A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

No, the deliberate act as you put it was to give the electorate a say in the direction of the UK which is a key tenet of being a democratic nation, where the citizens exercise power by voting on matters of national importance at the discretion of the government, The 2016 referenda gave the government a legitimate mandate and authority to act in a certain way as per the question put to the electorate and that was to leave the EU under the provisions in Article 50.

The rest of the world doesn't care one bit what the domestic internal reasons are why the UK is threatening to switch from supporting the Good Friday Agreement to undermining it.

Only that the UK is threatening that is of any relevance.

I bit hypocritical isn’t it, you say the EU is all about being a rules based union, but when a democratic nation use the rules which underpins parliamentary process you don’t like it.

What do you want a country ruled by dictatorship or democratic values?

A101 wrote:

The UK is happy to stay in regulatory alignment for the UK overall with a fixed time limit, not one that keeps us in the EU indefinitely, the only reason the UK being in the backstop in its entirety was to be for greater cohesion in UK sovereign territory

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

The rest of the world doesn't care one bit what the domestic internal reasons are why the UK is threatening to switch from supporting the Good Friday Agreement to undermining it.

Only that the UK is threatening that is of any relevance.

I bit hypocritical isn’t it, you say the EU is all about being a rules based union, but when a democratic nation use the rules which underpins parliamentary process you don’t like it.

What do you want a country ruled by dictatorship or democratic values?

To the outside world it doesn't matter whether it's only the politicians at the top or the entire population who are tearing up an internationally ratified peace accord.

The effect is identical.

It is just a purely domestic matter who will be blamed for that fiasco by future historians, but it makes no difference to the rest of the world today.

sabenapilot wrote:

Canada refusing to roll over CETA in case of 'no deal' Brexit!

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexspence/can ... eement-for


A 'Canada style' type of agreement, right?
Remember this is just Canada, the easiest-but-one to do a deal with...
that other one of course being the EU itself, according to International Trade Secretary Liam Fox.
It will be amuzing to see how the rest of the world welcomes British trade negotiators... and takes them to the cleaners.

sabenapilot wrote:

A brief overview of the current status of the rollover of 3 of the most important trade agreements for the UK, next to the one with the EU:
Switzerland has agreed to give the UK the same market access as the EU gets, but has set very strict quota on work permits for Brits
South Korea has rolled over its recently concluded FTA with the EU on a time limited basis only, thus putting a knife on the throat of the Brits to agree to anything they'll ask on top, or lose it all
and now Canada isn't even willing to roll its FTA with the EU over and is betting on immediately forcing its way onto the British markets without any tarrif whatsoever.

So all goes well, doesn't it?
Zero FTAs ready to be signed the minute after Brexit, but rather just a bunch of trade continuation agreements which invariably contain quota, sunset clauses or unilateral restrictions not present in the EU version of the agreement

KLDC10 wrote:

Parties like UKIP tend to attract some of the more, shall we say, “fringe elements”.

A101 wrote:

kaitak wrote:

The British wanted the backstop and then said (mostly due to objections within the Tory party) "no, forget that bit". This is very widely documented; several senior Tories, including both of the current leadership candidates (Boris, most vocally) have said this. It was Boris who suggested an electronic system, but the technology simply isn't there. Their wants are clearly inconsistent; they want to protect the soft border, but don't want the insurance policy. That's largely because of who is holding their leash - the DUP, who put the union above the votes of their electorate.

If for no other reason that it would get the DUP monkey off the Tories backs, the new Tory leader should seek a mandate; the fact that the lead candidate is openly calling for something parliament has rejected several times (a no deal Brexit) is another key reason why Boris should seek his own mandate.

The UK is happy to stay in regulatory alignment for the UK overall with a fixed time limit, not one that keeps us in the EU indefinitely,

tommy1808 wrote:

A101 wrote:

kaitak wrote:

The British wanted the backstop and then said (mostly due to objections within the Tory party) "no, forget that bit". This is very widely documented; several senior Tories, including both of the current leadership candidates (Boris, most vocally) have said this. It was Boris who suggested an electronic system, but the technology simply isn't there. Their wants are clearly inconsistent; they want to protect the soft border, but don't want the insurance policy. That's largely because of who is holding their leash - the DUP, who put the union above the votes of their electorate.

If for no other reason that it would get the DUP monkey off the Tories backs, the new Tory leader should seek a mandate; the fact that the lead candidate is openly calling for something parliament has rejected several times (a no deal Brexit) is another key reason why Boris should seek his own mandate.

