birchesgreen
Established Member
The architects of this mess will get away free with their ill-gained wealth and privilege, the innocent will be left to suffer, some paying the ultimate price. I'm sure it will be "world beating" whatever it is.
Got a source for that?The tories got a majority in 2015 because the referendum was in the manifesto.
What are you basung that claim on?And now they want to undo it.
Cameron and Osborne were staunch remainers. The tories got a majority in 2015 because the referendum was in the manifesto. Governments are criticised for the slightest failure to implement any manifesto promises whatever the circumstances. Johnson was elected on a manifesto of getting Brexit done. The people voted.
Frost wants to renegotiate the deal.What are you basung that claim on?
It is worse than that .Frost wants to renegotiate the deal.
He wants to scrap the deal he negotiated , his boss approved and MP voted for ( Tories did not even bother to read it ) but somehow they all now claim is horrible deal .
Lord Frost now spends most of his time castigating the EU for sticking to the terms of the deal struck by Lord Frost, and for doing so in a way that was predicted by seemingly everyone other than Lord Frost.
Yes i was being polite.It is worse than that .
He wants to scrap the deal he negotiated , his boss approved and MP voted for ( Tories did not even bother to read it ) but somehow they all now claim is horrible deal .
what a bunch of morons .
It is worse than that .
He wants to scrap the deal he negotiated , his boss approved and MP voted for ( Tories did not even bother to read it ) but somehow they all now claim is horrible deal .
what a bunch of morons .
I think if we do that, it needs to come with massively tightened laws on how much haulage companies are allowed to exploit their workers.And these temporary job visas are another admission that Brexit doesn’t work, as need to go back to having EU workers (and stealing other countries health workers), because as a country we don’t train our own workforce in some sectors.
Agreed, irrespective of their nationality.I think if we do that, it needs to come with massively tightened laws on how much haulage companies are allowed to exploit their workers.
Yes i was being polite.
The gall of the the lot of them is astounding. I suspect they want the EU to refuse or for this to become a massivbe failure so they can continue to play the victim and blame everything going wrong on the evil EU and not their own ineptitude. This lot need a bogeyman.
So in you're agreeing with me that this was railroaded through. In fact by the time it happened majority opinion was against it.1. Following the referendum there was only going to be a small window of opportunity to get this done, before changing public opinion would close the window.
On the assumption that (1) ['real' Brexit'] was the goal, and the window of that possibility was short, what other possible course could have been taken?
Please note for correctness: the country's proper name in English is Ireland (or the Republic of Ireland where disambiguation is necessary), or Éire in Irish, but not Eire.... Eire and Northern Ireland ...
As demonstrated regularly over the last three years Frost is clueless, naïve and utterly out of his depth. That's being generous.Frost is confident that playing hardball will result in the EU backing down, they need us is the truth.
This lot need a bogeyman.
Nail on the head here.They need an enemy.
It goes like this:
1. Johnson pulls out of the agreement his team negotiated;
2. Waits for the EU to hit us with perfectly legal trade tariffs because we've broken our side of the agreement;
3. Blame the "nasty" EU for all the resulting problems our decision causes;
4. Wrap themselves in the Union Flag;
5. Call a "national solidarity" early general election (vote for us - our country is under attack from nasty foreigners!)
6. Form the next government.
I suspect that the proponents of 'real' Brexit knew that they only had a small window of opportunity. It does not take a genius to realise that a 52/48 vote is going to be susceptible to shifting public opinion back to the status quo.So in you're agreeing with me that this was railroaded through. In fact by the time it happened majority opinion was against it.
Red flags or not - if you want something the small window of opportunity had to be seized. This is politics. Pure Brexit is incompatible with the UK's existing commitments in Northern Ireland without some pretty major concessions. However, one persons 'actions undertaken by the UK in the past limiting the UK's options now' is someone else's 'tail wagging the dog'. I don't think free movement of Eastern Europeans to the UK, or probably more poignantly, increasing EU regulatory control over the financial services industry, was considered in the Good Friday agreement. Commitments are one thing; the shifting surrounding sands are another. UK Government attempts to minimise the effects of these did not meet with favour with the EU.Leaving aside the vast set of red flags attached to the notion of "quick, ram it through before people realise it's a bad idea", the options present themselves to me as saying that "pure" Brexit is incompatible with the UK's existing commitments in Northern Ireland. Full stop. It's not a case of the "tail wagging the dog" - it's nothing more than actions undertaken by the UK in the past limiting the UK's options now.
I'd note further that the referendum campaign was not one of "pure" Brexit but of "Norway style" distancing, which would have avoided the NI problem entirely. Perhaps you approached it in the knowledge that Norway-style was never going to last, and I'm quite sure a certain number of other people did too, but I completely reject the revisionist view that that understanding was widespread in the electorate at the time of referendum.
