, regardless who's to be the British PM soon. She is willing to offer more time for the UK and is thus open to yet another extension to allow for a policy shift in London....
The Political Declaration is the ONLY instrument through which changes can still be made, but the WA including the backstop is the only legal fallback option.
In brief: BoJo (or Hunt) can already spare themselves the time and effort to try to renegotiate the WA with the new EU Commission.

KLDC10 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

You use a lot of words, but if you go to the core, you say yes, I would suspend democracy itself to force Brexit through.

We are talking about this because it, cause we are there: the last resort. Forcing the Queen making such a decision, that is like going back centuries. You are asking the Queen to make a highly political decision, thus routing at the core of constitutional democracy. What is a constitutional crisis, if this isn't one? Although the UK doesn't have a constitution perse.

The notion that the EU will negotiate a negotiated deal is foolish especially the deadline Johnson imposed on himself. The withdraw agreement itself will not be negotiated, the EU is on record saying that the non-binding political statement can. The WA will not be passed by the House of Commons, Theresa May could not do it in 3 attempts, on the EU side, it has been passed by 26 countries. In real terms, there is only October to make such a deal, since Johnson needs to prove himself, he will not be able to give in, politically.

Still remarkable that the remaining EU members are more aligned than a single Parliament.

Yes I used a lot of words. It's a complex subject which requires considered thought. You usually complain that answers from Brexiteers here are too simplistic.

It wouldn't quite be forcing the Queen to make a decision. She usually only acts on the advice of her Prime Minister, so it would be the Prime Minister's decision, but only she can actually do the prorogation. It isn't a Constitutional Crisis because the procedure for doing so already exists and is quite clearly defined. Actually, a Constitutional Crisis would only occur if the Queen were to refuse the Prime Minister's request, because that would place the Monarch in direct conflict with her own Government.

We need a deadline in order to eliminate uncertainty. Businesses should therefore prepare for the eventuality that we leave on October 31 with No Deal, in the knowledge that we will be out one way or another on November 1.

Obviously, we do not want the WA. It is a needlessly punitive treaty and has been thoroughly rejected by all sides.

Yep you are correct in what you have said, interesting it has happened in 1948 I’ll have to look at the outcome of that one as a guide

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48936711

A101 wrote:

interesting it has happened in 1948 I’ll have to look at the outcome of that one as a guide

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48936711

So? No matter how you twist it, everyone sees you are ok with temporary revoking democracy in order to have your wanted hard Brexit. (and have your bailout card ready)

It is elucidating that the radical Leavers are by now so desperate to avoid actually asking the population for a democratic vote on the complete and utter shambles the Tory party and the DUP have been making of all this that they now even want to force the Queen to suppress even the indirectly democratic decision of Parliament, too!

Why not directly re-introduce outright servitude again so the gentry can have its blissful post-Brexit party life the way they have imagined it all along? That would be pretty much the only thing missing in this absurd theater of extremist insanity!

Boeing74741R wrote:

So essentially the debates between the spitzenkandidates and broadcasted prior to the elections are/were a waste of time and money then given that none of them have been nominated? I say this as someone who's in favour of televised debates, though I accept the arithmetic following the elections made it a less-than-straightforward path.

Conservatives and Socialists have long been able to make the leadership decision just amongst themselves because in previous times they actually had a majority just by themselves.

As usual they presented their head candidates but this time they lost their joint majority, so the liberals and greens are now needed, too, to confirm the new President of the Commission, and they were not satisfied to just meekly join in that agreement just between those two main parties.

That is why Weber ultimately had to step down because he simply couldn't get the support.

Having the two biggest parties just deal this among themselves is no longer good enough, so their hopeful candidate scheme did not survive the voters' actual decision, and here we are.

This is simply what happens in a real democracy where the voters are very much able to serve something completely different from what the politicians had imagined.

I can't speak for other countries so I'm open to being educated, but the problem you have here (and it's something I have mentioned in one of these threads before) is in the UK at least there is a lack of common knowledge over how the process works, what groupings exist and which ones our political parties sit in - all of this is on top of other lack of general knowledge over how the EU works and how the public are enjoying the benefits. Whether this is deliberate misreporting on the media's part or otherwise I don't know,

It was decades of deliberate misreporting – notably pushed and maybe even birthed by none other than Boris Johnson himself when he told his audience the most outrageous lies from his post in Brussels without any shame (immortalized in the enduring concept of "Euromyths" to this day!) – for blatantly anti-democratic motives of tabloid owners such as Rupert Murdoch who always wanted to destroy the EU or at least yank the UK out of it. In conjunction with intimidated, selfish and ruthless UK politicians who eagerly allied themselves with these lies and saw the EU as an easy scapegoat for absolutely everything they themselves ever screwed up for their own country – the tabloids always had their backs on this and covered the politicians' lies with their own, and in return the tabloids always had the politicians under their thumb and could destroy them at will.

but the reality here is that the more clued up ones are generally those who have taken the time to do their own research. I'm convinced if there was more public knowledge about the positives and more efforts made to increase engagement, the result 3 years ago would be different.