The UK is happy to stay in regulatory alignment for the UK overall with a fixed time limit, not one that keeps us in the EU indefinitely,

the moment the UK leaves the regulatory regime and/or the customs union a hard border is required. The UK knows that. Any action by the UK that leads to a hard border, regardless of who sets it up, is a violation of the GFA.

best regards
Thomas

A101 wrote:

Once again we’re does it say anything about acustoms border,

tommy1808 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Once again we’re does it say anything about acustoms border,

What makes you think that it does need to specifically mention everything that is a violation?

A customers border that isn´t a people border is a deluded fantasy. You may just as well propose that Leprechauns guard the border from .........

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Once again we’re does it say anything about acustoms border,

What makes you think that it does need to specifically mention everything that is a violation?

A customers border that isn´t a people border is a deluded fantasy. You may just as well propose that Leprechauns guard the border from .........

best regards
Thomas

A101 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Once again we’re does it say anything about acustoms border,

What makes you think that it does need to specifically mention everything that is a violation?

A customers border that isn´t a people border is a deluded fantasy. You may just as well propose that Leprechauns guard the border from .........

best regards
Thomas

remainers refuse to answer the question and use obfuscation because they do not like the answer.

So far in this process we have not violated any treaty wether we leave with an agreement or not.

A101 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Once again we’re does it say anything about acustoms border,

What makes you think that it does need to specifically mention everything that is a violation?

A customers border that isn´t a people border is a deluded fantasy. You may just as well propose that Leprechauns guard the border from .........

best regards
Thomas

:rotfl: remainers refuse to answer the question and use obfuscation because they do not like the answer.

There is no need to answer made up questions that don´t exist in reality. A border violates the treaty, the UK is currently on a trajectory that requires a border. That is the whole story and everything there is to know.

So far in this process we have not violated any treaty wether we leave with an agreement or not.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

What makes you think that it does need to specifically mention everything that is a violation?

A customers border that isn´t a people border is a deluded fantasy. You may just as well propose that Leprechauns guard the border from .........

best regards
Thomas

remainers refuse to answer the question and use obfuscation because they do not like the answer.

So far in this process we have not violated any treaty wether we leave with an agreement or not.

you haven't left yet, so no treaties are broken

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

you haven't left yet, so no treaties are broken

And when we leave with no deal, still no treaties have been broken

tommy1808 wrote:

A101 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

What makes you think that it does need to specifically mention everything that is a violation?

A customers border that isn´t a people border is a deluded fantasy. You may just as well propose that Leprechauns guard the border from .........

best regards
Thomas

:rotfl: remainers refuse to answer the question and use obfuscation because they do not like the answer.

There is no need to answer made up questions that don´t exist in reality. A border violates the treaty, the UK is currently on a trajectory that requires a border. That is the whole story and everything there is to know.

So far in this process we have not violated any treaty wether we leave with an agreement or not.

Nah, the UK has just made clear that they intent to violate the treaty. That you haven´t violated treaties yet is only due to the EU generosity to let the UK stay for a few more month.If it hadn´t been for that, there would be a border between the RoI and NI right now.

best regards
Thomas

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

you haven't left yet, so no treaties are broken

And when we leave with no deal, still no treaties have been broken

People whom do matter, see it differently, so I leave it to that.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

And when we leave with no deal, still no treaties have been broken

People whom do matter, see it differently, so I leave it to that.

See my reply to Thomas

A101 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

A101 wrote:

There is no need to answer made up questions that don´t exist in reality. A border violates the treaty, the UK is currently on a trajectory that requires a border. That is the whole story and everything there is to know.

Nah, the UK has just made clear that they intent to violate the treaty. That you haven´t violated treaties yet is only due to the EU generosity to let the UK stay for a few more month.If it hadn´t been for that, there would be a border between the RoI and NI right now.

best regards
Thomas

You keep saying we will have violated the treaty when we leave without a deal, if we are in violation there must be a section in the GFA which has been broken, is it that hard to point to a spot in the GFA which puts us in violation?


If you can show me were in the GFA we are in violation I will then most happily say I’m wrong

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

People whom do matter, see it differently, so I leave it to that.

