comment by The Duality of Van (Dijk) (U21747)
posted 12 minutes ago
I'm a Labourite like you Sandy and honestly feel the most sensible way to resolve Brexit is Labour's compromise approach, which is broadly:
1. Get in power
2. Negotiate with EU
3. Put the eventual deal to the parliament and potentially the public
Tories have basically shifted horribly right and I'm sorry but Lib Dem's approach of revocation might play well with remainers but is as equally divisive.
A transparent compromise approach with broad public and parliamentary engagement at each stage feels to me like the only way out of this massive mess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically what Theresa May done then!
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Better than Gozer the Gozerian (U3126)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 1 minute ago
I drove up the North last Saturday. Was wonderful just passing over the border.
It would be an awful shame to go back to border controls we once had and even worse to have the checks etc that used to be there. Pearce Im sure you remember what it was like
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100%. The point folk often miss is it's not just about the border. The GFA ensures that both unionists and Republicans can maintain the status quo minus the violence.
It offers identity to all, which has been vital in maintaining the (fragile) peace. Citizens can hold dual Irish/British citizenship.
But sadly the debate has only surrounded how the square the border circle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And peace st the moment up there is very fragile
Regarding the border, my issue is this:
- Say there's a no-deal Brexit (I know the legislation is going through, but go with me).
- Neither side wants a hard border with controls.
- The border is left essentially open and unmanned.
- There are major issues, particularly around things that would be classed in one way or another as smuggling.
- This essentially forces both sides back to the table. A manned, hard border is still regarded as entirely unpalatable, so they have to come up with other plans. Those plans are certainly imperfect, at least to begin with, but are built upon over time through necessity on both sides.
- It takes a long time, but you gradually improve the solution.
With this being what would await us anyway, why is the backstop considered non-negotiable?
A hard border is in direct contradiction of the GFA. It also heavily impacts trade as there are many companies drivers who pass back and forth over it numerous times daily
Yes, so assuming both sides stick with the GFA - which they should - the border remains open and unmanned.
Not sure how workable this is but it might be possible to have a border in the Irish sea? Big problem being the DUP would withdraw all support for the already fecked Tories if they sanctioned it
My big fear is the break up of Europe altogether.
I see can another European war if that happens
Brexit mean Britain gets isolated from the rest of the world. Globalisation can't be stopped and important issues can only be solved together.
If you think that Trump is your helping hand you're wrong. You make a pact with the devil to trust him. He only have own interests in his mind.
der kloppites - For me, the idea that the EU has kept the peace in Europe is one of the biggest lies going. Nukes, NATO, societal development and improved communications have done that. The EU is just the political project that claims the credit.
comment by der kloppites Hi, wie geht es dir (U13373)
posted 3 minutes ago
My big fear is the break up of Europe altogether.
I see can another European war if that happens
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Major powers don't have actual wars vs each other any more. Weapons are too sophisticated meaning the rich and powerful can't hang back and let the poor murder each other on the front lines
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 4 minutes ago
Regarding the border, my issue is this:
- Say there's a no-deal Brexit (I know the legislation is going through, but go with me).
- Neither side wants a hard border with controls.
- The border is left essentially open and unmanned.
- There are major issues, particularly around things that would be classed in one way or another as smuggling.
- This essentially forces both sides back to the table. A manned, hard border is still regarded as entirely unpalatable, so they have to come up with other plans. Those plans are certainly imperfect, at least to begin with, but are built upon over time through necessity on both sides.
- It takes a long time, but you gradually improve the solution.
With this being what would await us anyway, why is the backstop considered non-negotiable?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ireland (as per treaty obligations) would be required to protect the integrity of the EU's internal market - or face being shut out, which places them in an difficult position.
The UK too would seek to protect it's internal market (as without EU protections on areas like tariff rate quotas) it would be used as an international dumping ground.
The govs proposal is to waive all tariffs between the UK (NI) and RoI but outside of a free trade area / preferential trading relationship WTO most favoured nation rules kick in.
Which would mean the UK would have to waive tariffs with the rest of the world. Without counterparts having to reciprocate.
Which would render many UK businesses uncompetitive overnight compared to their global competitors.
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 6 minutes ago
Yes, so assuming both sides stick with the GFA - which they should - the border remains open and unmanned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erm, I think the EU may have something to say about that.
