Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Will Britain ever just piss off and get on with Brexit? -mod warning in OP (21/12)

Options
1…5051535556…328

Comments

  • Options
    #1562
    declanflynn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,159 ✭✭✭declanflynn


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    What kind of Brexit did the 52% vote for?

    One where they leave the EU
    Surly some of the 52% wanted a deal?


  • Options
    #1563
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    NIMAN wrote: »
    This option was already given by the EU, and the main business leaders and Gov agencies in NI said it was great, they were getting a fantastic deal.

    Arlene shot it down, as it treats them different to the rest of the UK, and has a border in the Irish Sea.

    And such is the great hypocrisy of these self-described "Unionists". She and the DUP have always been fine with the Six Counties being treated entirely different to Britain when it comes to abortion, internment, shoot-to-kill policies, supergrass trials, rubber and plastic bullets, non-jury trials, 50,000-plus armed British personnel occupying the nationalist community (actually more like 90,000 when the UDA was added to BA and RUC figures), torture centres, and a whole paraphernalia of military colonial outposts, dirty wars and all the rest that would never be accepted over in Britain.

    No complaints from them that if you rioted in Finchley you couldn't legally have plastic bullets fired at you, but if you rioted in Belfast you could. A riot's a riot - or maybe not. And try put all of that military occupation - the existence of which the DUP always supported - in Finchley, Kent or Sussex and see how they get on with the natives there.

    That unionist tail, and its smothering hypocrisies regarding "Britishness", has got away with wagging the English dog for a long time now. Brexit is currently looking like the great reckoning for them.


  • Options
    #1564
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,359 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    One where they leave the EU

    On what terms?


  • Options
    #1565
    declanflynn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,159 ✭✭✭declanflynn


    Deleted User wrote: »
    NIMAN wrote: »
    This option was already given by the EU, and the main business leaders and Gov agencies in NI said it was great, they were getting a fantastic deal.

    Arlene shot it down, as it treats them different to the rest of the UK, and has a border in the Irish Sea.

    And such is the great hypocrisy of these self-described "Unionists". She and the DUP have always been fine with the Six Counties being treated entirely different to Britain when it comes to abortion, internment, shoot-to-kill policies, supergrass trials, rubber and plastic bullets, non-jury trials, 50,000-plus armed British personnel occupying the nationalist community (actually more like 90,000 when the UDA was added to BA and RUC figures), torture centres, and a whole paraphernalia of military colonial outposts, dirty wars and all the rest that would never be accepted over in Britain.

    No complaints from them that if you rioted in Finchley you couldn't legally have plastic bullets fired at you, but if you rioted in Belfast you could. A riot's a riot - or maybe not. And try put all of that military occupation - the existence of which the DUP always supported - in Finchley, Kent or Sussex and see how they get on with the natives there.

    That unionist tail, and its smothering hypocrisies regarding "Britishness", has got away with wagging the English dog for a long time now. Brexit is currently looking like the great reckoning for them.
    Could we call them bigots or will they offend people here


  • Options
    #1566
    declanflynn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,159 ✭✭✭declanflynn


    Could we call them bigots or will that offend people here


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1567
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,883 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    Very close to the wire now. But maybe things are building towards an alliance against NO DEAL now.

    Hard to tell, but there are some rumblings out there. About flippin time they got their act together IMV.

    I suppose the Labour inertia hasn't helped either. What a perfect storm? Bet the Tories cannot believe their luck that the main Opposition Party has just sat back on the fence and said nada really.

    I think it might pick up in a week or so.

    The Conference Season should be V. Interesting. If they get that far.


  • Options
    #1568
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    One where they leave the EU

    Which one?


  • Options
    #1569
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    It is the EU's fault

    Anyone in particular or are all twenty seven countries equally to blame?


  • Options
    #1570
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 19,973 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    declanflynn wrote: »
    O, I taut the t sorry brits voted for it?

    Brexit is the EU's fault, Trump is the left's fault. You hear this sort of thing from brexit supporters and Trump supporters respectively. Brexit supporters will accept no responsibility if the economy goes down the toilet after brexit. It will be the EU's fault. I don't know how it will be the EU's fault, but I'm sure it will be their fault.