See my reply to Thomas

You bore me, fine you see it differently, in real life, it doesn't matter because on the level it matters, it is seen as a problem. You can argue whatever you want, it doesn't change that fact.

tommy1808 wrote:

A101 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Nah, the UK has just made clear that they intent to violate the treaty. That you haven´t violated treaties yet is only due to the EU generosity to let the UK stay for a few more month.If it hadn´t been for that, there would be a border between the RoI and NI right now.

best regards
Thomas

You keep saying we will have violated the treaty when we leave without a deal, if we are in violation there must be a section in the GFA which has been broken, is it that hard to point to a spot in the GFA which puts us in violation?


If you can show me were in the GFA we are in violation I will then most happily say I’m wrong

Section 8, paragraph two, verse ii: "the removal of security installations;".

Even the Brexiteers dreamed up "electronic border" is a security installation.

best regards
Thomas

A101 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

A101 wrote:

You keep saying we will have violated the treaty when we leave without a deal, if we are in violation there must be a section in the GFA which has been broken, is it that hard to point to a spot in the GFA which puts us in violation?


If you can show me were in the GFA we are in violation I will then most happily say I’m wrong

Section 8, paragraph two, verse ii: "the removal of security installations;".

Even the Brexiteers dreamed up "electronic border" is a security installation.

best regards
Thomas

Which are tied to the army defence personal watchtowers and concrete barriers and you enter into the kill zone in case of terrorism, you know exactly what it refers to by security installations

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

See my reply to Thomas

You bore me, fine you see it differently, in real life, it doesn't matter because on the level it matters, it is seen as a problem. You can argue whatever you want, it doesn't change that fact.

It is a known fact that a hard border has already been seen since the inception of the GFA, and put in place by the Irish government for the case of the BSE outbreak in 2001, the Irish government placed more police and defence personal at check points at the border than the UK did at the height of the troubles. Remainers are protesting that a hard border is a violation of the GFA well it seems that it already has been violated under your interpretation of the GFA, irrespective it was only a temporary border according to you lot it’s still a violation.

A101 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

A101 wrote:

You keep saying we will have violated the treaty when we leave without a deal, if we are in violation there must be a section in the GFA which has been broken, is it that hard to point to a spot in the GFA which puts us in violation?


If you can show me were in the GFA we are in violation I will then most happily say I’m wrong

Section 8, paragraph two, verse ii: "the removal of security installations;".

Even the Brexiteers dreamed up "electronic border" is a security installation.

best regards
Thomas

Which are tied to the army defence personal watchtowers and concrete barriers and you enter into the kill zone in case of terrorism, you know exactly what it refers to by security installations

tommy1808 wrote:

A101 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Section 8, paragraph two, verse ii: "the removal of security installations;".

Even the Brexiteers dreamed up "electronic border" is a security installation.

best regards
Thomas

Which are tied to the army defence personal watchtowers and concrete barriers and you enter into the kill zone in case of terrorism, you know exactly what it refers to by security installations

yup, each and everything permanent on the border. End of story.

best regards
Thomas

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

You bore me, fine you see it differently, in real life, it doesn't matter because on the level it matters, it is seen as a problem. You can argue whatever you want, it doesn't change that fact.

It is a known fact that a hard border has already been seen since the inception of the GFA, and put in place by the Irish government for the case of the BSE outbreak in 2001, the Irish government placed more police and defence personal at check points at the border than the UK did at the height of the troubles. Remainers are protesting that a hard border is a violation of the GFA well it seems that it already has been violated under your interpretation of the GFA, irrespective it was only a temporary border according to you lot it’s still a violation.

Indeed temporary, within the Schengen agreement there is the same provision, if necessary the border can be paroled again. Anyhow, you will seek your own truth, don't know why though, either Brexitremist whom is in self-denial or some other reason for trolling.

A101 wrote:

Nope the security provisions are referred to as “demilitarisation” will the border become militarised after a no deal exit?

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Section 8, paragraph two, verse ii: "the removal of security installations;".

