23-08-2019, 11:33 AM
21
Re: Hard border or no hard border ?
Originally Posted by shropshiregirl
->
You've hit the nail on the head Bread.I was only saying this morning to HWMO. "What the hell has the border and the GFA got to do with the EU anyway.
They know that we would never put a hard border up, Neither would NI or Si, but they have still used it as a supposed weapon to prevent violence, which is utter crap.
If they are so worried about protecting the single market, let them be the ones to build it and guard it. end of. They are after all, the ones making a meal out of it.
Thanks SG !
What the EU have not had to contend with until now, is the real prospect of the UK leaving with out a deal. The people were convinced May could keep us in, the establishment told them that, as well as the media and how hard it would be etc. The EU elite told the people we will suffer and the EU member states will be victorious, turning the UK into a colony, taking all our money and controlling us with their laws. Treasure island will be theirs to plunder, they were lead to believe.
On September 11th (or thereabouts) after a government victory (my a narrow margin) of a vote of no confidence, we really will see the cat amongst the pigeons. After this date - remain run out of road completely - that means we are out with a good deal or with no-deal and it will be so obvious who is to blame if its the latter.
The people will be very angry - that I can guarantee. There are already mutterings in France, Germany, Holland, Denmark and Ireland.
The G7 will be interesting when Boris and Trump meet again... I wonder what will be agreed ? Hmmm
Then, it's game over.
23-08-2019, 12:07 PM
23
Re: Hard border or no hard border ?
Once again some of ardent pro-Brexit contributors have been relying too heavily on their briefing packs from Brexit HQ. Whilst the HQ is well funded, by millionaires acting only in self interest, their briefing packs are not that accurate. No surprise there as they don't need to convince their ardent fans (any old anti-EU lie is swallowed with enthusiasm) and, worse, they assume rightly that the pro-remain camp don't have the time or resources to do proper research and fact checking. So usually a long chat contribution (as above) will silence the remain contributors.Except.
Except when one sees some strange statements that don't seem to add up. Statements like "The only problem that the UK (and NI) have is the lack of political will from the EU mob to resolve it". That smells strange. If May or Johnson could easily have solved it surely they would be more than delighted to do so. And surely Macron & Merkel would not be so complacent when giving Johnson 30 days to do just that. He can't and won't because this issue is not one that "you could agree this in an hour over lunch, it really is that simple." No, it is clearly not that simple or it simply would not have become a problem.
Then we note "fact if the EU was the promoter of peace as it claims to be, it shouldn't be mentioning the Irish Border at all". That seems strange as Ireland is in the EU and the EU have been quite explicit that they will seek to protect the interests of countries in the EU. And its the UK that is threatening to leave without a deal (not the EU demanding the UK leaves without a deal) so it can only be the UK who risking peace. The EU in fact have been very clear about retaining an open border and free movement of people & goods - as this is viewed by everyone as key to peace.
So some strange statements which are preceded by what is presented as facts. When we see strange statements then we must check the 'facts'. This is where Brexit HQ often fails to offer the whole story in its briefing packs - who is going to check?
False 'fact' 1 "the common travel area (CTA) that came into effect in the 1920's, way before the EU and has been in place ever since". Not quite. Customs controls were introduced on the frontier on 1 April 1923, shortly after the establishment of the Irish Free State. The border controls were maintained, with varying degrees of severity, until 1 January 1993. Smuggling across the border was commonplace and this is always a reliable sign of a customs border existing. So the inference that this has never been a customs border is false - a lie in other words.
False 'fact' 2 - ""WTO rules say they need one"... well, they do, but they also say that not unless, for political reasons, it would cause unrest". This strange correction with a supposed clarification looks peculiar. The WTO is a member run entity - it does not have an enforcement body. Should the UK unilaterally keep an open Irish border then possibly nothing would happen ... until a WTO member complained. Which would not take long as this single open border (with the EU, not just with Ireland) would be evidently unfair on trade with other countries but also increasingly prone to abuse. Then the UK would be in conflict with all other WTO members. Not an ideal situation with which to maintain global trade. This false fact is a red herring.
So chaps, question your Brexit HQ briefing packs. Just because they have a conclusion that you love (EU is wrong and being nasty) does not mean the contents of the pack are accurate. Be careful when cutting and pasting.
23-08-2019, 12:24 PM
24
Re: Hard border or no hard border ?
Originally Posted by Tedc
->
A good analysis, Bread.In addition I find it particularly annoying that the threats, of IRA violence, are being used by the Irish Government & press.
Surely we should ask Varadkar what he will be doing to bring the IRA to heel.