  • Options
    #1571
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Aegir wrote: »
    what is an "All other Visas" queue? Do you mean passports, because I have only ever seen two queues at airports, one for EU passport holders and one for "All passports".
    It's a figurative queue. The fact that they'll have to apply for a visa at all should worry them enough.
    you can not discriminate against someone because of their nationality, that is a blatent breach of Irish human rights legislation.
    No, but you can discriminate based on their visa status.
    apart from the fifty years preceding Ireland's entry to the EEC you mean?
    Ireland has never been in the EEC/EC/EU without the UK.
    This is the same naivety that has Brits thinking that "we were strong before the EU, we will be strong now". The CTA and the EU have never existed side-by-side. EU law supersedes it. Which is why the only honest answer to whether the CTA will be honoured after a no-deal Brexit is, "we don't know".
    The CTA will not change. It can't. The EU know this and will not make Ireland change it. Doing so would mean the Irish government can no longer hold up its side of the Good Friday Agreement.
    That's not exactly correct. The CTA is not inextricably linked to the GFA, and the EU overruling some aspects of it doesn't necessarily mean the GFA is breached. For example, having a 3-tier work system which places EU citizens first, CTA citizens second and everyone else third, is still compatible with the CTA.

    You're right in that a complete removal of the CTA is something that won't happen. Nevertheless your first 3 sentences above sound more like a game of chicken than a fact.
    so you see no issue with there being no border between Ireland and Northern Ireland and no border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK?
    There's a unique opportunity here given that Ireland is not accessible by land. This makes it easy enough to draw a distinction between goods bound for NI and goods transitting through NI.

    It creates a loophole where companies can establish some kind of setup that allow duty free importation from the UK, to be exported duty free to the EU. The cost savings for physical goods would be debateable, but services has massive potential.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1572
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    seamus wrote: »
    It's a figurative queue. The fact that they'll have to apply for a visa at all should worry them enough.

    could you provide something to support this "Fact"?
    seamus wrote: »
    No, but you can discriminate based on their visa status.

    UK citizens don't need a visa to work in Ireland, so that is irrelevant. Your claim is that they should not be given a job if there is an EU national that can do it, that is discrimination based on nationality, which contravenes human rights legislation.

    If this were ever to happen, there would be a whole stream of human rights lawyers chomping at the bit to take it to the ECHR.
    seamus wrote: »
    Ireland has never been in the EEC/EC/EU without the UK. This is the same naivety that has Brits thinking that "we were strong before the EU, we will be strong now". The CTA and the EU have never existed side-by-side. EU law supersedes it. Which is why the only honest answer to whether the CTA will be honoured after a no-deal Brexit is, "we don't know".

    the CTA has been in place since 1922. It existed before the EU/EEC came in to being, it existed all the while both countries were in the EU/EEC and will continue after it.

    You can come up with all the empty rhetoric you like, but that is a fact.
    seamus wrote: »
    That's not exactly correct. The CTA is not inextricably linked to the GFA, and the EU overruling some aspects of it doesn't necessarily mean the GFA is breached. For example, having a 3-tier work system which places EU citizens first, CTA citizens second and everyone else third, is still compatible with the CTA.

    nope, that is not correct. If/When the status of Northern Ireland changes, the Irish government is bound to treat those that want to retain British citizenship equally and with parity of esteem. Your suggestion effectively make them second class citizens and is a direct breach of the GFA.
    seamus wrote: »
    You're right in that a complete removal of the CTA is something that won't happen. Nevertheless your first 3 sentences above sound more like a game of chicken than a fact.

    it isn't a game of chicken at all, it is an actual reality.


  • Options
    #1573
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,967 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Aegir wrote: »


    the CTA has been in place since 1922. It existed before the EU/EEC came in to being, it existed all the while both countries were in the EU/EEC and will continue after it.

    You can come up with all the empty rhetoric you like, but that is a fact.



    Edward Heath had a plan to use it to try and pressure the Irish government in 69/70. The plan would have seen the need for identity cards and visas required for the Irish in the UK.

    Another Tory sees the need to 'pressure' the Irish...anything is possible with Boris at the wheel.