Even the Brexiteers dreamed up "electronic border" is a security installation.

best regards
Thomas

Which are tied to the army defence personal watchtowers and concrete barriers and you enter into the kill zone in case of terrorism, you know exactly what it refers to by security installations

Your interpretation, not the interpretation by someone whom matters. If you can't grasp the underlying meaning of it, why discuss it then? And you don't care about Northern Ireland at all, you are ok with them leaving.

tommy1808 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Nope the security provisions are referred to as “demilitarisation” will the border become militarised after a no deal exit?

so now you get to make up what the GFA says? Dang that is desperate....
The words military or demilitarization are not even in the GFA.....

best regards
Thomas

A101 wrote:

Irish Journalism Finally Wakes Up: The GFA Says Nothing About Hard Or Soft Border

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-46988529

tommy1808 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Irish Journalism Finally Wakes Up: The GFA Says Nothing About Hard Or Soft Border

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-46988529

you should link to the source where you get your headlines from, not to the the source that is misinterpreted by it.

https://thebrokenelbow.com/2019/01/30/i ... ft-border/


best regards
Thomas

A101 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Irish Journalism Finally Wakes Up: The GFA Says Nothing About Hard Or Soft Border

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-46988529

you should link to the source where you get your headlines from, not to the the source that is misinterpreted by it.

https://thebrokenelbow.com/2019/01/30/i ... ft-border/


best regards
Thomas

Which linked the article

tommy1808 wrote:

A101 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

you should link to the source where you get your headlines from, not to the the source that is misinterpreted by it.

https://thebrokenelbow.com/2019/01/30/i ... ft-border/


best regards
Thomas

Which linked the article

so? It is still hogwash, the headline is not supported by the article, the headline has nothing to do with it.

best regards
Thomas

A101 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Which linked the article

so? It is still hogwash, the headline is not supported by the article, the headline has nothing to do with it.

best regards
Thomas

You really are clutching at straws

tommy1808 wrote:

A101 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

so? It is still hogwash, the headline is not supported by the article, the headline has nothing to do with it.

best regards
Thomas

You really are clutching at straws

Says the guy posting links to a news article that doesn't support the claim he is making... that is quite golden.

Best regards
Thomas

What does the Good Friday Agreement say about a hard border?
A lot less than you might think. The only place in which it alludes to infrastructure at the border is in the section on security.
During the Troubles there were heavily fortified army barracks, police stations and watchtowers along the border. They were frequently attacked by Republican paramilitaries.

A101 wrote:

From the article,

What does the Good Friday Agreement say about a hard border?
A lot less than you might think. The only place in which it alludes to infrastructure at the border is in the section on security.
During the Troubles there were heavily fortified army barracks, police stations and watchtowers along the border. They were frequently attacked by Republican paramilitaries.

it say alot more about my position than yours and dealing with facts from the GFA

A101 wrote:

From the article,

What does the Good Friday Agreement say about a hard border?
A lot less than you might think. The only place in which it alludes to infrastructure at the border is in the section on security.
During the Troubles there were heavily fortified army barracks, police stations and watchtowers along the border. They were frequently attacked by Republican paramilitaries.

it say alot more about my position than yours and dealing with facts from the GFA

Dutchy wrote:

selective reading as always........

LJ wrote:

Seems that British incompetence is hitting an all-time high. How can confidential correspondence between an Ambassador and its civil servants, which will impact the UK-USA relationship, leak out? It looks like not only the UK government is out of control, but also its employees.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7220335/Britains-man-says-Trump-inept-Cables-ambassador-say-dysfunctional.html

zkojq wrote:

Mate you forgot the one with the Faroe Islands.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

LJ wrote:

Seems that British incompetence is hitting an all-time high. How can confidential correspondence between an Ambassador and its civil servants, which will impact the UK-USA relationship, leak out? It looks like not only the UK government is out of control, but also its employees.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7220335/Britains-man-says-Trump-inept-Cables-ambassador-say-dysfunctional.html

We found out today how it could happen... it was all so that Farage could get himself on BBC radio this morning so the interviewer could suggest he become the new ambassador to the USA!

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but from what I've been reading about the people involved in leaking the story and the way Farage seems to get sympathetic "interviews" on the BBC all the bloody time it looks very set up...

Klaus wrote:

Well, all of the Brexit arguments have fallen apart at this point. There's nothing left to cling to but straws.

Dutchy wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

LJ wrote:

Seems that British incompetence is hitting an all-time high. How can confidential correspondence between an Ambassador and its civil servants, which will impact the UK-USA relationship, leak out? It looks like not only the UK government is out of control, but also its employees.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7220335/Britains-man-says-Trump-inept-Cables-ambassador-say-dysfunctional.html

We found out today how it could happen... it was all so that Farage could get himself on BBC radio this morning so the interviewer could suggest he become the new ambassador to the USA!

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but from what I've been reading about the people involved in leaking the story and the way Farage seems to get sympathetic "interviews" on the BBC all the bloody time it looks very set up...

