The moral principle is democracy. We voted to leave the EU. If the GFA can't cope with this strain then it is due re-negotiation.
I'm asking why, given the Irish people voted for the GFA in a referendum in both jurisdictions, why they should consider our leaving the EU takes priorety?
Because we have voted to leave the EU. It's called democracy. If the GFA can't take the strain of democracy then it's due re-negotiation
But they voted for the GFA. It's called democracy. If Brexit can't take the strain of the democratic will of the Irish people then it's due to look again at it.
I am 100% sure that the GFA would get approval in a subsequent referendum. So we have competing democratic mandates. So who compromises on their democracy - us or them?
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
The GFA took 30 years to come about. The occupation of Ireland ongoing for 8 centuries prior to that. The GFA is the only agreement that has seemed to work. Most of the alternatives have been proposed. It is quite possible there is no alternative to the GFA.
That will be a shame if so.
I have more faith in human ability to compromise though where there's a will there's a way. But some things can't be compromised on and democracy is one of them.
We are compromising the democratic will of the Irish people by damaging the GFA.
So be it if necessary. Brexit supersedes the GFA. Permitting it via the Lisbon Treaty was voted on after the GFA by both Britain and Ireland.
The Withdrawal Agreement was negotiated under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty...
And rejected by Parliament. The Withdrawal Agreement is an undemocratic betrayal of Britain and unionists in Northern Ireland and it is dead.
The sooner people accept that we will not back down on democracy . . . the sooner people accept that we will neither be undemocratically cancelling Brexit nor ratifying the undemocratic abomination that is the backstop . . . then the sooner we can find a real solution rather than this pathetic merry-go-round of hunting unicorns.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
The GFA took 30 years to come about. The occupation of Ireland ongoing for 8 centuries prior to that. The GFA is the only agreement that has seemed to work. Most of the alternatives have been proposed. It is quite possible there is no alternative to the GFA.
That will be a shame if so.
I have more faith in human ability to compromise though where there's a will there's a way. But some things can't be compromised on and democracy is one of them.
We are compromising the democratic will of the Irish people by damaging the GFA.
So be it if necessary. Brexit supersedes the GFA. Permitting it via the Lisbon Treaty was voted on after the GFA by both Britain and Ireland.
The Withdrawal Agreement was negotiated under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty...
And rejected by Parliament. The Withdrawal Agreement is an undemocratic betrayal of Britain and unionists in Northern Ireland and it is dead.
The sooner people accept that we will not back down on democracy . . . the sooner people accept that we will neither be undemocratically cancelling Brexit nor ratifying the undemocratic abomination that is the backstop . . . then the sooner we can find a real solution rather than this pathetic merry-go-round of hunting unicorns.
Who should compromise on the democratic will of its people? Us or Ireland? Someone's going to have to.
The moral principle is democracy. We voted to leave the EU. If the GFA can't cope with this strain then it is due re-negotiation.
I'm asking why, given the Irish people voted for the GFA in a referendum in both jurisdictions, why they should consider our leaving the EU takes priorety?
Because we have voted to leave the EU. It's called democracy. If the GFA can't take the strain of democracy then it's due re-negotiation
But they voted for the GFA. It's called democracy. If Brexit can't take the strain of the democratic will of the Irish people then it's due to look again at it.
I am 100% sure that the GFA would get approval in a subsequent referendum. So we have competing democratic mandates. So who compromises on their democracy - us or them?
Fine - Cancel Brexit - you've been looking for an excuse and you've found one.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
The GFA took 30 years to come about. The occupation of Ireland ongoing for 8 centuries prior to that. The GFA is the only agreement that has seemed to work. Most of the alternatives have been proposed. It is quite possible there is no alternative to the GFA.
That will be a shame if so.
I have more faith in human ability to compromise though where there's a will there's a way. But some things can't be compromised on and democracy is one of them.
We are compromising the democratic will of the Irish people by damaging the GFA.
So be it if necessary. Brexit supersedes the GFA. Permitting it via the Lisbon Treaty was voted on after the GFA by both Britain and Ireland.
