Politics

[Farrelli]

10 minutes ago, Ani said:

You are falling into the Brexiteers rhetoric of EU all bad. UK all good.

To be clear the fact the Irish border was not a major issue in the referendum lies solely with people who ran the Remain campaign. 
Like many who voted Remain I am not massively in love with the EU but voted to stay as I did not understand the alternative and still do not

We have entered into a deal that does not work and so instead of us holding all the cards we have sold ourselves short. You mention corrupt EU, out guys handling of PPE contracts was declared illegal and our PM has lied to parliament and been fined for breaking his own rules. 
The EU might as you imply be a real piece of work our current lot are as bad as any 

The leave campaign said the NI border was not a problem and an easy technological solution could be implemented. Leave voters did not care or believed what Farage told them. The remain campaign was unable to cut through the lies as it was called “project fear”. 

[Mounts Kipper]

4 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

Still arguing and we've got real domestic issues to tackle.

Months of beer gate whilst people can't keep warm.

1 in 4 families wont be able to pay rent, mortage, heat the house. Just let that sink in. 1 in 4.

You'll also all be feeling the pinch.

We are in a mess at the moment, and I have to see or hear of one policy aimed at tackling these issues.

Not one.

As for the opposition, they should everyday be holding the government to account on this, everyday, every briefing, every single time they open their mouth. Don't get cowed by certain parts of the press. Get people angry, because we should be fuming.

Brexit is compounding this. We know its not about economics, but let's focus on what we need immediate support with because it's going to get worse.

 

Agree with this. 

[Ani]

1 minute ago, Farrelli said:

The leave campaign said the NI border was not a problem and an easy technological solution could be implemented. Leave voters did not care or believed what Farage told them. The remain campaign was unable to cut through the lies as it was called “project fear”. 

If you are running a campaign you get the debate focussed on the issues that are in your favour. The Leave campaign did this by focussing on emotional messages about taking control. 
The Remain campaign talked about the long term economic benefits, one side appealed to the heart the other to the head. Remain ran a campaign that took them from distant second to winning. 
I voted Remain as am doing ok so why risk it ? But for some of the forgotten millions that the Labour Party had abandoned in chasing the champagne socialists in London, in northern ex pit towns with high unemployment and little prospects they voted in their droves to leave because they were not doing so well so change was an easy option. 
The Irish border can and never will be technology solution, even if on existed there would be one side in Ireland that did not want it. It was a side issue that the Remain campaign largely ignored. 

[Farrelli]

14 minutes ago, Ani said:

If you are running a campaign you get the debate focussed on the issues that are in your favour. The Leave campaign did this by focussing on emotional messages about taking control. 
The Remain campaign talked about the long term economic benefits, one side appealed to the heart the other to the head. Remain ran a campaign that took them from distant second to winning. 
I voted Remain as am doing ok so why risk it ? But for some of the forgotten millions that the Labour Party had abandoned in chasing the champagne socialists in London, in northern ex pit towns with high unemployment and little prospects they voted in their droves to leave because they were not doing so well so change was an easy option. 
The Irish border can and never will be technology solution, even if on existed there would be one side in Ireland that did not want it. It was a side issue that the Remain campaign largely ignored. 

I completely agree. It is why a binding referendum for a major constitutional change was a very bad idea. It engaged voters who were ‘unhappy with their lot’ and many of these were persuaded by the leave campaign rhetoric.

[Ani]

Just now, Farrelli said:

I completely agree. It is why a binding referendum for a major constitutional change was a very bad idea. It engaged voters who were ‘unhappy with their lot’ and many of these were persuaded by the leave campaign rhetoric.

100% this but once the idea had been accepted it just went further down hill.

Leave ran a great campaign and the smug arrogant attitude of the Remain campaign handed the win to Farage et al

[Whitesince63]

Just now, Ani said:

You are falling into the Brexiteers rhetoric of EU all bad. UK all good.

To be clear the fact the Irish border was not a major issue in the referendum lies solely with people who ran the Remain campaign. 
Like many who voted Remain I am not massively in love with the EU but voted to stay as I did not understand the alternative and still do not

We have entered into a deal that does not work and so instead of us holding all the cards we have sold ourselves short. You mention corrupt EU, out guys handling of PPE contracts was declared illegal and our PM has lied to parliament and been fined for breaking his own rules. 
The EU might as you imply be a real piece of work our current lot are as bad as any 

No I’m definitely not Ani. I accept the deal we agreed was crap but was the best we were likely to get within the timescales and in an ideal world we shouldn’t have signed it. I absolutely accept that the EU have the ability to play hard ball but although the Brexit Deal wasn’t perfect, Section 13 did make clear that further negotiations could take place if the agreement wasn’t working in certain areas. Clearly it isn’t working in the case of the Protocol as the Stormont situation indicates. Marcos Sefcovic has indicated that no further negotiations will be allowed on the Protocol under any conditions, a situation that has been imposed on him from Brussels.
 