For sure. Wanting to leave and not having the slightest clue of what the EU even is and how it actually works have a remarkable correlation.

If you think the current system is fine and nothing needs changing, that's your prerogative. However, don't be surprised if others criticise the overlooking of the spitzenkandidates if it happens again.

The voters can hardly insist on the two main parties' head candidates when they then turn around and not vote for exactly those two main parties, thus leaving these two candidates stranded!

You'll upset Corbynista's by claiming their policies are ugly.

By now even the most hard core Corbynista wouldn't protest that very much.

So basically Labour are now remain for as long as they are in opposition (because it's the opposite to what the Tories want to do), but will switch back to leave if they somehow get into power because they think that a Brexit on their own terms is better. I can't help but think this is a short-term, populist stance because of the support they've haemorraghed to the likes of the Lib Dems and the Greens who are clear for what they stand for on Brexit and because the trade unions are now telling Labour to align with their stance of second referendum and remain, as well as the likes of McDonnell and Watson constantly going public about the need to switch to second referendum and remain (McDonnell in particular because I don't think the Corbyn cult will go as far as attempting to deselect Corbyn's closest ally because he's dancing to a different tune on Brexit, plus Watson as Deputy Leader has his own mandate so can't be deposed easily).

I think it's mostly not wanting to be seen directly throwing the Leavers overboard but in the end still doing exactly that since trying to appease them would be hopeless anyway.

If by a miracle Corbyn was PM tomorrow, of course he'd go to Brussels to see what could be done, but even with his red lines very different from Theresa May's I don't see a much of a chance of a perfect WA with great Commons support coming out of that, so in all likelihood he'd then say "Oh well, at least we tried, but as things stand we'll now recommend Remain in the coming referendum".

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

interesting it has happened in 1948 I’ll have to look at the outcome of that one as a guide

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48936711

So? No matter how you twist it, everyone sees you are ok with temporary revoking democracy in order to have your wanted hard Brexit. (and have your bailout card ready)

Yes if it finally puts the issue to bed.

As has been pointed out to you it’s constitutionally viable. So far we have had Parliament legislate a referendum in which the electorate voted to leave, Parliament voted to invoke based on the results of the referenda,parliament refused to ratify the withdrawal agreement

Parliament cannot make or change and international treaty but it can refuse to ratify it indefinitely, parliament has said that they do not want to leave without a deal but at the same time do not want to accept the deal on the table as it’s a bad deal for the United Kingdom, Parliament also lost a vote on revoking article 50 the EU has continually said that they will not reopen negotiations for the withdrawal agreement the country and Parliament cannot continually ask for extensions with no hope of resolving the matter, by prorouging parliament this issue will be put to bed once and for all and the country can move forward with or without the EU

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

interesting it has happened in 1948 I’ll have to look at the outcome of that one as a guide

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48936711

So? No matter how you twist it, everyone sees you are ok with temporary revoking democracy in order to have your wanted hard Brexit. (and have your bailout card ready)

Yes if it finally puts the issue to bed.

As has been pointed out to you it’s constitutionally viable. So far we have had Parliament legislate a referendum in which the electorate voted to leave, Parliament voted to invoke based on the results of the referenda,parliament refused to ratify the withdrawal agreement

Parliament cannot make or change and international treaty but it can not ratify indefinitely, parliament has said that they do not want to leave without a deal but at the same time do not want to except the deal on the table as it’s a bad deal for the United Kingdom, Parliament also lost a vote on revoking article 50 the EU has continually said that they will not reopen negotiations for the withdrawal agreement the country and Parliament cannot continually ask for extensions with no hope of resolving the matter, by prorouging parliament this issue will be put to bed once and for all and the country can move forward with or without the EU

So you would be ok with proroguing and the next PM would hypothetical revoke Article 50?

A101 wrote:

Yes if it finally puts the issue to bed.

So democracy is a very fluid concept for you. Why am I not surprised.

Dutchy wrote:

So you would be ok with proroguing and the next PM would hypothetical revoke Article 50?

Irrelevant suggestion. A parliamentary vote is required to trigger or revoke Article 50. The only reason a future PM could prorogue Parliament and see us exit the European Union on October 31 is because the legislation therefor already exists and has been enshrined in law.