  • Options
    #1574
    InTheShadows
    Closed Accounts Posts: 727 ✭✭✭InTheShadows


    declanflynn wrote: »
    Why don't they just leave?

    They are leaving. The attempts to obstruct democracy have failed.


  • Options
    #1575
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    InTheShadows wrote: »
    They are leaving. The attempts to obstruct democracy have failed.

    What I don't understand is why, if Brexit is truly the will of the majority of the people of the UK (leaving aside Scotland/London/NI etc who didn't vote for it), why not hold another referendum?
    If it is the will of the majority then surely it will confirm Brexit?

    How would that obstruct democracy to ask the people to confirm?


  • Options
    #1576
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,967 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    What I don't understand is why, if Brexit is truly the will of the majority of the people of the UK

    You could have stopped there and asked 'why not 'just leave'?'

    Why are they playing the victim here, there hasn't been a single obstacle put in their way?

    What's the bets they are still in after Boris's deadline.


  • Options
    #1577
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    You could have stopped there and asked 'why not 'just leave'?'

    Why are they playing the victim here, there hasn't been a single obstacle put in their way?

    What's the bets they are still in after Boris's deadline.

    I think you may have missed my point - or perhaps I didn't express it properly.

    Every Brexiteer I have heard is opposed to a second referendum while banging on about leaving being the will of the people, yet, I haven't heard (maybe I missed it) anyone from the Remain side asking why Leavers are so against a second referendum as surely it would simply confirm the desire of the majority to leave the EU.

    Looks very much like Leavers are not sure a 2nd ref would go their way - therefore they believe it is no longer the will of the majority.


  • Options
    #1578
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 19,973 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    What I don't understand is why, if Brexit is truly the will of the majority of the people of the UK (leaving aside Scotland/London/NI etc who didn't vote for it), why not hold another referendum?
    If it is the will of the majority then surely it will confirm Brexit?

    How would that obstruct democracy to ask the people to confirm?

    Jacob Reese Mog had this stance before the referendum. He said it would make most sense to have 2 referenda; one to go ahead and negotiate a deal with the EU, the second to vote on accepting the deal or not. Needless to say he gas changed his mind since shooting to prominence got his hard brexit stance.


  • Options
    #1579
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    What I don't understand is why, if Brexit is truly the will of the majority of the people of the UK (leaving aside Scotland/London/NI etc who didn't vote for it), why not hold another referendum?
    If it is the will of the majority then surely it will confirm Brexit?

    How would that obstruct democracy to ask the people to confirm?

    Why would a referendum need to be confirmed? The people have spoken. The majority said leave. Should we "confirm" the abortion referendum?


  • Options
    #1580
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Why would a referendum need to be confirmed? The people have spoken. The majority said leave. Should we "confirm" the abortion referendum?

    Considering the abortion referendum was won 67% to 33%, it was a pretty clear result with no close margin. It also had a clearly defined outcome so people knew exactly what they were voting for. It would be a bit silly to rerun it especially when there is no call for it to be rerun. It is the complete opposite of the Brexit referendum.


  • Options
    #1581
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,913 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Why would a referendum need to be confirmed? The people have spoken. The majority said leave. Should we "confirm" the abortion referendum?
    Aah would you stop trolling!
    The people voted to leave (not counting the various unethical interventions in the campaigning). They did not all vote for the same leave process despite the disingenuous claims by those who want out.

    Our abortion referendum was a transparent process whereby the public were given the facts by an impartial referendum commission. This was not the case in the leave referendum.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1582
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 19,973 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Why would a referendum need to be confirmed? The people have spoken. The majority said leave. Should we "confirm" the abortion referendum?

    If there was a huge variety in how the government could implement abortion legislation, then it might well make sense to have a referendum on the ultimate legislation.

    If, for example, the government agreed on legislation for late term abortions up to the point of birth, then I doubt that's what most people would have supported so I'd support a second referendum.

    Considering Gove telling people that getting a great deal from the EU would be the easiest deal in history. The UK holds all the cards in the negotiations - and now it looks like there will be no Deal. That's a very broad range. There's no way to say whether all the leave voters would have noted for no dealuf they knew that's what would happen.