Everybody accepts that the integrity of the Irish border is paramount and any goods entering NI from the U.K. for onward movement should be checked but when goods clearly for only NI consumption, such as grocery items for the likes of Sainsbury and M+S, who don’t have stores in Eire, a common sense approach should be taken. The problem is that the EU see it in their interests to prolong the agony for NI consumers in the hope that longer term it leads to a United Ireland. Clearly the UK can not stand aside and allow that to happen and whilst nobody wants to see a square off surely Brussels should widen Sefcovic’s brief to come to a sensible and amicable agreement. Is that really asking too much?

[Whitesince63]

2 hours ago, Ani said:

Ahh so glad we agree that you were calling for tactical changes when we had  won 9 out of 10.

I think your tactical masterclass was 'we should score more and be more attacking and still keep clean sheet'

 

Doesn’t mean I wasn’t right. 😌

[Ani]

24 minutes ago, Whitesince63 said:

No I’m definitely not Ani. I accept the deal we agreed was crap but was the best we were likely to get within the timescales and in an ideal world we shouldn’t have signed it. I absolutely accept that the EU have the ability to play hard ball but although the Brexit Deal wasn’t perfect, Section 13 did make clear that further negotiations could take place if the agreement wasn’t working in certain areas. Clearly it isn’t working in the case of the Protocol as the Stormont situation indicates. Marcos Sefcovic has indicated that no further negotiations will be allowed on the Protocol under any conditions, a situation that has been imposed on him from Brussels.
 

Everybody accepts that the integrity of the Irish border is paramount and any goods entering NI from the U.K. for onward movement should be checked but when goods clearly for only NI consumption, such as grocery items for the likes of Sainsbury and M+S, who don’t have stores in Eire, a common sense approach should be taken. The problem is that the EU see it in their interests to prolong the agony for NI consumers in the hope that longer term it leads to a United Ireland. Clearly the UK can not stand aside and allow that to happen and whilst nobody wants to see a square off surely Brussels should widen Sefcovic’s brief to come to a sensible and amicable agreement. Is that really asking too much?

Who set the time scale the rushed deal ? 
 

Thing is I know the EU is flawed, but I also know the lot leading this for us are too. 

[Farrelli]

Here is Bozo rejoicing over his great deal🇬🇧

[Whitesince63]

33 minutes ago, Ani said:

Who set the time scale the rushed deal ? 
 

Thing is I know the EU is flawed, but I also know the lot leading this for us are too. 

Now that I can agree with 😉

[Spider]

6 hours ago, Whitesince63 said:

Doesn’t mean I wasn’t right. 😌

I love how Brexit hardcore types are blaming the EU for “not negotiating “

They are negotiating you dim bastards. They just aren’t giving you what you want.

Happen they are better at negotiating than our mob.

And maybe they’re better because <clears throat> they hold all the cards.

[Whitesince63]

The bit you’re missing Spider is the negotiating in “good faith” bit as was agreed by both sides in the Protocol. It isn’t about being a hardcore Brexiteer, it’s about expecting common sense on both sides. The inflexibility of the EU despite the obvious issues the Protocol in its current form is causing should be a concern for both sides in order to ensure we don’t get dragged back into the troubles the agreement itself was supposed to prevent. I can accept totally the EU requirement to protect the single market but if you can’t see the stupidity in goods never meant to end up across the border being subject to ridiculous amounts of red tape then I’m afraid it’s you that needs a head wobble. The EU intransigence is what is forcing the UK to consider stronger measures not the fact that the UK don’t want an agreement.

[fatolive]

25 minutes ago, Whitesince63 said:

The bit you’re missing Spider is the negotiating in “good faith” bit as was agreed by both sides in the Protocol. It isn’t about being a hardcore Brexiteer, it’s about expecting common sense on both sides. The inflexibility of the EU despite the obvious issues the Protocol in its current form is causing should be a concern for both sides in order to ensure we don’t get dragged back into the troubles the agreement itself was supposed to prevent. I can accept totally the EU requirement to protect the single market but if you can’t see the stupidity in goods never meant to end up across the border being subject to ridiculous amounts of red tape then I’m afraid it’s you that needs a head wobble. The EU intransigence is what is forcing the UK to consider stronger measures not the fact that the UK don’t want an agreement.

The eu are the only party that have offered alternatives to the UK’s complaints of problems caused by certain apspects of it , problems that were predicted when the uk signed up to the very same previous. 
your good faith is way off the mark . 
both sides agreed , one side doesn’t now like it .
there’s only part of NI that’s complaining too, the current largest party there support the protocol. 
 

can I ask, what do you think is wrong with it and what do you think should happen , ideal world . 
for balance , even though I don’t agree, I can see why some Unionists wouldnt like it but theirs positions a bit cut their nose to spite their face ideology in my opinion, not in the best interests of ALL voters in NI . 

[Nowack]

The Conservatives and DUP signed up to the protocol, the majority of people in NI are happy with the protocol and the majority of people in the UK couldn`t care less.

I think its time for those who aren`t happy with it to get the big boy pants out and get on with it rather than throwing hissy fits and sabre rattling. Sometimes you have to admit to making a mistake and move on.

[Whitesince63]

The problem is olive that the parts the EU are willing to concede on will not relieve the main problems people, including Sinn Fein voters, are suffering in being unable to source goods which are never going to be sold in Eire. Due to the over zealous restrictions and red tape being applied by the EU, numerous manufacturers have just ceased supplying NI reducing choice and even Supermarkets have been forced to withdraw supply’s simply because they don’t meet the EU regulations.
 

As I’ve said, I fully accept that the EU must protect their single market but can you tell me why you consider that goods delivered directly to the likes of Sainsbury and M+S which will never find their way over the border are subject to the same restrictions that goods supplied for onward delivery to the South are? It’s pure madness and intransigence on the part of the EU who are imposing more restrictions and red tape on goods from the UK to NI than all other borders in total to the EU. Yes we signed a deal but that deal was always subject to further negotiation as all deals are. We know that the EU want to punish the UK for leaving but it was a perfectly permitted decision within the EU regulations and one which a majority in the U.K. voted for. To continue to act spitefully and harm the people who live in NI is surely unacceptable when simple common sense discussion will resolve the situation for both sides.

[fatolive]

3 minutes ago, Whitesince63 said:

The problem is olive that the parts the EU are willing to concede on will not relieve the main problems people, including Sinn Fein voters, are suffering in being unable to source goods which are never going to be sold in Eire. Due to the over zealous restrictions and red tape being applied by the EU, numerous manufacturers have just ceased supplying NI reducing choice and even Supermarkets have been forced to withdraw supply’s simply because they don’t meet the EU regulations.
 

As I’ve said, I fully accept that the EU must protect their single market but can you tell me why you consider that goods delivered directly to the likes of Sainsbury and M+S which will never find their way over the border are subject to the same restrictions that goods supplied for onward delivery to the South are? It’s pure madness and intransigence on the part of the EU who are imposing more restrictions and red tape on goods from the UK to NI than all other borders in total to the EU. Yes we signed a deal but that deal was always subject to further negotiation as all deals are. We know that the EU want to punish the UK for leaving but it was a perfectly permitted decision within the EU regulations and one which a majority in the U.K. voted for. To continue to act spitefully and harm the people who live in NI is surely unacceptable when simple common sense discussion will resolve the situation for both sides.

The first bit highlighted shows why it’s an issue , how do you know know and how do you distinguish? 
 

Not only are there all island distribution centres , warehouses etc but some peoples local sainsbury would be the other side of the border. 
non-one wants to go back to checks on people bringing shopping back over, in either community 

the second highlighted bit: no we don’t 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

59 minutes ago, fatolive said:

The eu are the only party that have offered alternatives to the UK’s complaints of problems caused by certain apspects of it , problems that were predicted when the uk signed up to the very same previous. 
your good faith is way off the mark . 
both sides agreed , one side doesn’t now like it .
there’s only part of NI that’s complaining too, the current largest party there support the protocol. 
 

can I ask, what do you think is wrong with it and what do you think should happen , ideal world . 
for balance , even though I don’t agree, I can see why some Unionists wouldnt like it but theirs positions a bit cut their nose to spite their face ideology in my opinion, not in the best interests of ALL voters in NI . 

Bit disingenuous. 

All major agreements involve some level.of fudging, and compromise. Consequently, interpretation becomes key.

Taking a butty of a lorry driver- a really fine example of intransigence and over application. 

Doesn't really matter what deal is agreed of either side seeks to make life unduly difficult. Moreover, in this rather unique circumstance, if the difficulties being experienced in the place continue, then shit may hit the fan again, surely the EU won't want that.

Even sinn fein leader has said its not working properly and has requested improvement. 

The presence of the protocol is sensible in its intention, but if, for whatever reason, it isn't working as intended, then it's incumbent upon both sides to sort it.

[fatolive]

7 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Bit disingenuous. 

All major agreements involve some level.of fudging, and compromise. Consequently, interpretation becomes key.

Taking a butty of a lorry driver- a really fine example of intransigence and over application. 

Doesn't really matter what deal is agreed of either side seeks to make life unduly difficult. Moreover, in this rather unique circumstance, if the difficulties being experienced in the place continue, then shit may hit the fan again, surely the EU won't want that.

Even sinn fein leader has said its not working properly and has requested improvement. 

The presence of the protocol is sensible in its intention, but if, for whatever reason, it isn't working as intended, then it's incumbent upon both sides to sort it.

There have been amendments ( for want of a better word ) offered by the EU to resolve some of the issues but the DUP won’t accept any form of checks on the sea border and now won’t go into government that people voted for, risking direct rule from London 

Your point re both sides is correct, my point is we differ on which side is being stuck in the mud non negotiable and what the problems are. 
fudging details and or interpreting things to suit is one thing but what the DUP want is impossible to achieve  without tearing up large portions and making it all not fit for purpose 

Fucking it off altogether is another .

there has to be checks somewhere, they won’t accept them between Britain and NI even if the EU offered golden egg laying hens so negotiating with that start point is a non starter .

To be fair , the DUP have always been against it, Boris told them there’ll be an Irish Sea border over his dead body, then signed up to one saying it’s the best thing ever and they’ll have the benefit of being in the market we’d just left 
 

 

[gonzo]

Why don't they just say there are going to protocols but just ignore them later down the line? 

 

 

[Mounts Kipper]

Interesting the ruling from the attorney general has now changed and UK acting unilaterally and circumventing checks from UK to NI is now deemed legal, the EU aren't for budging so the the moment of truth for the UK government is rapidly approaching. 

[mickbrown]

11 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Interesting the ruling from the attorney general has now changed and UK acting unilaterally and circumventing checks from UK to NI is now deemed legal, the EU aren't for budging so the the moment of truth for the UK government is rapidly approaching. 

You do realise the attorney general is a Tory MP?

[Winchester White]

4 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

You do realise the attorney general is a Tory MP?

She is certainly no Geoffrey Cox or Dominic Grieve.

[mickbrown]

Just now, Winchester White said:

She is certainly no Geoffrey Cox or Dominic Grieve.

I'm just checking he doesn't think that she's some sort of independent legal authority.

[Whitesince63]

3 hours ago, fatolive said:

The first bit highlighted shows why it’s an issue , how do you know know and how do you distinguish? 
 

Not only are there all island distribution centres , warehouses etc but some peoples local sainsbury would be the other side of the border. 
non-one wants to go back to checks on people bringing shopping back over, in either community 

the second highlighted bit: no we don’t 

Not really difficult to distinguish is it Olive? Take Sainsbury and M+S. the goods are clearly identified for supply to their stores, including packaging and information such as sell by dates. I don’t know whether you know anything about distribution but if you did you’d know how stringent the checks on supply and delivery are. The UK has proposed a green and red lane system whereby goods which are deemed and agreed to be for NI only consumption could massively reduce the red tape required for such loads but as usual the EU can’t agree it. Can you please explain why a piece of Cheshire cheese or a shortbread going to a Sainsbury or M+S store in NI require a veterinary certificate? It’s pure madness and is sadly typical of the attitude of the EU. I really can’t understand how you as a Brit (presumably) can argue that the EU are acting responsibly and in good faith. Come on olive, get real pal.

[Cheese]

6 minutes ago, Whitesince63 said:

Not really difficult to distinguish is it Olive? Take Sainsbury and M+S. the goods are clearly identified for supply to their stores, including packaging and information such as sell by dates. I don’t know whether you know anything about distribution but if you did you’d know how stringent the checks on supply and delivery are. The UK has proposed a green and red lane system whereby goods which are deemed and agreed to be for NI only consumption could massively reduce the red tape required for such loads but as usual the EU can’t agree it. Can you please explain why a piece of Cheshire cheese or a shortbread going to a Sainsbury or M+S store in NI require a veterinary certificate? It’s pure madness and is sadly typical of the attitude of the EU. I really can’t understand how you as a Brit (presumably) can argue that the EU are acting responsibly and in good faith. Come on olive, get real pal.

We agreed and signed up to these things. It was portrayed by the Prime Minister as a "fantastic deal" at the time he used it to get elected on the "Get Brexit Done" promise. Ian Duncan Smith mocked the idea that anyone in Parliament needed more time to read and understand the actual content of it.