Klaus wrote:

This is simply what happens in a real democracy where the voters are very much able to serve something completely different from what the politicians had imagined.

Nonsense. The decisions to nominate Von der Leyen, Michel and Lagarde were made by politicians behind closed doors. Their appointments were not the product of a democratic process or the will of voters.

Klaus wrote:

It was decades of deliberate misreporting – notably pushed and maybe even birthed by none other than Boris Johnson himself when he told his audience the most outrageous lies from his post in Brussels without any shame (immortalized in the enduring concept of "Euromyths" to this day!) – for blatantly anti-democratic motives of tabloid owners such as Rupert Murdoch who always wanted to destroy the EU or at least yank the UK out of it. In conjunction with intimidated, selfish and ruthless UK politicians who eagerly allied themselves with these lies and saw the EU as an easy scapegoat for absolutely everything they themselves ever screwed up for their own country – the tabloids always had their backs on this and covered the politicians' lies with their own, and in return the tabloids always had the politicians under their thumb and could destroy them at will.

Again, nonsense. For many years, the British press was the only press in Europe to report accurately on the nature of the European Union and the direction of travel towards Federal Union.

Taking back control and giving it to the Eton boys. Great plan.

KLDC10 wrote:

Again, nonsense. For many years, the British press was the only press in Europe to report accurately on the nature of the European Union and the direction of travel towards Federal Union.

That's quite a statement. Do you actually have any experience or evidence to actually back that up, like say having been involved in the politics and having read extensively both British and foreign press during that period, or are you - as I strongly suspect - just pulling that out of your arse...?

KLDC10 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

This is simply what happens in a real democracy where the voters are very much able to serve something completely different from what the politicians had imagined.

Nonsense. The decisions to nominate Von der Leyen, Michel and Lagarde were made by politicians behind closed doors. Their appointments were not the product of a democratic process or the will of voters.

The nominations were decided by all the democratically elected leaders of the 28 member countries sitting together and jointly choosing a nominee.

I have massive reservations about von der Leyen as a candidate, but the process of being nominated by democratically elected leaders legitimately representing half a billion citizens is as close to being as democratic as it gets, only further increased by then actually getting elected by the directly elected MEPs in the European Parliament – if she can actually convince them, that is.

You have no leg to stand on in this.

Again, nonsense. For many years, the British press was the only press in Europe to report accurately on the nature of the European Union and the direction of travel towards Federal Union.

You've clearly lived in a completely different universe for the last 40 years (and beyond). Or rather, you've swallowed all those lies hook, line and sinker and you're now viewing it all from your serving platter, appetizingly draped with lemon slices, just not for your benefit, exactly.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So? No matter how you twist it, everyone sees you are ok with temporary revoking democracy in order to have your wanted hard Brexit. (and have your bailout card ready)

Yes if it finally puts the issue to bed.

As has been pointed out to you it’s constitutionally viable. So far we have had Parliament legislate a referendum in which the electorate voted to leave, Parliament voted to invoke based on the results of the referenda,parliament refused to ratify the withdrawal agreement

Parliament cannot make or change and international treaty but it can not ratify indefinitely, parliament has said that they do not want to leave without a deal but at the same time do not want to except the deal on the table as it’s a bad deal for the United Kingdom, Parliament also lost a vote on revoking article 50 the EU has continually said that they will not reopen negotiations for the withdrawal agreement the country and Parliament cannot continually ask for extensions with no hope of resolving the matter, by prorouging parliament this issue will be put to bed once and for all and the country can move forward with or without the EU

So you would be ok with proroguing and the next PM would hypothetical revoke Article 50?

Members of Parliament voted by 184 to 293 against a motion brought forward by the Scottish National Party to make revoking Article 50 the "default" position if the Commons fails to ratify a deal

Well so much for the red hearing that a hard border needs to be put in place, after all it is known quantity what is manufactured in NI and checks can and do happen when goods or livestock land within the confines of the island, I said it before that the Irish do not want a hard border, we already have an electronic border this is just an extension to it. it is the EU under Merkel/Macron pushing the agenda, goes to show that the EU is not really looking after interest of the Irish they just see it as a negotiation tactic

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-brit ... SKCN1U41P1

KLDC10 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So you would be ok with proroguing and the next PM would hypothetical revoke Article 50?

Irrelevant suggestion. A parliamentary vote is required to trigger

that we know

or revoke Article 50

that is not settled.

A101 wrote:

Well so much for the red hearing that a hard border needs to be put in place,

Ireland, different than the UK, is just committed to the GFA and willing to bend stuff beyond recognition to keep it intact. They don´t want blood on their hands. It is still a hard border, just without targets to shot at.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

Again, nonsense. For many years, the British press was the only press in Europe to report accurately on the nature of the European Union and the direction of travel towards Federal Union.

