An Ciarraioch wrote: » And the statement itself is all the more pessimistic:https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20191008IPR63735/statement-by-david-sassoli-president-of-the-european-parliament
CelticRambler wrote: » I call it irrelevant, because both countries are currently in the EU
josip wrote: » Different arrangements need to be made visiting the countries you have listed so I'm not exactly sure what your point is? For example, an IDP is required and valid in Uzbekistan. It is not valid in North Korea where a DPRK license is required. EU driving licenses are valid in Serbia. A green card is not required when visiting Serbia by car. It is required when visiting Uzbekistan by car. I have no idea what colour card is needed when visiting North Korea by car but if you've managed to get it that far, well done.
MPFGLB wrote: » Channel 4 news isn't distorting reality ? Jeez what stone have you been hiding under
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » Nice avoidance there. Its a deal between the Ireland and UK to recognise divorces in each others countries post Brexit. The issue is outlined here.
CelticRambler wrote: » Huh? You cite an article that literally refers to intra-EU legislation, and moves by the Irish government to finalise changes to Irish legislation while the UK is still a member of the EU. Are you as worried about the situation for English families in the process of splitting up, and living between two different jurisdictions, e.g. France and England? Because that's another hell of a mess that Westminster doesn't appear to have given much thought to. But guess what? It's not our problem. The English voted for Brexit. The English will get Brexit, and the English can sort out any problems that arise from Brexit - and there will be many, and far more serious than data roaming or getting sick on holidays. Unless of course, they decide not to leave at the end of the month ...
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » FFS. The deal on divorce is specifically related to Ireland and the UK and what happens post brexit.
prawnsambo wrote: » Yeah. Robert Peston was wetting himself this morning about his 'scoop' that Laura K also had. And later tweeted about how strange it was that the cabinet (who met after the phone call) weren't told about it. Without the slightest embarrassment on his part. They are so addicted to the 'sources' and 'leaks' that they literally can't stop using them. How they could 'sell' this story about Varadkar 'giving up' on the customs issue is mind boggling.
And the Irish PM Leo Varadkar tried to be more emollient in his chat with Johnson this afternoon. He said that the backstop and membership of the customs union, so hated by Northern Ireland’s DUP - Johnson’s unionist allies - would only be temporary, seemingly contradicting what Merkel said (though my German sources insist Johnson over-reacted to Merkel simply saying that the original backstop, which would potentially have kept the UK or NI in the customs union forever, is the sole idea that so far solves the so-called Ireland problem). All of which suggests that towards the end of this week the EU will moot a possible deal-saving compromise, namely keeping Northern Ireland in the backstop for a specified and limited number of years.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » I can't see the ERG for example ever voting for the WA and likely other Tories might have issues particularly if more hardline Brexiteers are elected. To get the EU/May's WA over the line always depended on Corbyn's support and he voted against 3 times already.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » From Robert Pestonhttps://www.itv.com/news/2019-10-08/varadkar-tries-to-keep-a-brexit-deal-alive-but-will-probably-fail-robert-peston-writes/ How can a contingency be temporary?
CelticRambler wrote: » Why is it different for divorcees in Ireland vis-à-vis the UK compared to France or Germany? And in any case, there's no deal (maxi, mini or otherwise) involved - AFAIK, it's Irish leglislation being passed in the Dáil for people living in Ireland. Nothing to do with Brexit or the British. I really don't understand why you're picking this one example (or the mobile roaming charges) of troublesome practicalities when there are potentially fatal implications for Britons in the event of a crash-out Brexit, and many other serious effects for those who live on the neighbouring island.
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » I suspect that the UK is banking that in the event of a hard BREXIT that Ireland will have to enforce customs checks on our side first. They will simply say that we're breaking the GFA in that they're not putting up the same. Who knows how it will affect NI. I do know of a business fur example that has manufacturing in NI but also facilities and offices in the RoI. The manufacturing will simply move south.