The integrity of their internal market is one of THEIR red lines.
Out of the CU = A Hard Border
WTO = A Hard Border.
How many times do people need this explaining to them?????
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 3 minutes ago
der kloppites - For me, the idea that the EU has kept the peace in Europe is one of the biggest lies going. Nukes, NATO, societal development and improved communications have done that. The EU is just the political project that claims the credit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
70 years of peace last time I checked.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Wry do you think no alternative to the backstop STILL hasn’t been put forward?
Because there isn’t one.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Better than Gozer the Gozerian (U3126)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 4 minutes ago
Regarding the border, my issue is this:
- Say there's a no-deal Brexit (I know the legislation is going through, but go with me).
- Neither side wants a hard border with controls.
- The border is left essentially open and unmanned.
- There are major issues, particularly around things that would be classed in one way or another as smuggling.
- This essentially forces both sides back to the table. A manned, hard border is still regarded as entirely unpalatable, so they have to come up with other plans. Those plans are certainly imperfect, at least to begin with, but are built upon over time through necessity on both sides.
- It takes a long time, but you gradually improve the solution.
With this being what would await us anyway, why is the backstop considered non-negotiable?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ireland (as per treaty obligations) would be required to protect the integrity of the EU's internal market - or face being shut out, which places them in an difficult position.
The UK too would seek to protect it's internal market (as without EU protections on areas like tariff rate quotas) it would be used as an international dumping ground.
The govs proposal is to waive all tariffs between the UK (NI) and RoI but outside of a free trade area / preferential trading relationship WTO most favoured nation rules kick in.
Which would mean the UK would have to waive tariffs with the rest of the world. Without counterparts having to reciprocate.
Which would render many UK businesses uncompetitive overnight compared to their global competitors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
...And render any future UK FTA's across the world obsolete. Whats the point of a country entering into a FTA with the UK (to remove tariffs on goods and commodities) if the UK had already waived them anyway!!
comment by wearethefamousTHFC (U19211)
posted 1 minute ago
wouldnt worry about it, we have fked over the planet and it will soon have its revenge
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has already and it cost us a lot of money, weare.
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 40 seconds ago
der kloppites - For me, the idea that the EU has kept the peace in Europe is one of the biggest lies going. Nukes, NATO, societal development and improved communications have done that. The EU is just the political project that claims the credit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
for me to many ultra right wing thinkers these days, it only takes mad man to brain wash a country in recession and it could all kick off again just look at loony in charge of the yanks.
comment by Ace (U18814)
posted 2 hours, 30 minutes ago
Since my first vote in the mid 1960s, I have never ever voted for any other political party, and will not be changing now.
—————-
I’ve never understood this mentality.
Politics isn’t like football. Your team is your team. But political stances can change a great deal and I don’t understand staunchly voting for a Party because it’s what you, or your family, have always done. Politics is a more fluid concept than that. Parties change, society changes. Labour for example has a stance presently that’s more left than the centrist position taken up by Blair in the 90’s. If Labour went down the road of outright communism would you still support them, just because it’s Labour?
I was first old enough to vote in 2001, and voted Labour, then Labour again. But in 2010 I voted for the Lib Dem’s as they appealed most to what I believed in by that time. Clegg forming a coalition with Cameron ruined all that, but the point I’m making is I don’t get this “I’m a staunch Labour man always have been always will be” approach to something that changes with the times.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Ace, but if you think changing your party every election, because they maybe don`t do one or things right that you disagree with is the way forward, then that is why we are in the mess we are.
There is a basic principle surrounding every party, very little has changed with any of the major parties since their formation and that is why you vote for a particularly party. The truth is there is absolutely very little difference between Blairs Labour Party and Corbyns, it is just that the media dress it up as being completely changed, it hasn`t.
You have to ask yourself if MPs in the main stay completely loyal to a party, why cannot members. How many of the Labour MPs have jumped ship from Blairs Labour to Corbyns Labour, very few because they still believe in the Labour Principles, which have never gone away, just because the leaders have changed. Same could be said of the Tory Party, how many Tories have changed Party from Thatcher to Major to Cameron to My to Johnson, very few because the Tory Principles, even though I cannot stand them, are much the same as they have always been.