That's quite a statement. Do you actually have any experience or evidence to actually back that up, like say having been involved in the politics and having read extensively both British and foreign press during that period, or are you - as I strongly suspect - just pulling that out of your arse...?

Its hogwash. There still isn´t a single UK media outlet other than those with a clear editorial preference to remain that depicts the workings of the EU accurately even today.They repeat BoJo and his ilk of wannebe dictators lies without comment.

best regards
Thomas

A101 wrote:

Well so much for the red hearing that a hard border needs to be put in place, after all it is known quantity what is manufactured in NI and checks can and do happen when goods or livestock land within the confines of the island, I said it before that the Irish do not want a hard border, we already have an electronic border this is just an extension to it. it is the EU under Merkel/Macron pushing the agenda, goes to show that the EU is not really looking after interest of the Irish they just see it as a negotiation tactic

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-brit ... SKCN1U41P1

Really? Do you even read the articles you post? You and your own interpretations of things, we just need to check everything you say because most of it is, how to put it kindly, extremely colored? Conclusion: it isn't resolved, far from it, the Irish want to protect the GFA (Brexitremist don't care), and the Irish want to minimize the impact the Brexit and want to stay a full member of the EU.
Just some quotes:

That is why retaining the backstop is “an absolute red line” for Ireland, Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said on Monday.

The Irish government meanwhile released an update to its Brexit contingency plans stating there were no easy answers on how to avoid the need for physical infrastructure on the island of Ireland in case of a disorderly British exit from the EU.

In its updated plans, the government said North-South trade could no longer be as frictionless as it is today in a no-deal Brexit and that any arrangement to minimise the negative consequences would clearly be sub-optimal.

And so on. So it isn't resolved. But what pisses me off is that the Brexitremist put the problem they created on to some other, what else could we expect? They take no responsibility what so ever. "we want this, and whatever the consequences, it is for others to minimize the fallout". It truly is as the mindset of a child.

tommy1808 wrote:

Ireland, different than the UK, is just committed to the GFA and willing to bend stuff beyond recognition to keep it intact. They don´t want blood on their hands. It is still a hard border, just without targets to shot at.

Indeed you just keep telling yourself that.........mmm what was the remainers postion on the border and WTO rules...something about the Hague

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Well so much for the red hearing that a hard border needs to be put in place, after all it is known quantity what is manufactured in NI and checks can and do happen when goods or livestock land within the confines of the island, I said it before that the Irish do not want a hard border, we already have an electronic border this is just an extension to it. it is the EU under Merkel/Macron pushing the agenda, goes to show that the EU is not really looking after interest of the Irish they just see it as a negotiation tactic

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-brit ... SKCN1U41P1

Really? Do you even read the articles you post? You and your own interpretations of things, we just need to check everything you say because most of it is, how to put it kindly, extremely colored? Conclusion: it isn't resolved, far from it, the Irish want to protect the GFA (Brexitremist don't care), and the Irish want to minimize the impact the Brexit and want to stay a full member of the EU.
Just some quotes:

That is why retaining the backstop is “an absolute red line” for Ireland, Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said on Monday.

The Irish government meanwhile released an update to its Brexit contingency plans stating there were no easy answers on how to avoid the need for physical infrastructure on the island of Ireland in case of a disorderly British exit from the EU.

In its updated plans, the government said North-South trade could no longer be as frictionless as it is today in a no-deal Brexit and that any arrangement to minimise the negative consequences would clearly be sub-optimal.

And so on. So it isn't resolved. But what pisses me off is that the Brexitremist put the problem they created on to some other, what else could we expect? They take no responsibility what so ever. "we want this, and whatever the consequences, it is for others to minimize the fallout". It truly is as the mindset of a child.

Really was it not quoted in the article that,

“(But) we are not going to put checks on the border or close to it,” he told reporters in Dublin.

A101 wrote:

Really was it not quoted in the article that,

“(But) we are not going to put checks on the border or close to it,” he told reporters in Dublin.

Like I said:

They take no responsibility what so ever. "we want this, and whatever the consequences, it is for others to minimize the fallout". It truly is as the mindset of a child.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Really was it not quoted in the article that,

“(But) we are not going to put checks on the border or close to it,” he told reporters in Dublin.

Like I said:

They take no responsibility what so ever. "we want this, and whatever the consequences, it is for others to minimize the fallout". It truly is as the mindset of a child.

what’s your point?