Leroy42 wrote: » If no deal does happen, there is zero chance of any mini deals, except if they are in the interest of the EU and very much in the favour of the EU. You can't go around slagging off the other side, calling them all sorts and blaming them for everything and then ask them to help you out. If Johnson does indeed see Leo as the weak link in getting movement from the EU, then surely he can see that the abuse and vitriol is not going to help them in that regard. It will serve to only toughen the Irish position (as it would anyone else). Whilst it may play well domestically, it will have the opposite effect in Ireland and internationally. And therein lies the problem with Brexit. They continuously call for their demands to be met, they can't ever give up on what they believe in, yet at the very same time expect everyone else to do exactly that. And then berate the others when they don't.
Enzokk wrote: » So what deal does Johnson get because the WA is what the UK will get? They have shown themselves to be unreliable negotiating partners so the EU will need a legal guarantee that there will never be a border on this island. The change in a deal for either party will be the deal after they leave and whether that will mean the backstop needs to be implemented or not. I am torn on what Johnson wants. People keep saying he is not wedded to no-deal or he will not do it because he knows the damage will be too severe, yet he cannot come back with the only deal he will ever get from the EU as he has dismissed it already. So what does he want?
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » From Robert Pestonhttps://www.itv.com/news/2019-10-08/varadkar-tries-to-keep-a-brexit-deal-alive-but-will-probably-fail-robert-peston-writes/ How can a contingency be temporary? (unless the unicorn is just around the corner)
Tell me how wrote: » (I must repeat that I find this absolutely fascinating, the behaviour of such senior people in such provocative and childish practices while thinking it will help them get to what they want and for their supporters to constantly lower their self-respect in order to find it acceptable is incredible in my mind on a sociological level)
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » CelticRambler wrote: » I call it irrelevant, because both countries are currently in the EU Nice avoidance there. Its a deal between Ireland and UK to recognise divorces in each others countries post Brexit. The issue is outlined here.https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/divorces-in-uk-wont-automatically-be-recognised-in-ireland-after-brexit-935234.html Thankfully common sense prevailed.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » The WA was the best deal possible for Ireland but unfortunately it couldn't get through the HoC. Ironically May tried hard to get it through and Corbyn refused to back it. Corbyn can make or break the WA but by holding out for something else such as another referendum he handed control to Johnson and Rees Mogg and probably ruined any chances for Labour at the next election.
Igotadose wrote: » If it works for them, it shouldn't be a surprise they'd do it. Michelle Obama had a quote a few years ago, I don't remember it in detail, but she said something like "I'm on many corporate boards, and most of the people I meet there, aren't very bright." Just because someone's in a position of power (BoJo, Trump, Cummings, Giuliani), doesn't mean they're particularly intelligent, nor should we expect much from their followers. America and the UK really demonstrate the lack of critical thinking and effective education in the 'average' behavior you see on a daily basis.
Leroy42 wrote: » Ireland already has a far superior deal than the WA. The WA was the best deal that the UK were going to get, and TM completely failed to explain the reasons why it was a good deal and instead continued to pretend that the UK had any power. The one thing that Johnson has changed is that he no longer pretends that the UK has any power. They have very much taken the line that the EU have all the power and the UK is entirely at their mercy. It quite a fall from grace but nobody is holding him to account so he is able to make the play. The UK have two deals on the table. The WA, which leaves them worse off, or Remain, which leaves them battered and bruised but back to where they were. But instead it seems HMG wants to go for the very thing they said was never even an option, and was only ever put out there as a tactic!
Tell me how wrote: » Yeah, Barack Obama said the same thing going from a city councillor, to state senator to president, that he met the same 'knuckleheads' at each level but had to just acknowledge that and try to find a way to work with them. I suppose we've all seen it in our own lives, just because someone has the badge, doesn't mean they have the brains. But it is fascinating to see it play out as it has done. Last year, or very early this year, I posted on one of these threads about all the 'Wow, did that just happen' moments that had happened during the Brexit process. I must dig it out and update it. There were about 20 items back then even!
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » The WA was the best deal possible for Ireland but unfortunately it couldn't get through the HoC