Sandy winding up the masses again, loves the attention
comment by Dave&Danny (U4428)
posted 13 seconds ago
Sandy winding up the masses again, loves the attention
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don`t do attention mate, if I did I wouldn`t be spending my time on JA606.
I like to get others view of the world, nothing wrong with that is there.
To "What would Stuart Pearce do?" - Does that not give the EU the choice between protecting the GFA and enforcing a hard border? It's two red lines clashing with Ireland caught in the middle. Would they not seek more actively for a different solution? Most of the analysis I've seen is that a technological solution does not exist yet but can be developed over years.
To der kloppites - I've no love for Donald Trump, but he's not going around starting wars and invading places. People have too much to lose in a direct war these days. I can't see there being any appetite for it, even with an increase in populism. (Which looks to be plateauing anyway.)
Automatic - You're just rude and I can't be bothered with you.
comment by Sporty and Portly - LFC (U8531)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
comment by Gunnerthru (U6675)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 37 minutes ago
So happy that Boris got smashed yesterday. That’s what you get for trying to f*ck with our Parliamentary Sovereignty you tin pot dictator.
He now leads a minority government and Labour will simply refuse to back a General Election until their terms are met.
He’s f*cked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tories promised to deliver Brexit. They based the whole campain on lies.
People voted for something not knowing for what they exactly voted and which consequences it would have.
The Tories failed badly. People who voted for them should think about twice to do it again. Johnson, Farage and the whole bunch of losers should fack off immediately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stop saying people didn't know what they were voting for, it's beyond arrogant.
Bottom line, the majority of people voted to leave the EU. A deal was tried, it failed leaving no deal as the only viable option.
And you can personally slate Johnson all you like, he'll absolutely romp the next election hence why Labour suddenly don't want one. It's got nothing to do with Boris being able to change the election date, he can get that set in law. They know he'll destroy them, and he will. Since he's been PM he's actually stood up for what the majority of us want, the polls show it clearly.
You can doubt the polls if you want but the only way Boris doesn't win a minimum 60 seat majority is if the Brexit Party oppose him, and Nigel is already making noises that this won't happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnstone won`t romp the next election, he will probably get wiped out in Scotland, pretty well wiped out where LibDems are anywhere near them in the current seats. And I expect the Northerners to have a bit more sense to fall for the Tory/Brexit Party rubbish when the realise they are all probably going to be out of work if we leave without a deal.
The majority don`t want anything. Latest Polls are that over 54 per cent want to leave with a deal, and only 36 per cent want to leave with a No Deal. Or do you only look at selective polls that suit your agenda.
Johnson could not wipe his arris at the moment. He is a complete fraud.
comment by Dave&Danny (U4428)
posted 11 minutes ago
Sandy winding up the masses again, loves the attention
----------------------------------------------------------------------
vote Sandy I say
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 2 minutes ago
To "What would Stuart Pearce do?" - Does that not give the EU the choice between protecting the GFA and enforcing a hard border? It's two red lines clashing with Ireland caught in the middle. Would they not seek more actively for a different solution? Most of the analysis I've seen is that a technological solution does not exist yet but can be developed over years.
To der kloppites - I've no love for Donald Trump, but he's not going around starting wars and invading places. People have too much to lose in a direct war these days. I can't see there being any appetite for it, even with an increase in populism. (Which looks to be plateauing anyway.)
Automatic - You're just rude and I can't be bothered with you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s why Ireland have (with support from the EU) not been prepared to ‘ditch’ the backstop, 'unless and until' the UK can provide legally binding alternatives. It’s just not something the EU can countenance.
Worth noting there is no mention of the border in the GFA but strand two infers joint cooperation and “partners in the EU.” See page 13 onwards:
https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/alldfawebsitemedia/ourrolesandpolicies/northernireland/good-friday-agreement-1.pdf
Regardless of the text in the GFA, any significant change to North/South/East/West relationships will undoubtedly be seized upon by dissidents.
Sign in if you want to comment
The country is absolutely divided
Page 3 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 4/9/19
comment by The Duality of Van (Dijk) (U21747)
posted 12 minutes ago
I'm a Labourite like you Sandy and honestly feel the most sensible way to resolve Brexit is Labour's compromise approach, which is broadly:
1. Get in power
2. Negotiate with EU
3. Put the eventual deal to the parliament and potentially the public
Tories have basically shifted horribly right and I'm sorry but Lib Dem's approach of revocation might play well with remainers but is as equally divisive.