I don't think both parties were agreeable at the time of making the agreement, but the UK signatures were an expedient in view of a looming deadline. The EU are not stupid - they will have been well aware of this and will have taken maximum advantage (As the UK would if the boot was on the other foot) and will have known the likely consequences. I don't think it is Britain's 'standard' way of doing things, but the circumstances of the whole Brexit negotiations were not 'standard'.On the point of revising the Withdrawal Agreement later, I'd argue that it's immaterial that Britain might have been expected to behave this way. The agreement is the agreement and that's that. Of course there can be re-negotiation if both parties are agreeable, but what does it say of Britain's trustworthy and reliability if its standard manner in negotiations is seen to be something like "agree to whatever's expedient in the moment, then abrogate and renege when it suits us later"?
Probably what they did - lied and deceived to get a small majority of those who voted onside, then claim a democratic mandate and refuse to take it back to the people despite plenty of evidence the majority was gone.I ask again - if you wanted 'real' or 'pure' Brexit, what would you have done?
Sounds pretty much like the politics of much of the world....Probably what they did - lied and deceived to get a small majority of those who voted onside, then claim a democratic mandate and refuse to take it back to the people despite plenty of evidence the majority was gone.
Does that make it ok then?Sounds pretty much like the politics of much of the world....
Merely an observation.Does that make it ok then?
As I recall, two years after the referendum there was a General Election, which I don't think was marked by a majority (or anywhere close) voting for parties that were anti-Brexit. This 'plenty of evidence' was where exactly?Probably what they did - lied and deceived to get a small majority of those who voted onside, then claim a democratic mandate and refuse to take it back to the people despite plenty of evidence the majority was gone.
By this logic all of Britain's international treaties and agreements are each individual tails all ceaselessly wagging one the same confused dog. Let's not forget that it was a British government that partitioned Ireland in the first place, and a whole string of successor British governments have maintained the outcome of that partition and supported the continued existence of Northern Ireland, and at no small cost either - so I don't accept the argument that the framers of the GFA should have had to consider even one of Britain's potential future complaints about its relationship with the EU. The British government committed to the agreement and to the peace process - just as Ireland also committed in good faith - and if the existence of that prior commitment complicates or even precludes Brexit, as it indeed does, than that is Brexit's problem and Brexit's problem alone.This is politics. Pure Brexit is incompatible with the UK's existing commitments in Northern Ireland without some pretty major concessions. However, one persons 'actions undertaken by the UK in the past limiting the UK's options now' is someone else's 'tail wagging the dog'. I don't think free movement of Eastern Europeans to the UK, or probably more poignantly, increasing EU regulatory control over the financial services industry, was considered in the Good Friday agreement. Commitments are one thing; the shifting surrounding sands are another. UK Government attempts to minimise the effects of these did not meet with favour with the EU.
The looming deadline that Britain could have extended, had it wished? That one?I don't think both parties were agreeable at the time of making the agreement, but the UK signatures were an expedient in view of a looming deadline. The EU are not stupid - they will have been well aware of this and will have taken maximum advantage (As the UK would if the boot was on the other foot) and will have known the likely consequences. I don't think it is Britain's 'standard' way of doing things, but the circumstances of the whole Brexit negotiations were not 'standard'.
Accepted the Irish Sea border. That or I would have dumped a breathtakingly immense mountain of cash out the front of Leinster HouseI ask again - if you wanted 'real' or 'pure' Brexit, what would you have done?
The trouble with treating any General Election as a single-issue plebiscite is that you can't actually separate voting intent for that one single issue from all the other combined intents.As I recall, two years after the referendum there was a General Election, which I don't think was marked by a majority (or anywhere close) voting for parties that were anti-Brexit. This 'plenty of evidence' was where exactly?
It clearly didn't preclude Brexit, because Brexit is done. Partition was an expedient at the time. I did not say that the framers of the GFA should have had to consider even one of Britain's potential future complaints about its relationship with the EU .... I was merely pointing out that they didn't and things have moved on since then.By this logic all of Britain's international treaties and agreements are each individual tails all ceaselessly wagging one the same confused dog. Let's not forget that it was a British government that partitioned Ireland in the first place, and a whole string of successor British governments have maintained the outcome of that partition and supported the continued existence of Northern Ireland, and at no small cost either - so I don't accept the argument that the framers of the GFA should have had to consider even one of Britain's potential future complaints about its relationship with the EU. The British government committed to the agreement and to the peace process - just as Ireland also committed in good faith - and if the existence of that prior commitment complicates or even precludes Brexit, as it indeed does, than that is Brexit's problem and Brexit's problem alone.
If you tally seats sure. If you tally votes though its considerably less rosy for the pro-Brexit camp. However we are where we are and an un-democratic electoral system is what we're stuck with.As I recall, two years after the referendum there was a General Election, which I don't think was marked by a majority (or anywhere close) voting for parties that were anti-Brexit. This 'plenty of evidence' was where exactly?