He's too young and stupid to know any better, his own people will deal with him.
As for the "troubles", there are a lot less catholics in Ireland than there used to be
and those that are old enough to remember are too old to do anything about it.
23-08-2019, 12:41 PM
25
Re: Hard border or no hard border ?
Originally Posted by gascony
->
Once again some of ardent pro-Brexit contributors have been relying too heavily on their briefing packs from Brexit HQ. Whilst the HQ is well funded, by millionaires acting only in self interest, their briefing packs are not that accurate. No surprise there as they don't need to convince their ardent fans (any old anti-EU lie is swallowed with enthusiasm) and, worse, they assume rightly that the pro-remain camp don't have the time or resources to do proper research and fact checking. So usually a long chat contribution (as above) will silence the remain contributors. Except.
Except when one sees some strange statements that don't seem to add up. Statements like "The only problem that the UK (and NI) have is the lack of political will from the EU mob to resolve it". That smells strange. If May or Johnson could easily have solved it surely they would be more than delighted to do so. And surely Macron & Merkel would not be so complacent when giving Johnson 30 days to do just that. He can't and won't because this issue is not one that "you could agree this in an hour over lunch, it really is that simple." No, it is clearly not that simple or it simply would not have become a problem.
Then we note "fact if the EU was the promoter of peace as it claims to be, it shouldn't be mentioning the Irish Border at all". That seems strange as Ireland is in the EU and the EU have been quite explicit that they will seek to protect the interests of countries in the EU. And its the UK that is threatening to leave without a deal (not the EU demanding the UK leaves without a deal) so it can only be the UK who risking peace. The EU in fact have been very clear about retaining an open border and free movement of people & goods - as this is viewed by everyone as key to peace.
So some strange statements which are preceded by what is presented as facts. When we see strange statements then we must check the 'facts'. This is where Brexit HQ often fails to offer the whole story in its briefing packs - who is going to check?
False 'fact' 1 "the common travel area (CTA) that came into effect in the 1920's, way before the EU and has been in place ever since". Not quite. Customs controls were introduced on the frontier on 1 April 1923, shortly after the establishment of the Irish Free State. The border controls were maintained, with varying degrees of severity, until 1 January 1993. Smuggling across the border was commonplace and this is always a reliable sign of a customs border existing. So the inference that this has never been a customs border is false - a lie in other words.
False 'fact' 2 - ""WTO rules say they need one"... well, they do, but they also say that not unless, for political reasons, it would cause unrest". This strange correction with a supposed clarification looks peculiar. The WTO is a member run entity - it does not have an enforcement body. Should the UK unilaterally keep an open Irish border then possibly nothing would happen ... until a WTO member complained. Which would not take long as this single open border (with the EU, not just with Ireland) would be evidently unfair on trade with other countries but also increasingly prone to abuse. Then the UK would be in conflict with all other WTO members. Not an ideal situation with which to maintain global trade. This false fact is a red herring.
So chaps, question your Brexit HQ briefing packs. Just because they have a conclusion that you love (EU is wrong and being nasty) does not mean the contents of the pack are accurate. Be careful when cutting and pasting.
You talk of long posts by leavers Gascony,
What have you just posted??
And you also speak of uk using no deal to manipulate brexit!
What rubbish is that, no deal is just a tool to use!
Just as the eu contrived the backstop to use as a tool to
thwart uks ambitions?
Regards Donkeyman!
23-08-2019, 12:58 PM
26
Re: Hard border or no hard border ?
Originally Posted by gascony
->
Once again some of ardent pro-Brexit contributors have been relying too heavily on their briefing packs from Brexit HQ. Whilst the HQ is well funded, by millionaires acting only in self interest, their briefing packs are not that accurate. No surprise there as they don't need to convince their ardent fans (any old anti-EU lie is swallowed with enthusiasm) and, worse, they assume rightly that the pro-remain camp don't have the time or resources to do proper research and fact checking. So usually a long chat contribution (as above) will silence the remain contributors. Except.
Except when one sees some strange statements that don't seem to add up. Statements like "The only problem that the UK (and NI) have is the lack of political will from the EU mob to resolve it". That smells strange. If May or Johnson could easily have solved it surely they would be more than delighted to do so. And surely Macron & Merkel would not be so complacent when giving Johnson 30 days to do just that. He can't and won't because this issue is not one that "you could agree this in an hour over lunch, it really is that simple." No, it is clearly not that simple or it simply would not have become a problem.
Then we note "fact if the EU was the promoter of peace as it claims to be, it shouldn't be mentioning the Irish Border at all". That seems strange as Ireland is in the EU and the EU have been quite explicit that they will seek to protect the interests of countries in the EU. And its the UK that is threatening to leave without a deal (not the EU demanding the UK leaves without a deal) so it can only be the UK who risking peace. The EU in fact have been very clear about retaining an open border and free movement of people & goods - as this is viewed by everyone as key to peace.
So some strange statements which are preceded by what is presented as facts. When we see strange statements then we must check the 'facts'. This is where Brexit HQ often fails to offer the whole story in its briefing packs - who is going to check?
False 'fact' 1 "the common travel area (CTA) that came into effect in the 1920's, way before the EU and has been in place ever since". Not quite. Customs controls were introduced on the frontier on 1 April 1923, shortly after the establishment of the Irish Free State. The border controls were maintained, with varying degrees of severity, until 1 January 1993. Smuggling across the border was commonplace and this is always a reliable sign of a customs border existing. So the inference that this has never been a customs border is false - a lie in other words.
False 'fact' 2 - ""WTO rules say they need one"... well, they do, but they also say that not unless, for political reasons, it would cause unrest". This strange correction with a supposed clarification looks peculiar. The WTO is a member run entity - it does not have an enforcement body. Should the UK unilaterally keep an open Irish border then possibly nothing would happen ... until a WTO member complained. Which would not take long as this single open border (with the EU, not just with Ireland) would be evidently unfair on trade with other countries but also increasingly prone to abuse. Then the UK would be in conflict with all other WTO members. Not an ideal situation with which to maintain global trade. This false fact is a red herring.
So chaps, question your Brexit HQ briefing packs. Just because they have a conclusion that you love (EU is wrong and being nasty) does not mean the contents of the pack are accurate. Be careful when cutting and pasting.
Brexit HQ Pack ??? You are joking right ?
All off the top of my head - I suggest you read my post properly because the answers to a lot of your questions are already in there.
There has never been a hard customs border in Ireland. Your are misinterpreting your findings from Wikipedia - I just checked. Customs controls are not the same as "hard border".
The Irish border is a red herring - the UK implemented the GFA with Ireland and the EU is using it as leverage to force us into either signing up to the Irish backstop or remaining. We have heard over and over again, the mantra from the EU mob that the WA and the Irish backstop is there "to prevent a hard border on the ireland of ireland". The EU mob know this will wind everyone up which is why they also offered a comprehensive FTA in 2018 to all of the UK except Northern Ireland. It was a deliberate attack on the UK and Irish peace process that the UK and Ireland have worked on since signing the GFA.
As for the WTO - yes its run by members and its rules are made by the members who operate within them. The members vote on these rules every 2 years (I'm pretty sure it is 2 years anyway). Check out the WTO Articles and GATT Articles - I take it this is news to you ?
If there was no hard border in Ireland, which is this WTO member who would complain about it be ?? Let me guess - the EU and guess what would happen ... the rest of the 160+ members would slap them for inciting violence on the Ireland of Ireland just as they are trying to do now. The WTO follows a disputes process - something you seem to have missed out of your post - something that can take years to resolve. For that time you will see the media reporting things like "EU Wish to Build a Hard Border in Ireland and Disolve the Good Friday Agreement". That would be a great move for the EU and trade with the 27 - they would be even more toxic than they are now.
Your talking nonsense - no WTO member in their right mind would do this - only a complete fool would even think it.
Finally, the Irish border was a security border during the troubles - it was never about smuggling.
23-08-2019, 01:18 PM
28
Re: Hard border or no hard border ?
Originally Posted by gascony
->
We can all see that you Brexit fans have convinced yourselves this is not a problem. All you need to do now is convince all the politicians and civil servants. I wait patiently. I’m sure you are right (ha ha ha).
23-08-2019, 01:44 PM
29
Re: Hard border or no hard border ?
Originally Posted by gascony
->
We can all see that you Brexit fans have convinced yourselves this is not a problem. All you need to do now is convince all the politicians and civil servants. I wait patiently. I’m sure you are right (ha ha ha).
23-08-2019, 02:17 PM
30
Re: Hard border or no hard border ?
Originally Posted by Bread
->
It's only a problem if you make it a problem
I am sure you are certain in your views. I'm sure you think that you have got the evidence (err, you think you do). I suggest you take a loud speaker and a banner, nip across to border lands and explain your views to the local population. You do not need to convince me (especially as you can't, that being because you are wrong). You do need to convince people involved and directly affected. Off you pop now.
Or just maybe you do not understand things quite as completely as you think you do...
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