A transparent compromise approach with broad public and parliamentary engagement at each stage feels to me like the only way out of this massive mess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically what Theresa May done then!
posted on 4/9/19
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Better than Gozer the Gozerian (U3126)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 1 minute ago
I drove up the North last Saturday. Was wonderful just passing over the border.
It would be an awful shame to go back to border controls we once had and even worse to have the checks etc that used to be there. Pearce Im sure you remember what it was like
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100%. The point folk often miss is it's not just about the border. The GFA ensures that both unionists and Republicans can maintain the status quo minus the violence.
It offers identity to all, which has been vital in maintaining the (fragile) peace. Citizens can hold dual Irish/British citizenship.
But sadly the debate has only surrounded how the square the border circle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And peace st the moment up there is very fragile
posted on 4/9/19
Regarding the border, my issue is this:
- Say there's a no-deal Brexit (I know the legislation is going through, but go with me).
- Neither side wants a hard border with controls.
- The border is left essentially open and unmanned.
- There are major issues, particularly around things that would be classed in one way or another as smuggling.
- This essentially forces both sides back to the table. A manned, hard border is still regarded as entirely unpalatable, so they have to come up with other plans. Those plans are certainly imperfect, at least to begin with, but are built upon over time through necessity on both sides.
- It takes a long time, but you gradually improve the solution.
With this being what would await us anyway, why is the backstop considered non-negotiable?
posted on 4/9/19
A hard border is in direct contradiction of the GFA. It also heavily impacts trade as there are many companies drivers who pass back and forth over it numerous times daily
posted on 4/9/19
Yes, so assuming both sides stick with the GFA - which they should - the border remains open and unmanned.
posted on 4/9/19
Not sure how workable this is but it might be possible to have a border in the Irish sea? Big problem being the DUP would withdraw all support for the already fecked Tories if they sanctioned it
posted on 4/9/19
My big fear is the break up of Europe altogether.
I see can another European war if that happens
posted on 4/9/19
Brexit mean Britain gets isolated from the rest of the world. Globalisation can't be stopped and important issues can only be solved together.
If you think that Trump is your helping hand you're wrong. You make a pact with the devil to trust him. He only have own interests in his mind.
posted on 4/9/19
der kloppites - For me, the idea that the EU has kept the peace in Europe is one of the biggest lies going. Nukes, NATO, societal development and improved communications have done that. The EU is just the political project that claims the credit.
posted on 4/9/19
comment by der kloppites Hi, wie geht es dir (U13373)
posted 3 minutes ago
My big fear is the break up of Europe altogether.
I see can another European war if that happens
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Major powers don't have actual wars vs each other any more. Weapons are too sophisticated meaning the rich and powerful can't hang back and let the poor murder each other on the front lines
posted on 4/9/19
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 4 minutes ago
Regarding the border, my issue is this:
- Say there's a no-deal Brexit (I know the legislation is going through, but go with me).
- Neither side wants a hard border with controls.
- The border is left essentially open and unmanned.
- There are major issues, particularly around things that would be classed in one way or another as smuggling.
- This essentially forces both sides back to the table. A manned, hard border is still regarded as entirely unpalatable, so they have to come up with other plans. Those plans are certainly imperfect, at least to begin with, but are built upon over time through necessity on both sides.
- It takes a long time, but you gradually improve the solution.
With this being what would await us anyway, why is the backstop considered non-negotiable?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ireland (as per treaty obligations) would be required to protect the integrity of the EU's internal market - or face being shut out, which places them in an difficult position.
The UK too would seek to protect it's internal market (as without EU protections on areas like tariff rate quotas) it would be used as an international dumping ground.
The govs proposal is to waive all tariffs between the UK (NI) and RoI but outside of a free trade area / preferential trading relationship WTO most favoured nation rules kick in.
Which would mean the UK would have to waive tariffs with the rest of the world. Without counterparts having to reciprocate.
Which would render many UK businesses uncompetitive overnight compared to their global competitors.
posted on 4/9/19
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 6 minutes ago
Yes, so assuming both sides stick with the GFA - which they should - the border remains open and unmanned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erm, I think the EU may have something to say about that.