That you can’t accept the fact that a nation dared to vote and actually leave your precious union

tommy1808 wrote:

that is not settled.

Anything done by Parliament must be undone by Parliament, in the same way that a PM cannot simply decide unilaterally to strike a law he doesn't like from the books.

Perhaps a PM could try to revoke Article 50 unilaterally, but it would surely be challenged in the courts and would be a much stronger case than trying to sue to prevent the prorogation of Parliament.

tommy1808 wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

Again, nonsense. For many years, the British press was the only press in Europe to report accurately on the nature of the European Union and the direction of travel towards Federal Union.

That's quite a statement. Do you actually have any experience or evidence to actually back that up, like say having been involved in the politics and having read extensively both British and foreign press during that period, or are you - as I strongly suspect - just pulling that out of your arse...?

Its hogwash. There still isn´t a single UK media outlet other than those with a clear editorial preference to remain that depicts the workings of the EU accurately even today.They repeat BoJo and his ilk of wannebe dictators lies without comment.

Of course I know that!

(In no small part because I *HAVE* followed both British media and those of other European countries over the last few decades.)

But that kind of ouright falsehood constantly gets repeated and is the reason people in the UK are so unbelievably stupid when it comes to Europe (there... I said it), so obviously I couldn't leave it unchallenged...

par13del wrote:

Help me to understand the points here, the EU has said the WA will not be re-opened, what parts of that will the UK find acceptable when it is an all or nothing?
The parliament gave the choice of Brexit to the people and they do not like the result, to not pursue Brexit because they do not want to is a cope out, all they had to do was to say they think the result was a mistake and vote again, the decisions they have taken in parliament have prolonged and made this worse.
Thankfully, if they go the course of not doing Brexit at this time the only malcontents will be the millions who voted leave, and since there were not well represented before the vote their effect on anything will be minimal.

Two parts to my response...

Firstly, I wouldn't say the issue is what part(s) of the WA does the UK find acceptable or not (we know the major bone of contention is the Irish backstop). The issue is that some of our politicians do not understand the fact that the WA won't be re-opened and, worryingly, it hasn't dawned on them that by accepting the WA and getting on with negotiating the future relationship, it can act as an incentive to sort out a trade deal more quickly. If they do actually understand then they are lying to those against the WA by leading them up the garden path in the belief it can be changed. Only Rory Stewart got the fact that the WA won't be re-opened, but sadly he was knocked out of the leadership contest.

Surely the more prudent solution (albeit not as prudent as cancelling Brexit altogether) to avoid the need for the backstop is to extend the transition period post-withdrawal until such a time a trade deal is sorted.

To be honest, I also don't understand why some of our politicians fail to realise that sorting out the future relationship and trade deal with the EU should be the first priority over trying to sign FTA's with other countries, especially considering the need to keep the peace in Northern Ireland. Nobody has explained what the bigger prizes are exactly and why they're more important?

Secondly, for politicians to say that Brexit is a mistake would require some to grow a backdone and admit that, plus they will almost certainly have to face an onslaught of opposition from Farage and co who are screaming to leave by any means necessary and stand accused of "betraying democracy" because a vote was done 37 months ago.

Klaus wrote:

If by a miracle Corbyn was PM tomorrow, of course he'd go to Brussels to see what could be done, but even with his red lines very different from Theresa May's I don't see a much of a chance of a perfect WA with great Commons support coming out of that, so in all likelihood he'd then say "Oh well, at least we tried, but as things stand we'll now recommend Remain in the coming referendum".

We shall see. If any sane voter watched the Panorama exposé on BBC One last night about the handling of antisemitism within Labour, they wouldn't contemplate voting for a Corbyn-led government at the next election, though you can bet his cult following are already dismissing it as another "smear" tactic.

KLDC10 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

that is not settled.

Anything done by Parliament must be undone by Parliament, in the same way that a PM cannot simply decide unilaterally to strike a law he doesn't like from the books.

Perhaps a PM could try to revoke Article 50 unilaterally, but it would surely be challenged in the courts and would be a much stronger case than trying to sue to prevent the prorogation of Parliament.

Yes, of course that would be challenged, and with regards to Brexit courts have a tendency to work quickly, but it would need courts to make up their mind.

And didn´t parliament just tell her she *can* invoke Art. 50, but didn´t tell her to do it? One could argue that the PM doesn´t need authorization by parliament because May could just have not invoked it with the same consequence in that case.

best regards
Thomas

Interesting chat about Brittian in the world. To put it mildly, it is in a very specific American bubble, the rest of the world, neh they don't care that much. Whom do you think the American president is calling, right after being elected, not the Prime Minister of the country with the very special relationship, it is Canada, of course it is.

