Bit cynical wrote: » Initially we did hold that the WA should contain a clause guaranteeing no hard border. However, where the flexibility was needed was down the line when it became clear that the backstop as it was worded was a non-runner. Once the EU had picked it up, however, it would have been very hard for Varadkar to advocate a softer line while still maintaining the appearance of influence within the EU. We had no choice after that but to allow the EU to use the backstop, not to help Ireland, but as a weapon against the UK.
josip wrote: » Rob, are you sure it's tonnes? It seems a bit much for one driver to transport, even if he's Dutch?
Harry Palmr wrote: » The swivel eyes loons and fantasists seems to becoming quite prominent in the media right now, and that's not a shock as time starts to run out and Brexiteers fear some sort of extension or worse. Mark Francois the Member of Parliament (MP) for Rayleigh and Wickford, giving it large to the "hun" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V7FF7ldDVs The tone is only going to become more hardline and febrile.
Havockk wrote: » Personally I thought D-Day was the highlight of this sketch.
prawnsambo wrote: » I took it to be litres. The maximum tonnage allowed on roads is 54 tonnes afaik, which would be roughly 50k litres, depending on the density of the liquid.
Captain Obvious wrote: What's with all the Brexiteers going on about the war?
Captain Obvious wrote: » What's with all the Brexiteers going on about the war?
road_high wrote: » For them they were the UKs glory days, their high water mark of moral and social superiority. A huge swath of them are still stuck there, hence Brexit
tuxy wrote: » Of course the ironic thing is if any of them understood the hardship of living through a world war they would not willingly vote for hardship. Many of them that vote no admit that things could be very tough and seem to be looking forward to it.
prawnsambo wrote: » You seem to think that there is some sort of backstop that will work other than the one proposed. So why don't you explain what you think that might be?
fash wrote: » It was Ireland's decision to have the back stop - not the EU's. Surely you agree that Ireland is sufficiently mature to decide its own interests- and that it does not require the EU to decide on its behalf?
seamus wrote: » Ireland on its own would have been threatened with blockades, punitive tariffs and starvation until it relented on the border issue. That's not me being hyperbolic, that's basically what a number of UK politicians have inadvertently admitted. Joining the EEC might be the single most important thing the country did since Independence. And this becomes more and more true every day that this rumbles on. If we were still hogtied economically to the UK, we'd be completely exposed to the whims of their politicians.
Bit cynical wrote: » Well the one proposed is dead which is the worst sort of not working so therefore just about anything else that is proposed will work better. I think the better approach, which is the one we will in fact end up taking but under more difficult conditions, is for the two governments to work something between them within the constraints laid down by the EU, the WTO etc. If there's no WA as is very likely now, then these arrangements will be difficult and strained and minimal in effect. If there were to be a WA without a backstop, then greater scope would be available to the two governments. What neither side will be doing is laying down conditions and demanding guarantees. Basically the only approach with any chance of success is one that relies on the common interest on both sides in maintaining a border that is as open as possible given the outcome of wider negotiations. Probably the less involvement of the EU the better. They can deal with the high level trade issues as they should.
Bit cynical wrote: » Well the one proposed is dead which is the worst sort of not working so therefore just about anything else that is proposed will work better.
Bit cynical wrote: » I think the better approach, which is the one we will in fact end up taking but under more difficult conditions, is for the two governments to work something between them within the constraints laid down by the EU, the WTO etc.
Bit cynical wrote: » What neither side will be doing is laying down conditions and demanding guarantees. Basically the only approach with any chance of success is one that relies on the common interest on both sides in maintaining a border that is as open as possible given the outcome of wider negotiations.
Infini wrote: » Lsts be honest while we can be flexible what was needed with these Brexiteer fools was complete clarity because this entire debate from them is nothing more than opinionated whataboutry and evasive smoke and mirrors when confronted with cold facts. The WA would have passed with no issue had the Dumba'ss Unionist Party not been able to become the spanner in the works and been able to mess things up. Theyre of the same league as the Brexiteers. The sad truth is the Brexiteers are utter idiots of the moat dangerous kind because theyre too incompetent and stuck in their blinkered views of the world to actually be rational and this isnt counting the likes of Moggs or Farage who likely have ulterior motives. Theres no negotiating or flexibility with those types you have to strongarm them legally so they cant weasel out of their commitments without consequence.
Bit cynical wrote: » Basically the only approach with any chance of success is one that relies on the common interest on both sides in maintaining a border that is as open as possible given the outcome of wider negotiations. .
Bit cynical wrote: » Probably the less involvement of the EU the better. They can deal with the high level trade issues as they should.
downcow wrote: » Fixed that for you! But I mightn’t be around long because what’s good for the goose dare not be said about the gander I fear “Let’s be honest while we can be flexible what was needed with these southern irish fools was complete clarity because this entire debate from them is nothing more than opinionated whataboutry and evasive smoke and mirrors when confronted with cold facts. Brexit would have passed with no issue had the Dumba'ss Sinn Fein Party not been able to become the spanner in the works and been able to mess things up. Theyre of the same league as the the rest of the southern Irish . The sad truth is the Irish are utter idiots of the moat dangerous kind because theyre too incompetent and stuck in their blinkered views of the world to actually be rational and this isnt counting the likes of mary-Lou or Michelle who likely have ulterior motives. Theres no negotiating or flexibility with those types you have to strongarm them legally so they cant weasel out of their commitments without consequence.”
megaten wrote: » You haven't answered his question
Bit cynical wrote: » If there's no WA as is very likely now, then these arrangements will be difficult and strained and minimal in effect. If there were to be a WA without a backstop, then greater scope would be available to the two governments.