The integrity of their internal market is one of THEIR red lines.
Out of the CU = A Hard Border
WTO = A Hard Border.
How many times do people need this explaining to them?????
posted on 4/9/19
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 3 minutes ago
der kloppites - For me, the idea that the EU has kept the peace in Europe is one of the biggest lies going. Nukes, NATO, societal development and improved communications have done that. The EU is just the political project that claims the credit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
70 years of peace last time I checked.
posted on 4/9/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/9/19
Wry do you think no alternative to the backstop STILL hasn’t been put forward?
Because there isn’t one.
posted on 4/9/19
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Better than Gozer the Gozerian (U3126)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 4 minutes ago
Regarding the border, my issue is this:
- Say there's a no-deal Brexit (I know the legislation is going through, but go with me).
- Neither side wants a hard border with controls.
- The border is left essentially open and unmanned.
- There are major issues, particularly around things that would be classed in one way or another as smuggling.
- This essentially forces both sides back to the table. A manned, hard border is still regarded as entirely unpalatable, so they have to come up with other plans. Those plans are certainly imperfect, at least to begin with, but are built upon over time through necessity on both sides.
- It takes a long time, but you gradually improve the solution.
With this being what would await us anyway, why is the backstop considered non-negotiable?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ireland (as per treaty obligations) would be required to protect the integrity of the EU's internal market - or face being shut out, which places them in an difficult position.
The UK too would seek to protect it's internal market (as without EU protections on areas like tariff rate quotas) it would be used as an international dumping ground.
The govs proposal is to waive all tariffs between the UK (NI) and RoI but outside of a free trade area / preferential trading relationship WTO most favoured nation rules kick in.
Which would mean the UK would have to waive tariffs with the rest of the world. Without counterparts having to reciprocate.
Which would render many UK businesses uncompetitive overnight compared to their global competitors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
...And render any future UK FTA's across the world obsolete. Whats the point of a country entering into a FTA with the UK (to remove tariffs on goods and commodities) if the UK had already waived them anyway!!
posted on 4/9/19
comment by wearethefamousTHFC (U19211)
posted 1 minute ago
wouldnt worry about it, we have fked over the planet and it will soon have its revenge
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has already and it cost us a lot of money, weare.
posted on 4/9/19
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 40 seconds ago
der kloppites - For me, the idea that the EU has kept the peace in Europe is one of the biggest lies going. Nukes, NATO, societal development and improved communications have done that. The EU is just the political project that claims the credit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
for me to many ultra right wing thinkers these days, it only takes mad man to brain wash a country in recession and it could all kick off again just look at loony in charge of the yanks.
posted on 4/9/19
comment by Ace (U18814)
posted 2 hours, 30 minutes ago
Since my first vote in the mid 1960s, I have never ever voted for any other political party, and will not be changing now.
—————-
I’ve never understood this mentality.
Politics isn’t like football. Your team is your team. But political stances can change a great deal and I don’t understand staunchly voting for a Party because it’s what you, or your family, have always done. Politics is a more fluid concept than that. Parties change, society changes. Labour for example has a stance presently that’s more left than the centrist position taken up by Blair in the 90’s. If Labour went down the road of outright communism would you still support them, just because it’s Labour?
I was first old enough to vote in 2001, and voted Labour, then Labour again. But in 2010 I voted for the Lib Dem’s as they appealed most to what I believed in by that time. Clegg forming a coalition with Cameron ruined all that, but the point I’m making is I don’t get this “I’m a staunch Labour man always have been always will be” approach to something that changes with the times.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Ace, but if you think changing your party every election, because they maybe don`t do one or things right that you disagree with is the way forward, then that is why we are in the mess we are.
There is a basic principle surrounding every party, very little has changed with any of the major parties since their formation and that is why you vote for a particularly party. The truth is there is absolutely very little difference between Blairs Labour Party and Corbyns, it is just that the media dress it up as being completely changed, it hasn`t.