More project fear: Branson warns pound to plummet in no-deal Brexit

What does Branson know.

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Like I said:

what’s your point?

That you can’t accept the fact that a nation dared to vote and actually leave your precious union

I think its point is the failure of UK to deal with externalities of Brexit. Everyone except an awful lot of UK citizen very much accepts UK leaving, what is unacceptable though is the unwillingness to deal with the automatic consequences (Italic, like Klaus like to do ). For example like you are often doing, dismissing their existence or playing with words.

A good read for you on this topic of "Brexternalities"

When pushed on the implications of a no-deal Brexit, Johnson proffered the seemingly innocuous view that the UK would not put in place border controls on the island of Ireland. Yet this leaves Ireland and the EU to manage the externality that the UK has created, and in doing so produces potential problems in securing the integrity of the single market.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/worl ... n-problems

No the UK has been dealing with it, it is the EU that do not want to make it work or collaborate.But now all of a sudden there is no need for infrastructure on the EU side of the border.

All it shows is the complete and utter fallacy of the need for a hard border if one party leaves the EU. It proves that the EU is entirely untrustworthy Institution and Brussels see the GFA and the unique Irish situation to be taken advantage of, and the next PM should just deal with ROI in regards to the border as it should have been from the start as the GFA is a treaty between ROI/UK not the EU

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

what’s your point?

That you can’t accept the fact that a nation dared to vote and actually leave your precious union

I think its point is the failure of UK to deal with externalities of Brexit. Everyone except an awful lot of UK citizen very much accepts UK leaving, what is unacceptable though is the unwillingness to deal with the automatic consequences (Italic, like Klaus like to do ). For example like you are often doing, dismissing their existence or playing with words.

A good read for you on this topic of "Brexternalities"

When pushed on the implications of a no-deal Brexit, Johnson proffered the seemingly innocuous view that the UK would not put in place border controls on the island of Ireland. Yet this leaves Ireland and the EU to manage the externality that the UK has created, and in doing so produces potential problems in securing the integrity of the single market.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/worl ... n-problems

No the UK has been dealing with it, it is the EU that do not want to make it work or collaborate.But now all of a sudden there is no need for infrastructure on the EU side of the border.

All it shows is the complete and utter fallacy of the need for a hard border if one party leaves the EU. It proves that the EU is entirely untrustworthy Institution and Brussels see the GFA and the unique Irish situation to be taken advantage of, and the next PM should just deal with ROI in regards to the border as it should have been from the start as the GFA is a treaty between ROI/UK not the EU

No, like the one reaction you have taken away: you only quote the one you like, there is no solution, far from it. It is an EU outside border, so the EU has some say in it. So you are wrong on all fronts again.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

I think its point is the failure of UK to deal with externalities of Brexit. Everyone except an awful lot of UK citizen very much accepts UK leaving, what is unacceptable though is the unwillingness to deal with the automatic consequences (Italic, like Klaus like to do ). For example like you are often doing, dismissing their existence or playing with words.

A good read for you on this topic of "Brexternalities"

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/worl ... n-problems

No the UK has been dealing with it, it is the EU that do not want to make it work or collaborate.But now all of a sudden there is no need for infrastructure on the EU side of the border.

All it shows is the complete and utter fallacy of the need for a hard border if one party leaves the EU. It proves that the EU is entirely untrustworthy Institution and Brussels see the GFA and the unique Irish situation to be taken advantage of, and the next PM should just deal with ROI in regards to the border as it should have been from the start as the GFA is a treaty between ROI/UK not the EU

No, like the one reaction you have taken away: you only quote the one you like, there is no solution, far from it. It is an EU outside border, so the EU has some say in it. So you are wrong on all fronts again.

Yes you are correct that what happens on the EU side of the border would no longer be off concern to a country leave the institution but due to the unique circumstances of the Irish situation the EU is pushing to enforcement of EU laws onto a non member sovereign territory.

In a hypothetical situation if Scotland became independent and joined the EU would you expect the the UK to also accept EU law on sovereign uk territory because of a land border?

A101 wrote:

Yes you are correct that what happens on the EU side of the border would no longer be off concern to a country leave the institution but due to the unique circumstances of the Irish situation the EU is pushing to enforcement of EU laws onto a non member sovereign territory.

In a hypothetical situation if Scotland became independent would you expect the the UK to also accept EU law on sovereign uk territory because of a land border?

"Thanks" to Brexitremist it isn't a hypothetical situation for Scotland to leave your little union. Anyhow, if you want the border be as it is now, yes both sides needs to have the same regime, not too hard to understand. You know this because you have been told a zillion times. If - and that is a big if - ever there will be a totally electronic way to have 100% control of the border and no good "leaking" to the EU free trade zone, then fine, no hard border.

