Politics

[fatolive]

48 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

The EU brought it to the table 

 

3 hours ago, boltondiver said:

Spot on

a non issue, made to look insurmountable 

 

You seem an intelligent bloke, what’s your solution? 

[Mounts Kipper]

3 hours ago, L/H White said:

The man on the street did vote to leave because of that tho, they thought a wall would be up within a fortnight and all different coloured people would be sent back. 

The majority voted for that, they didn't have a clue about anything else that goes with brexit 

Where was this wall that we wanted building? In the English Channel? you do talk some fucking tripe. 

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, fatolive said:

 

You seem an intelligent bloke, what’s your solution? 

Oh, I wouldn’t say that!

But the technology is there, ready to use.

 

[Sweep]

11 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

Oh, I wouldn’t say that!

But the technology is there, ready to use.

 

But apparently it isn't.....hence, the need for the backstop. If its there, no backstop required. Simple.

 

I don't know either way to be honest

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Sweep said:

But apparently it isn't.....hence, the need for the backstop. If its there, no backstop required. Simple.

 

I don't know either way to be honest

The reason we have the backstop is due to poor negotiation from our Government

 

[miamiwhite]

Looks like we could have a happy medium here

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-remainers-to-abandon-corbyn-if-he-passes-brexit-deal-6zfjgnm5w

[fatolive]

1 hour ago, boltondiver said:

Oh, I wouldn’t say that!

But the technology is there, ready to use.

 

How does it work and what is it’s purpose? 

Not a trick question, I genuinely don’t know, but, know it probably won’t work for the general public who travel hassle free across the border to the local shop and return at present unhindered, when asked this, the only answer is “ technology “ but present customs technology won’t work for that area and the unique situations and problems it throws up, unless someone can explain how it will work, the answer “ technology” is just a get out of jail card without offering a real solution. 

 

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, fatolive said:

How does it work and what is it’s purpose? 

Not a trick question, I genuinely don’t know, but, know it probably won’t work for the general public who travel hassle free across the border to the local shop and return at present unhindered, when asked this, the only answer is “ technology “ but present customs technology won’t work for that area and the unique situations and problems it throws up, unless someone can explain how it will work, the answer “ technology” is just a get out of jail card without offering a real solution. 

 

There are plenty of authoratative reports, but this outlines;

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdf

 

There is also confirmation from the WTO, which I’ll look for

[miamiwhite]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46585237

 

Not looking good in Brussels is it ?

[fatolive]

34 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

There are plenty of authoratative reports, but this outlines;

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdf

 

There is also confirmation from the WTO, which I’ll look for

That details how things can possibly work but crucially doesn’t state that it can remove the need for a hard border , it just changes the definition of what a hard border is, there would still need to be checks and staff available at the border in the solutions contained in it, it doesn’t deal with the general day to day crossing points of border communities and the problems that brings ( people used to have shopping consficated in the good old days ) and doesn’t deal with agriculture movements, a major sticking point.

if that report worked, no one would have an issue with the back stop, just implement it in the time frame and bobs your uncle

the fact it’s been taken apart by people on both sides as not acceptable shoes why it’s such a problem, it’s actaully a good solution in termsof speeding border crossings up, puts som points to bed, but, doesn’t remove the need for the checks and a border control which is the crux of the matter 

[Not in Crawley]

Interesting read, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/16/attack-on-refugee-mother-in-bolton-stokes-local-tension?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

[Mounts Kipper]

57 minutes ago, miamiwhite said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46585237

 

Not looking good in Brussels is it ?

The lunacy goes on. Will we never learn. 

[miamiwhite]

Just now, Mounts Kipper said:

The lunacy goes on. Will we never learn. 

Obviously not mate....interesting link on that article re could the immigration issue knacker the EU.....it’s an article from June and Drunker Juncker even admits the liberal dream is in the shit...

[MalcolmW]

22 hours ago, fatolive said:

So you think that a Fianna Fáil leader of Ireland would not seek to assure that there wouldn’t be a border in Ireland ? And not take measure to seek that assurance ? 