You have to ask yourself if MPs in the main stay completely loyal to a party, why cannot members. How many of the Labour MPs have jumped ship from Blairs Labour to Corbyns Labour, very few because they still believe in the Labour Principles, which have never gone away, just because the leaders have changed. Same could be said of the Tory Party, how many Tories have changed Party from Thatcher to Major to Cameron to My to Johnson, very few because the Tory Principles, even though I cannot stand them, are much the same as they have always been.
posted on 4/9/19
Sandy winding up the masses again, loves the attention
posted on 4/9/19
comment by Dave&Danny (U4428)
posted 13 seconds ago
Sandy winding up the masses again, loves the attention
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don`t do attention mate, if I did I wouldn`t be spending my time on JA606.
I like to get others view of the world, nothing wrong with that is there.
posted on 4/9/19
To "What would Stuart Pearce do?" - Does that not give the EU the choice between protecting the GFA and enforcing a hard border? It's two red lines clashing with Ireland caught in the middle. Would they not seek more actively for a different solution? Most of the analysis I've seen is that a technological solution does not exist yet but can be developed over years.
To der kloppites - I've no love for Donald Trump, but he's not going around starting wars and invading places. People have too much to lose in a direct war these days. I can't see there being any appetite for it, even with an increase in populism. (Which looks to be plateauing anyway.)
Automatic - You're just rude and I can't be bothered with you.
posted on 4/9/19
comment by Sporty and Portly - LFC (U8531)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
comment by Gunnerthru (U6675)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 37 minutes ago
So happy that Boris got smashed yesterday. That’s what you get for trying to f*ck with our Parliamentary Sovereignty you tin pot dictator.
He now leads a minority government and Labour will simply refuse to back a General Election until their terms are met.
He’s f*cked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tories promised to deliver Brexit. They based the whole campain on lies.
People voted for something not knowing for what they exactly voted and which consequences it would have.
The Tories failed badly. People who voted for them should think about twice to do it again. Johnson, Farage and the whole bunch of losers should fack off immediately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stop saying people didn't know what they were voting for, it's beyond arrogant.
Bottom line, the majority of people voted to leave the EU. A deal was tried, it failed leaving no deal as the only viable option.
And you can personally slate Johnson all you like, he'll absolutely romp the next election hence why Labour suddenly don't want one. It's got nothing to do with Boris being able to change the election date, he can get that set in law. They know he'll destroy them, and he will. Since he's been PM he's actually stood up for what the majority of us want, the polls show it clearly.
You can doubt the polls if you want but the only way Boris doesn't win a minimum 60 seat majority is if the Brexit Party oppose him, and Nigel is already making noises that this won't happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnstone won`t romp the next election, he will probably get wiped out in Scotland, pretty well wiped out where LibDems are anywhere near them in the current seats. And I expect the Northerners to have a bit more sense to fall for the Tory/Brexit Party rubbish when the realise they are all probably going to be out of work if we leave without a deal.
The majority don`t want anything. Latest Polls are that over 54 per cent want to leave with a deal, and only 36 per cent want to leave with a No Deal. Or do you only look at selective polls that suit your agenda.
Johnson could not wipe his arris at the moment. He is a complete fraud.
posted on 4/9/19
comment by Dave&Danny (U4428)
posted 11 minutes ago
Sandy winding up the masses again, loves the attention
----------------------------------------------------------------------
vote Sandy I say
posted on 4/9/19
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 2 minutes ago
To "What would Stuart Pearce do?" - Does that not give the EU the choice between protecting the GFA and enforcing a hard border? It's two red lines clashing with Ireland caught in the middle. Would they not seek more actively for a different solution? Most of the analysis I've seen is that a technological solution does not exist yet but can be developed over years.
To der kloppites - I've no love for Donald Trump, but he's not going around starting wars and invading places. People have too much to lose in a direct war these days. I can't see there being any appetite for it, even with an increase in populism. (Which looks to be plateauing anyway.)
Automatic - You're just rude and I can't be bothered with you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s why Ireland have (with support from the EU) not been prepared to ‘ditch’ the backstop, 'unless and until' the UK can provide legally binding alternatives. It’s just not something the EU can countenance.
Worth noting there is no mention of the border in the GFA but strand two infers joint cooperation and “partners in the EU.” See page 13 onwards:
https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/alldfawebsitemedia/ourrolesandpolicies/northernireland/good-friday-agreement-1.pdf
Regardless of the text in the GFA, any significant change to North/South/East/West relationships will undoubtedly be seized upon by dissidents.
Page 3 of 7
6 | 7