"no" border --> EU law on both sides.

But like i said before, you are like a child, export your problems and let grown-ups solve it for you, no responsibility for actions.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Yes you are correct that what happens on the EU side of the border would no longer be off concern to a country leave the institution but due to the unique circumstances of the Irish situation the EU is pushing to enforcement of EU laws onto a non member sovereign territory.

In a hypothetical situation if Scotland became independent would you expect the the UK to also accept EU law on sovereign uk territory because of a land border?

"Thanks" to Brexitremist it isn't a hypothetical situation for Scotland to leave your little union. Anyhow, if you want the border be as it is now, yes both sides needs to have the same regime, not too hard to understand. You know this because you have been told a zillion times. If - and that is a big if - ever there will be a totally electronic way to have 100% control of the border and no good "leaking" to the EU free trade zone, then fine, no hard border.

"no" border --> EU law on both sides.

But like i said before, you are like a child, export your problems and let grown-ups solve it for you, no responsibility for actions.

Well why has the ROI came out and said that there will be no hard infrastructure at the border even when the UK leaves without a deal doesn’t go against EU law?

Will Brussels sanction the Irish over the border issue

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Well why has the ROI came out and said that there will be no hard infrastructure at the border even when the UK leaves without a deal doesn’t go against EU law?

Will Brussels sanction the Irish over the border issue

Still trolling I see. They also said it isn't solved yet, in the same article you yourself quoted, don't play dumb, you aren't that dumb, are you?

What I said, you exported your problems to Ireland. Congratulations, child-like behavior.

So you failed to answer the question if and when the UK leaves without a deal and the Republic of Ireland do not place hard infrastructure at the border are they in default of a EU law and will they sanction the Irish for failing to uphold EU law

So? You hardly answer my questions.

@Dutchy I will rephrase the question for you, do you believe as an EU citizen that if Ireland does not put up a hard border as per EU law, Should there be repercussions for the Irish?

A101 wrote:

@Dutchy I will rephrase the question for you, do you believe as an EU citizen that if Ireland does not put up a hard border as per EU law, Should there be repercussions for the Irish?

Ok, I'll bite and will answer your question which you already know the answer to. As you know, with Brexit, the UK is forcing to take a good look at the Good Friday Agreement and uphold it is a priority, not only in word but also in spirit. Glad you seem to have accepted that. Now, the border needs to stay open without any physical barrier, not even a camera, as per Irish minister which you are keen to quote here.
The EU does want the GFA - doesn't want the Troubles to return - respected and at the same time, doesn't make any concessions to the unity of the common market and will never allow a back door to be introduced. But you know about this.
With the Withdraw Agreement, the problem was put at the people whom created this problem in the first place: United Kingdom. They wanted to leave the CU and SM, not the EU, not Ireland, not all the partners in the GFA, the UK. That's why I said that the UK is acting - and you are one of the biggest advocates here - like a child, create a problem, but take no responsibility for it.

In your linked article it said that there wasn't any ready-made sollution. Now to answer your question, if Ireland doesn't find an air-tide way to control goods entering the Republic of Ireland, yes, the EU will be forced - doesn't want to, but forced - to have a border between Ireland and the rest of the EU. Just as was proposed between Northern Ireland and UK mainland which you all were fiercely opposed to. And before you start, you wanted this and now you have exported your problem to the Republic of Ireland and the EU. And that is quite shameful.

Boeing74741R wrote:

Two parts to my response...

Firstly, I wouldn't say the issue is what part(s) of the WA does the UK find acceptable or not (we know the major bone of contention is the Irish backstop). The issue is that some of our politicians do not understand the fact that the WA won't be re-opened and, worryingly, it hasn't dawned on them that by accepting the WA and getting on with negotiating the future relationship, it can act as an incentive to sort out a trade deal more quickly.

Unless I misunderstand a lot of their concerns among the fluff, the main sticking point is that they believe that once they sign up to the WA the backstop will become permanent, any FTA will have the backstop as its base, meaning, never leave.
Whether an accurate or inaccurate view of the issue, the WA with the backstop appears to be the main sticking point.

Dutchy wrote:

Ok, I'll bite and will answer your question which you already know the answer to. As you know, with Brexit, the UK is forcing to take a good look at the Good Friday Agreement and uphold it is a priority, not only in word but also in spirit.

No UK intent from the beginning has been to honour the GFA hence in the opening of negotiations that the UK would not place physical checks at the border

Dutchy wrote:

Glad you seem to have accepted that.

