trellheim wrote: » Sylvia Hermon does herself zero favours In the HoC on Tuesday Lady Hermon Share I am very grateful to the Father of the House for allowing me to intervene. I just want to say ever so gently that in his very nice tribute to the hon. Member for North Down, I think he might have accidentally referred to the lady as an Irish Member of this House. No, I am very much a British Member of this House. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-01-29/debates/BB8A5769-12B4-4D0E-9B4E-158F89F9FCDE/EuropeanUnion(Withdrawal)Act2018
Lady Hermon Share I am very grateful to the Father of the House for allowing me to intervene. I just want to say ever so gently that in his very nice tribute to the hon. Member for North Down, I think he might have accidentally referred to the lady as an Irish Member of this House. No, I am very much a British Member of this House.
trellheim wrote: » Sylvia Hermon does herself zero favours In the HoC on Tuesdayhttps://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-01-29/debates/BB8A5769-12B4-4D0E-9B4E-158F89F9FCDE/EuropeanUnion(Withdrawal)Act2018
For Forks Sake wrote: » Raab getting his arse handed to him by Sylvia Hermon, turns out he hasn't read the GFA.https://twitter.com/GPDoran/status/1090739338474860545?s=19
ArthurDayne wrote: » I get what Varoufakis is saying but, ultimately, the EU did try to address some UK grievances prior to the referendum. The UK was offered a reform deal in February 2016 -- which was subsequently derided by arch-Brexiteers who always wanted nothing short of the full nuclear option. One of the biggest concessions was the agreement to write into the Treaties, and therefore into the primary fundamental basis of EU law itself, that the UK was exempt from references to "ever closer Union" along with recognition that the UK was not committed to further political integration. Cameron also won concessions on EU migrant benefits, Eurozone recovery measures (i.e. guarantees that non-Eurozone countries would not take part in bailouts of Eurozone countries etc) and other areas. He didn't get all that he wanted, but that is the nature of international diplomacy -- you will concede along the way. I hear this a lot about "EU needs to reform" etc etc, but far too often this seems to be an argument which obfuscates the need for reform at the domestic level. There is always room for reform, and there always will be when it comes to something as complex as the EU, but people need to stop looking for bogeymen in Brussels and start asking themselves what it is about their own country that needs to be fixed. You say that the EU "stuck it to us" over the banking crisis. Well, that's because we had piss poor regulation, our financial institutions acted like the music would never end, and our regulatory inadequacies ultimately led to Ireland threatening the very integrity of the Euro. Sure, better pan-Eurozone financial regulation at the EU level (which is now in place) would probably have alleviated the disaster to an extent. . .and yes . . .the ordinary Irish people got utterly shafted by economic intricacies which were beyond their understanding or control. But at least we looked inwards at ourselves, and didn't hurl ourselves down the rabbit hole of seeking out foreigners to blame, or jump to the cowardly safety net of pinning it all on "Brussels bureaucrats". We may have cursed the Troika, but we didn't run away from blaming the bankers in our own land and abroad -- rather than Polish guys on a building site or some pen-pusher in the European Commission. Ireland has beefed up its regulatory framework immensely over the past 10 years, while the Central Bank of Ireland has become much more proactive in dealing with financial entities here. This doesn't make us immune, this doesn't mean that regulatory inadequacy will suddenly end, this doesn't mean that all is well and will be forever, but Ireland's improved fortunes stand testament to what even a small country can achieve when it looks inwards and applies a little national humility . . . rather than constantly looking across the seas for foreigners to blame out of a misplaced sense of national pride.
10000maniacs wrote: » I think you are misrepresenting what O'Rourke was saying. See my previous post to find out what he actually said on the subject.
Leroy42 wrote: » TBF, how many people would have read it from cover to cover. He agreed he didn't read it and said he focused on the key areas.
Call me Al wrote: » Its 35 pages long... 35! Take a look on the dfa.ie website.
