fash wrote: » Frankly I don't find that credible: it implies that Johnson has a conscience/is not a sociopath. Johnson only cares about Johnson- the idea that a few dead Irish would worry him is just not believable.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Why is Tommy Gorman saying 'there will be no deal concluded at the Summit' because of the DUP? As far as other sources go, talks are continuing to find a deal and VAT is the stumbling block not consent. 'Consent' is done and dusted since last night. Seems clear that if Boris can get an agreement on VAT he will take this 'concluded' deal back to the HoC and like May, try to throw the DUP under the bus.
Enzokk wrote: » Explain the rush to get a deal, where he is specifically going for a deal he himself rejected and a deal that May herself said no PM would accept? I find any other explanation hard to come by.
Tippex wrote: » I know I posted this a few days ago but a little more on it the EU should tell the UK you need to stop this ****e and no more negotiations until there is an extension.
intellectual dosser wrote: » I had gathered VAT still hadn't been ironed out but talks were progressing, it was expected it would have been done ahead of the summit. Now the DUP are supposedly digging in on consent.
FrancieBrady wrote: » But the problems with VAT are coming from the UK themselves not the DUP. Consent is reported by everyone else as sorted to the satisfaction of all parties. The EU and the UK Tommy once again is giving the DUP credit where none is due. They are not holding up the talks, they are not blocking a deal....talks are proceeding and a deal is possible.
intellectual dosser wrote: » I think Boris' biggest pledge is getting the UK out by Oct 31st. A failure to deliver this would definitely be grounds for resignation (not that there hasn't been a few things simmering already)
intellectual dosser wrote: » Brexit has hijacked the EU agenda for three years now. Obviously its very relevant to us in Ireland but if you're from a country not so intertwined with the UK it doesnt matter as much, at this stage they want it over.
mickoneill31 wrote: » The BrexitCast podcast is normally inane but todays is good. They've an expert on about Vat explaining the issues for vat, post Brexit. It's a an old one so doesn't cover the current shenanigans.
lawred2 wrote: » I take it Ben Lowry is a unionist hardliner! Some tripe out of his mouth on newstalk right now.
intellectual dosser wrote: » Maybe I've lost you, maybe I'm lost in general and maybe it depends who you believe but the BBC's Katya Adler (on Twitter) seems to think the DUP are stalled because of consent.
The high horse brigade wrote: » Yep and it's a sectarian headcount every 4 years. It's a terrible suggestion. If Leo and Coveney back this then they've really shafted the people of the North once again
VinLieger wrote: » Some absolute loon on NT claiming that putting a border down the irish sea breaks the GFA, jesus NT stop letting people on your air who don't understand what they are talking about
FrancieBrady wrote: » Yes they are (the DUP) but the UK isn't. Talks are continuing to iron out the VAT issue and it seems (nobody has said otherwise) that a deal will be agreed if that is sorted and brought back to the HoC. Gorman is simply wrong to say the talks won't be concluded because the DUP have kicked on consent.
Russman wrote: » Just going back to Tony Connelly's tweet earlier, on the consent issue, can someone explain to me why a simple majority in Stormont is seen as bad for the DUP and cross community support is seen as good for the DUP ? I can't quite square that circle tbh ! If Boris can't get the deal through the HoC because of the DUP, I wonder just how damaged he will be if he fights an election based on "I had a deal done to get us out but those pesky Irish wouldn't allow it, give me a majority and we're good to go". I think he'd probably be ok - especially if you're a leaver but not a hard core headbanger like some of the Brexit Party, coupled with a Labour Party that doesn't know which way is up.
intellectual dosser wrote: » Well lets assume that VAT won't be an issue, what are the other reasons talks and an agreement won't be tied off?
RobMc59 wrote: » If this touted deal goes through I see no call from NI for a UI in the foreseeable future,-there will be more chance of Scottish independence imo.