I have always accepted that the GFA needs to be honoured, we just have differences of opinion on the how that can be achieved

Dutchy wrote:

Now, the border needs to stay open without any physical barrier, not even a camera, as per Irish minister which you are keen to quote here.

Now you are talking different things, it was the Insistence of the EU the only way the border can be made frictionless without any infrastructure is by NI staying in regulatory alinginment other wise a hard border has to be erected, now that it looks like that a no deal exit will take place all of a sudden a hard border is not a prerequisite anymore

Dutchy wrote:

The EU does want the GFA - doesn't want the Troubles to return - respected and at the same time, doesn't make any concessions to the unity of the common market and will never allow a back door to be introduced. But you know about this.

It’s in everyone’s interest to ensure that the Troubles do not return, trade between NI and ROI has to respect the law of the land irrespective if a nation is in the EU or not on imports/exports legitimate business will not want to Jeopardise that

Dutchy wrote:

With the Withdraw Agreement, the problem was put at the people whom created this problem in the first place: United Kingdom. They wanted to leave the CU and SM, not the EU, not Ireland, not all the partners in the GFA, the UK.

The UK exercised it’s right under Article 50 to withdraw from the Union are you saying we should not have that right because it might upset someone?

Dutchy wrote:

That's why I said that the UK is acting - and you are one of the biggest advocates here - like a child, create a problem, but take no responsibility for it.

We have created no problem nor are we abrogating our right under the respective agreements applicable to the UK, the UK government has a responsibility to ensure that given the circumstances of the referenda that we leave on the best possible terms, parliament responsibility was to ensure we did not leave on terms that would in effect be to “not bind its successor” to any agreement which the WA did in fact do

Dutchy wrote:

In your linked article it said that there wasn't any ready-made solution

Hence the need to negotiate and as per A50 sec2 take into account the future relationship, the EU wanted to bind the UK to a position without knowing the future terms and conditions, in other words putting the cart before the horse

Dutchy wrote:

if Ireland doesn't find an air-tide way to control goods entering the Republic of Ireland, yes, the EU will be forced - doesn't want to, but forced - to have a border between Ireland and the rest of the EU.

The ROI in that article has said they are in talks with Brussels on how to mitigate the chances of non-standard goods or foodstuff arriving via the border, the ROI has said no to hard infrastructure at or close to the border, it seems to me that if the ROI is intransigent on the matter. There already is an electronic border if the future relationship can be defined then all this brouhaha could have been avoided as standards of goods in NI are not going to overnight if they ever do.

Dutchy wrote:

Just as was proposed between Northern Ireland and UK mainland which you all were fiercely opposed to.

Of course I was opposed to it, there is a vast fundamental difference to what you are suggesting a border in the Irish Sea, chiefly that you are expecting a foreign entity to have regulatory and judicial supremacy over territory which does not belong to it, for which then infringers on the sovereign regulatory and judicial obligations in regards to the internal market of the United Kingdom

Dutchy wrote:

And before you start, you wanted this and now you have exported your problem to the Republic of Ireland and the EU. And that is quite shameful.

To right I want the UK to leave the EU and not ashamed of the fact, but we actually have not exported any problem to the ROI as noted that you are unwilling to answer, is ROI contravening EU law by not building a hard border if it’s required by EU law what sanctions would you like to place on the Republic by not enforcing EU law?

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Well why has the ROI came out and said that there will be no hard infrastructure at the border even when the UK leaves without a deal doesn’t go against EU law?

You know that your claim is only true specifying "at the border". That's what I mean when I said you, like most Brextremist, play with words.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... al-brexit/

Infrastructure is a must, a simple camera installation is an infrastructure. Like it or not, the moment UK deviate from EU regulation there is a need for infrastructure somewhere between NI and ROI.
That's a situation created by your (UK) will and you leave ROI, the EU, deal with it while burying your head in the sand. Pathetic.

Not so long ago I pointed you an article explaining exactly this. Why there is so few (nearly none) communication from EU side about what would look like the border in case of no deal. Maybe you should read it?

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-co ... eal-border

There is an understanding of the sensitivities, so there’s no intention of trying to force Ireland to show now what they’re going to do," says another EU diplomat.

As per EU law?


As you know the GFA does say anything about a customs border so yes you can put it up if you want.

A101 wrote:

No UK intent from the beginning has been to honour the GFA hence in the opening of negotiations that the UK would not place physical checks at the border

Tory politicians – notably including both contenders for the premiership! – categorically demand a timed fuse to be lit on the GFA, just blowing it up with some delay.

That is the opposite of what you're claiming, but given how embarrassing that reality is it is not surprising that you'd prefer everyone to forget it.

No such luck, though.