The imposition of border would also do harm, what position do you think the leaders you mention would take, seeing as the claim for ownership of the 6 counties was given up as part of the GFA 

Im also not sure why you described him as you did and the relevance but makes no odds, his views on abortion are also irrelevant, such is the way Irish politics works, not like his views change so he can get the government change the constitution or anything and not sure what relevance that has, only the fact he can change his mind?

Well Ahern's quotes soon after the GFA don't suggest giving up a claim  - how else do you interpret this:

"Our nation is and always will be a 32 county nation. Antrim and Down are, and will remain, as much a part of Ireland as any southern county."

And an Eton-and-Oxford former Prime Minister, who was subsequently Foreign Secretary under Heath, conceded to close colleagues that unification was the inevitable long-term solution. But now the DUP, whose 36% of NI votes won 56% of the seats and hold 89% of the actual representation in Westminster, hold the balance of power over the whole UK.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, fatolive said:

That details how things can possibly work but crucially doesn’t state that it can remove the need for a hard border , it just changes the definition of what a hard border is, there would still need to be checks and staff available at the border in the solutions contained in it, it doesn’t deal with the general day to day crossing points of border communities and the problems that brings ( people used to have shopping consficated in the good old days ) and doesn’t deal with agriculture movements, a major sticking point.

if that report worked, no one would have an issue with the back stop, just implement it in the time frame and bobs your uncle

the fact it’s been taken apart by people on both sides as not acceptable shoes why it’s such a problem, it’s actaully a good solution in termsof speeding border crossings up, puts som points to bed, but, doesn’t remove the need for the checks and a border control which is the crux of the matter 

Here is the WTO view

https://www.ft.com/content/d60e93aa-0ce1-11e8-8eb7-42f857ea9f09

The technology is already available, been tested by EU institutions. Now why would the EU not go with it, do we imagine?

[fatolive]

13 minutes ago, MalcolmW said:

Well Ahern's quotes soon after the GFA don't suggest giving up a claim  - how else do you interpret this:

"Our nation is and always will be a 32 county nation. Antrim and Down are, and will remain, as much a part of Ireland as any southern county."

And an Eton-and-Oxford former Prime Minister, who was subsequently Foreign Secretary under Heath, conceded to close colleagues that unification was the inevitable long-term solution. But now the DUP, whose 36% of NI votes won 56% of the seats and hold 89% of the actual representation in Westminster, hold the balance of power over the whole UK.

Exactly, so why do you suggest he would have not done the same in regards to a border ? That was my point, you suggested he would not have made such a demand ? 

the claim over the 6 was as a removed as part of the GFA, of that there’s no doubt.

agree with the DUP sentence, they can’t believe their luck, they don’t even have a functioning government workin in Ni because of the scandals involving them yet here they are playing King Maker 

[fatolive]

4 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

Here is the WTO view

https://www.ft.com/content/d60e93aa-0ce1-11e8-8eb7-42f857ea9f09

The technology is already available, been tested by EU institutions. Now why would the EU not go with it, do we imagine?

Because it doesn’t work in the situation as described previously mate.

it only speeds up border checks , it doesn’t remove a border as such.

why do th e brexiteers have such an issue in agreeing to the backstop if it’s so simple and works ? 

It’s a different scenario than the tested situations such as Norway etc, it isn’t just eu who don’t think it will work, hence the probl,s with agreeing to the backstop. 

[Guest]

Just now, fatolive said:

why do th e brexiteers have such an issue in agreeing to the backstop if it’s so simple and works ? 

 

Without addressing the tech matter;

People, with reason, expect that it isn't Brexit if the EU can continue to control our decisions and destiny.

They, and arseholes like Blair, will just hold onto the possibilty that we will stay. The EU are desperate for our money.

[fatolive]

1 minute ago, boltondiver said:

Without addressing the tech matter;

People, with reason, expect that it isn't Brexit if the EU can continue to control our decisions and destiny.

They, and arseholes like Blair, will just hold onto the possibilty that we will stay. The EU are desperate for our money.