    Hope this explanation helps you understand


  • Options
    #1583
    declanflynn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,159 ✭✭✭declanflynn


    InTheShadows wrote: »
    declanflynn wrote: »
    Why don't they just leave?

    They are leaving. The attempts to obstruct democracy have failed.
    O good, I was under the impression they were unsure what they were doing and mite look to extend or god forbid, stay.


  • Options
    #1584
    knipex
    Registered Users Posts: 2,018 ✭✭✭knipex


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Why would a referendum need to be confirmed? The people have spoken. The majority said leave. Should we "confirm" the abortion referendum?

    We did.. 3 times if my memory is correct..


  • Options
    #1585
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Why would a referendum need to be confirmed? The people have spoken. The majority said leave. Should we "confirm" the abortion referendum?

    Firstly: Because it would silence the Remainers if Leave was confirmed.


    Secondly: Unlike our referendums, UK ref's are advisory and the final decision is up to Parliament. Having confirmation would act to 'advise' the government on what the majority wish if 3 options were put i) Leave with No Deal; ii) Leave with the negotiated deal; iii) Remain.

    Currently it looks like the Leavers fear a different result hence their opposition to a second referendum.
    It they are so certain - why not hold ref II?


  • Options
    #1586
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    How would that obstruct democracy to ask the people to confirm?

    When they run out of answers they say 'but democracy' as if a decision made by ballot is some sort of unassailable edict, derived from supreme collective wisdom, and simply cannot be questioned or the Earth will cease to exist.


  • Options
    #1587
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    knipex wrote: »
    We did.. 3 times if my memory is correct..

    I think it's stretching it to call referenda that took place a generation apart reruns.


  • Options
    #1588
    declanflynn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,159 ✭✭✭declanflynn


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    What I don't understand is why, if Brexit is truly the will of the majority of the people of the UK (leaving aside Scotland/London/NI etc who didn't vote for it), why not hold another referendum?
    If it is the will of the majority then surely it will confirm Brexit?

    How would that obstruct democracy to ask the people to confirm?

    Why would a referendum need to be confirmed? The people have spoken. The majority said leave. Should we "confirm" the abortion referendum?
    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    What I don't understand is why, if Brexit is truly the will of the majority of the people of the UK (leaving aside Scotland/London/NI etc who didn't vote for it), why not hold another referendum?
    If it is the will of the majority then surely it will confirm Brexit?

    How would that obstruct democracy to ask the people to confirm?

    Why would a referendum need to be confirmed? The people have spoken. The majority said leave. Should we "confirm" the abortion referendum?
    Ur funny mate


  • Options
    #1589
    dundalkfc10
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭dundalkfc10


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Firstly: Because it would silence the Remainers if Leave was confirmed.


    Secondly: Unlike our referendums, UK ref's are advisory and the final decision is up to Parliament. Having confirmation would act to 'advise' the government on what the majority wish if 3 options were put i) Leave with No Deal; ii) Leave with the negotiated deal; iii) Remain.

    Currently it looks like the Leavers fear a different result hence their opposition to a second referendum.
    It they are so certain - why not hold ref II?

    If remains wins, will they have a 3rd cause it will be 1 win each?


  • Options
    #1590
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Aah would you stop trolling!
    The people voted to leave (not counting the various unethical interventions in the campaigning). They did not all vote for the same leave process despite the disingenuous claims by those who want out.

    And this is why no WA will get through parliament, because there is about 1/3rd want a hard Brexit, 1/3rd that want no Brexit and 1/3rd that support a brexit with the WA.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1591
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    dundalkfc10 wrote: »
    If remains wins, will they have a 3rd cause it will be 1 win each?

    As I said - in the UK referendums are not binding - they are advisory. Ultimately it is up to Parliament to decide. Parliament is log jammed.
    If Remain wins it would show there is no appetite for a No Deal Brexit for a start so that could be taken off the table.

    But yes, they could run a 3rd. Why not?

    With clear terms of reference.
    1) Brexit with the deal currently on the table.
    2) Remain.

    Why people believe asking the electorate to confirm it's wishes is anti-democratic is a mystery to me.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement