Laois_Man wrote: » So disingenuous, it's nauseating! Surely everyone knows we're just a stick for them to beat the EU dissident Brits with!!
ambro25 wrote: » I guess that £20bn boost for the NHS has to come from somewhere, 'cos it ain't coming from any savings of Brexit:-Taxes will rise to pay for NHS boost Now I know it’s not nice to mock the afflicted, nor to laugh at the misfortune of others, but...HaHaHaHaHaHaHa!
J Mysterio wrote: » Its looking very bleak for NI.
Infini wrote: » Hardly. It's not Ireland or the EU who really want this, it's all on the UK side that this is happening and noone else. The UK created this mess, Everyone in this side is doing what they can but even the EU side and ourselves have to be ready for the worst because it's looking more and more likely that the Brit's are going to crash out in a humiliating fiasco of idiocy and ignorant stupidity no matter what is offered.
There are those who think the other 26 countries will abandon Ireland at the last minute for a separate deal that suits them. Those people have not understood what being part of our Union means. Ireland's border is Europe's border and our Union's priority.
flutered wrote: » with luke ming flannigan a border mep supporting brexit, what kinda gange have they in brussells
Blowfish wrote: » I was actually watching that. JRM was trying to make the point that both the EU and UK could just not bother putting up a border if there was no deal. Verhofstadt said there had to be a border because of the EU rules, at which point JRM was saying they could just bend them as they've done it before. Of course, the reality is that JRM is utterly wrong as not putting up a border would violate the WTO Most Favoured Nation rule. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt in that he's just completely unaware of this rather than trying to mislead, but someone should really sit him down and explain why this isn't an option as it's doing him no favours that his argument for hard brexit relies on it.
trellheim wrote: » The text of Juncker's speech is HERE https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2018-06-21/2/ At least he understands what I am worried about
Unveiling details of the “settlement scheme” for EU citizens, the Home Office promised that the application process would be “short, simple and user friendly” with a default position of accepting rather than rejecting applications.
If the UK continue to abide by the rules of the EU then there is no need for a hard border. Why would the negotiations need to stop.
flutered wrote: » readin online that a 3% raise in income tax is required to fund this, also it is in the offing
Enzokk wrote: » They are giving NHS staff more resources and you would assume a pay rise eventually, but they are taking it from their other pocket. That would be sad if all NHS staff didn't vote for Brexit, seeing that this isn't possible I have very little sympathy right now for UK people that complain about financial hardship due to Brexit. I would have a little sympathy if there was a change in opinion on Brexit, but seeing that we have indications that people just want to get on with it even when they voted Remain, reap all that you sow.
Rhineshark wrote: » I hoped for a while that the UK might come to it's senses as things moved on and continued to get more ridiculous and impossible. But the sheer amount of disinformation out there is impossible to bridge with mere facts. There are almost no good arguments. Retorts to the points Remainers bring up (and I do have empathy for them) are along the lines of A) project fear The EU are punishing us C) Well, individual EU countries are with us/will definitely be leaving at any moment D) They need us more than we need them E) Lalala I'm not listening. F) insert insult of choice. G) the lyrics to Hotel California (yes, really) There is a very similar disconnect from reality as with the full-on pro-Trumpers. I have no doubt that Russia got involved to some extent, if only because we know they were attempting to get involved with every western election/national vote of note in 2016 (also Carole Cadwalldr's work). But I don't really think they needed to. Decades of misinformation and mismanagement of the country have done their damage. And it's sickening that the ones who did most damage (Johnson, Farage, JRM's ilk) will swan off at a profit and leave the country mired in social division, resentment and poverty for far more people.
The government is considering a Ukraine-style “association agreement” with the EU to govern future relations with the bloc after Brexit. The deal, which would include a free trade agreement, regulatory alignment, and cooperation on security and foreign affairs, is being explored in Downing Street, according to a senior cabinet source. The format, which the EU also has with countries like Georgia and Moldova, would help avoid a complex web of bilateral agreements like the one which governs relations between the EU and Switzerland. The approach, recommended by the European parliament based on Theresa May’s red lines, would not include single market or customs union membership, but could open the door to more cooperation than a basic free trade agreement, depending on specifics. But when discussing the association agreement format, the senior cabinet source added: “It’s an empty box, you can put whatever you want in it.” It was reported on Thursday that the prime minister could try to keep the UK in the single market for goods, which might be a component of such a deal.
Sierra Oscar wrote: » It does beg the question - should the EU just call a halt to the negotiations at the June summit and refuse to restart them until the UK puts forward a concrete and legally binding solution to the border issue?
Nody wrote: » And we have the latest cake strategy identified by the UK; an associate agreement like Ukraine or Moldova has...
Water John wrote: » I'd say that Irish border will be very leaky, if there is no deal. Generations of families made a living, over and back that border.
Sam Russell wrote: » Still do.
Sam Russell wrote: » The use of religious designations for voters is suspect. Are they self declared, or assumed? The term 'Catholic', 'Nationalist', 'Republican', or for the other side - 'Protestant', 'Unionist', 'Loyalist' are used by different pundits to mean different things - quite often a graded distinction. It is like the adverts that declare - '85% of cats that showed a preference, chose our Tiddles cat food' without saying how many cats did not show a preference. I wonder how many respondents did not declare their religion or the way they voted? Lies, damn lies, and poll results.
FunkyDa2 wrote: » Behind a paywall...but you should get the "gist" of it from the headline... https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/airbus-prepares-to-move-business-from-britain-over-brexit-fears-f6jnc7x2j