Leroy42 wrote: » TBF, how many people would have read it from cover to cover. He agreed he didn't read it and said he focused on the key areas. Our own politicians didn't read the Lisbon treaty whilst asking us to vote for it. Raab is a terrible politician but this isn't an area to bash him on. Rather than asking, IMO, point scoring questions such as this, she should be demanding that he detail out his solution, based on his clear understanding of GFA and the red lines. Exactly what would he have done differently in the deal and why could he not stop TM from continuing a path that is so terrible.
Call me Al wrote: » Yes indeed, but he's "delved in" to it calling it a "reference tool". I suppose that's what the experts are needed for, or not if you're a Brexiteer.
eagle eye wrote: » I am looking at it through a Republic of Ireland lense. Peace btw, not piece. I don't care who comes out with a good deal or no deal. I want no troubles in NI and that doesn't happen if there is any border either between north and south or between NI and the rest of the UK. One starts the nationalists off, the other starts the unionists off. I'm saying that as citizens of Europe that the EU has a responsibility to us to ensure peace and ensure good finance. If that means bending to the UK's wishes a bit then so be it. It'd certainly be a lot better for us in the Republic of Ireland.
eagle eye wrote: » If/When the UK leave what happens then. Germany and France have a long history of not getting on with each other. The UK was the other big brother in Europe so if they fall out now there is nobody to tell them they need to make up and get along.
MPFGLB wrote: » Prior to that when Neil and O Rourke said that the backstop intrangience will lead to a hard Brexit and a border anyway so what were the Irish doing as insisting on the backstop? Would mean they get what they dont want ...a hard border so why were they insisting on the backstop ? The conversation missed the subtleties of all the issues and also the UK's role...seemed very much to suggest that the problem was the Irish
eagle eye wrote: » I am looking at it through a Republic of Ireland lense. Peace btw, not piece.
Water John wrote: » Juncker was attacked a number of times by Andrew Pierse Ass Ed The Sun on Sky Press Preview last night. Since Selmayr is now the driving force on the EU side will he be subjected to the same personal vitriol?
eagle eye wrote: » The first thing they have to do is internal as in find another supporter of government so they can get rid of the DUP. The DUP is the disaster in all of this.
eagle eye wrote: » VinLieger wrote: So if you are saying the backstop holds them in you are admitting they are lying about being able to implement no border. Do you think I'm on their side or something? I'm on the Republic if Ireland's side. I want the UK and EU to do whatever it takes to make sure the troubles don't start again in NI. I want them both to do whever it takes to ensure we don't end up in hard financial times again. I might have a bit more compassion, not much, than the zero shown by almost all in this thread towards the UK because they have always(up to now) had our back during the common market era. The only difference between me and the majority in this thread is that most of you are anti-UK and pro-Eu and seem to be willing to suffer the consequences to stick it to the UK. That makes no sense to me.
VinLieger wrote: So if you are saying the backstop holds them in you are admitting they are lying about being able to implement no border.
MPFGLB wrote: » BBC Politics Live with Irish commentator O'Rourke blaming Irish for backstop and all the problems with Brexit deal and NI border
Fr Tod Umptious wrote: » The former Greek finance minister was on Newsnight last night. The guy with the name beginning with V that I can't spell. He's a guy I'd rearly agree with but he made a great point that Brexit has been a lost opportunity for EU reform. The way the British have handled the result has allowed the EU to avoid to he hard questions about why the result was Leave. I was hoping after the referendum that the EU would look at itself and see what it was doing wrong, unfortunately the way it has worked out has meant that the EU can avoid the hard questions about the direction the European project is taking. It's all well and good to be pro European now when it's in our favor but the landscape was very different 10 years ago when they were sticking it to us over the banking crisis. There was a Spanish government minister also on the show and she was advocating greater European political cohesion. That made me sad.
Calina wrote: » The UK was not a founder member of the EU. France and Germany historically put the piece project together. The UK did not want to get involved. The stuff they want to do now they already tried with EFTA. There are 25 other countries in the EU. They are not incapable of managing issues. You definitely look at this through a pro-English lense.
eagle eye wrote: » The only difference between me and the majority in this thread is that most of you are anti-UK and pro-Eu and seem to be willing to suffer the consequences to stick it to the UK. That makes no sense to me.
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » They also say they want an open and frictionless UK border in Ireland, how do they do that if they also want out?