Quite possibly , but, that doesn’t necessarily mean the border is simple to solve and they aren’t just doing it does it? 

NI is different on so many levels to the rest of the UK in terms of laws and government already , the Irish Sea suggestion is as good a suggestion as any for now, yet it is refused/ blocked  by a party who don’t even represent the majority in NI, who, incidentally voted to stay,  they’re a bigger obstacle to Brexit than any technology. 

As stated before by others that GE that gave them that power was a miscalculation, easy in hindsight of course 

[Winchester White]

The DUP were/are against the GFI. Yet all other parties agree with it. Great bedfellows...

[Cheese]

If the Irish Border problem is easily solvable by "technology" , why is the backstop so unpalatable to the very people who make that claim? What is it they're not willing to admit? 

[bolty58]

13 hours ago, L/H White said:

The man on the street did vote to leave because of that tho, they thought a wall would be up within a fortnight and all different coloured people would be sent back. 

The majority voted for that, they didn't have a clue about anything else that goes with brexit 

 

Please present me with authoritative proof, statistics etc. proving this and I will concede.

I think you are completely wrong. Just an easy 'justification' by those who lost as to why they were on the losing side.

You may know some halfwit perched on a bar stool in the Hare & Hounds with a red nose and a penchant for best bitter who would spout such fucking nonsense but 'the man on the street' for my money is much smarter and well informed. I would expect that a thorough dislike for burgeoning Brussels bureaucracy would be a much bigger reason and one which I would have been voting leave for. Conservatives generally like 'smaller' government and having some continental zoons making decisions on behalf of the UK would never sit well with me.

[bolty58]

10 hours ago, birch-chorley said:

The issue folk had with free movement as far as I can see was largely to do with them able to come here and claim benefits, with a bit of driving wages down 

in reality a very small % of EU migrants are here on benefits, most of them have come to work and they will pay tax and NI so should be more than welcome to public services. Certainly more so than a British expat living in Spain contributing no income taxes to the local economy

With regards driving wages down the NMW is now something like £16k per annum for the most unproductive jobs going, hardly indicates wage suppression 

I’m quite certain that 90% of people who voted in referendum barely had a grasp of the finer details of the customs union. I certainly didn’t 

 

Completely wrong. I am a case in point. I pay my Spanish taxes every year (just done it actually) and I only currently live there around 5-8 weeks p.a.

Soon be 6 months p.a. though.

[Cheese]

4 hours ago, bolty58 said:

 

Please present me with authoritative proof, statistics etc. proving this and I will concede.

I think you are completely wrong. Just an easy 'justification' by those who lost as to why they were on the losing side.

You may know some halfwit perched on a bar stool in the Hare & Hounds with a red nose and a penchant for best bitter who would spout such fucking nonsense but 'the man on the street' for my money is much smarter and well informed. I would expect that a thorough dislike for burgeoning Brussels bureaucracy would be a much bigger reason and one which I would have been voting leave for. Conservatives generally like 'smaller' government and having some continental zoons making decisions on behalf of the UK would never sit well with me.

The jibberings of a deluded fool. 

[bwfcfan5]

11 hours ago, boltondiver said:

Without addressing the tech matter;

People, with reason, expect that it isn't Brexit if the EU can continue to control our decisions and destiny.

They, and arseholes like Blair, will just hold onto the possibilty that we will stay. The EU are desperate for our money.

But then those people need to address how we can have a Brexit that satisfies them AND comply with our international obligations under the good friday agreement. Without talking technology that it has already been explained AT PRESENT does not satisfy the requirement of a frictionless border.

I get that Brexiteers haven't thought about this and that is abundantly apparent. But for all the bluster of the ERG, Boris etc.. none of them have any solution that actually works.

The best they can say is "who is going to erect a hard border". Because in their addled minds the only thing we need to avoid is watchtower posts and barbed wire. But they absolutely will not accept that as soon as customs checks are required you violate the good friday agreement. UNLESS those checks can be done without changing how the border functions now.