Isn't the diplomatic corps of the UK a professional one? E.g. be a diplomat for 40 years and you might land yourself a top post like being the UK ambassador to the US

BTW I see that Farage sees himself in another cushion job, instead of dealing with the fall out he created. Typical Brexiteers, hit and run.

Trump wrote:

I have been very critical about the way the U.K. and Prime Minister Theresa May handled Brexit. What a mess she and her representatives have created. I told her how it should be done, but she decided to go another way. I do not know the Ambassador, but he is not liked or well....

....thought of within the U.S. We will no longer deal with him. The good news for the wonderful United Kingdom is that they will soon have a new Prime Minister. While I thoroughly enjoyed the magnificent State Visit last month, it was the Queen who I was most impressed with!

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Somehow an earlier post did not make it. Thus far the EU and EK have discussed carrot and stick regarding Brexit. About now I see not only the EU, but also the US and likely Canada, emphasizing the stick. Trade agreements will not be made with the UK if a customs border in Ireland becomes necessary. Airbus wings and food and drugs for the UK will get expedited treatment, but other exceptions prior to an acceptable WA will be rare.

Dutchy wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

We found out today how it could happen... it was all so that Farage could get himself on BBC radio this morning so the interviewer could suggest he become the new ambassador to the USA!

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but from what I've been reading about the people involved in leaking the story and the way Farage seems to get sympathetic "interviews" on the BBC all the bloody time it looks very set up...

Isn't the diplomatic corps of the UK a professional one? E.g. be a diplomat for 40 years and you might land yourself a top post like being the UK ambassador to the US

BTW I see that Farage sees himself in another cushion job, instead of dealing with the fall out he created. Typical Brexiteers, hit and run.

Of course, Trump reacted negatively and undiplomatically, as aspected:

Trump wrote:

I have been very critical about the way the U.K. and Prime Minister Theresa May handled Brexit. What a mess she and her representatives have created. I told her how it should be done, but she decided to go another way. I do not know the Ambassador, but he is not liked or well....

....thought of within the U.S. We will no longer deal with him. The good news for the wonderful United Kingdom is that they will soon have a new Prime Minister. While I thoroughly enjoyed the magnificent State Visit last month, it was the Queen who I was most impressed with!

We'll see if Trump feels differently after the new PM is there and perhaps a new ambassador. The feeling towards the Trump administration will not change of course.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Given the UK’s closest ally is the USA, both countries will want to keep our special relationship and I am sure this small issue will be quietly forgotten.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Isn't the diplomatic corps of the UK a professional one? E.g. be a diplomat for 40 years and you might land yourself a top post like being the UK ambassador to the US

BTW I see that Farage sees himself in another cushion job, instead of dealing with the fall out he created. Typical Brexiteers, hit and run.

Of course, Trump reacted negatively and undiplomatically, as aspected:

Trump wrote:

I have been very critical about the way the U.K. and Prime Minister Theresa May handled Brexit. What a mess she and her representatives have created. I told her how it should be done, but she decided to go another way. I do not know the Ambassador, but he is not liked or well....

....thought of within the U.S. We will no longer deal with him. The good news for the wonderful United Kingdom is that they will soon have a new Prime Minister. While I thoroughly enjoyed the magnificent State Visit last month, it was the Queen who I was most impressed with!

We'll see if Trump feels differently after the new PM is there and perhaps a new ambassador. The feeling towards the Trump administration will not change of course.

Given the UK’s closest ally is the USA, both countries will want to keep our special relationship and I am sure this small issue will be quietly forgotten.

Dutchy wrote:

Isn't the diplomatic corps of the UK a professional one? E.g. be a diplomat for 40 years and you might land yourself a top post like being the UK ambassador to the US?

BTW I see that Farage sees himself in another cushion job, instead of dealing with the fall out he created. Typical Brexiteers, hit and run.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Isn't the diplomatic corps of the UK a professional one? E.g. be a diplomat for 40 years and you might land yourself a top post like being the UK ambassador to the US?

Yes it is... Yet this isn't the first time Farage has tried to publicly give the impression he is "ready" to become ambassador - he famously turned up in the golden elevator right after Trump's election with Trump actually saying he would be a great choice as ambassador!

BTW I see that Farage sees himself in another cushion job, instead of dealing with the fall out he created. Typical Brexiteers, hit and run.

The maneuvering is open and shameless

noviorbis77 wrote:

Given the UK’s closest ally is the USA, both countries will want to keep our special relationship and I am sure this small issue will be quietly forgotten.