The Withdrawal Agreement was negotiated under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty...
And rejected by Parliament. The Withdrawal Agreement is an undemocratic betrayal of Britain and unionists in Northern Ireland and it is dead.
The sooner people accept that we will not back down on democracy . . . the sooner people accept that we will neither be undemocratically cancelling Brexit nor ratifying the undemocratic abomination that is the backstop . . . then the sooner we can find a real solution rather than this pathetic merry-go-round of hunting unicorns.
Who should compromise on the democratic will of its people? Us or Ireland?
Neither.
Ireland ratified the Lisbon Treaty which permitted Brexit AFTER the GFA.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
"A post-Brexit alternative to the GFA". That sounds like an admission that Brexit is incompatible with the GFA.
No. The backstop is incompatible with it. The first alternative I suggested is not and it is by far the most likely scenario I expect.
But if the Troubles restart then the GFA has failed to cope with Brexit and we will need a new solution.
Could it be that Brexit is the issue here not the GFA?
No.
I am not a lawyer but is not a fundamental principle of law that if two laws clash then the most recently passed takes precedence?
Yes the GFA is international law agreed by both UK and Ireland.
But so too is Lisbon. Which includes Article 50.
The Irish ratified as law Article 50 after the GFA was passed. So Brexit was made lawful after the GFA was passed.
So if there is a clash then Brexit takes precedence.
I am a lawyer and that is bollocks.
Anyway the UK can obviously leave the EU without causing any GFA problems by simply staying in the SM and CU.
If the UK wants to do some kind of Brexit that the GFA (allegedly) doesn't allow I would have thought the UK would have to renegotiate the GFA before doing that kind of Brexit.
Ireland ratified the Lisbon Treaty which permitted Brexit AFTER the GFA.
Too late to take it back if they didn't mean it.
The Lisbon Treaty did not 'permit' Brexit. Brexit was always permissable by the simple expedient of repealing the European Communities Act 1972 unilaterally. Brexit was a possibility in 1998. The mechanism of Brexit, Art 50, was introduced unler Lisbon but many treaties have been unilaterally abrogated before. Indeed we have done so. We could have left through a non-Art 50 mechanism had we wished at any point since 1973.
So I ask again, given that the Irish have never "permitted" Brexit via democratic means, who should compromise on the wlll of their people?
Mr. Pulpstar, sadly, I agree with you. The craven nodding dogs of Labour would back Corbyn as PM, even whilst decrying his antics and those of his circle as being unacceptable.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
The GFA took 30 years to come about. The occupation of Ireland ongoing for 8 centuries prior to that. The GFA is the only agreement that has seemed to work. Most of the alternatives have been proposed. It is quite possible there is no alternative to the GFA.
That will be a shame if so.
I have more faith in human ability to compromise though where there's a will there's a way. But some things can't be compromised on and democracy is one of them.
Unadulterated nonsense. Are you just unaware that you live under a socking enormous great compromise on democracy where the right to make decisions has been watered down to the right to choose, every 5 years, between two decision-making oligarchies?
You should follow Dr Johnson's recommendation: clear your mind of cant, and don't *think* foolishly.
The moral principle is democracy. We voted to leave the EU. If the GFA can't cope with this strain then it is due re-negotiation.
I'm asking why, given the Irish people voted for the GFA in a referendum in both jurisdictions, why they should consider our leaving the EU takes priorety?
The NI electorate had more sense than DUP having a majority to remain in the EU in the referendum a fact that is conveniently overlooked by many spouting drivel.
If the EU won't remove the undemocratic backstop then roll on No Deal and lets see what happens to the border then.
What is the "vital insurancy policy" that kicks in on a No Deal exit? I guess we will see soon.
If the Troubles don't restart and alternative arrangements are found then the backstop was not so much insurance but the codswallop we always said it was.
If the Troubles do restart that will be a tragedy and both sides will need to come together in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect to bring them to an end and find a post-Brexit alternative to the GFA.
The GFA took 30 years to come about. The occupation of Ireland ongoing for 8 centuries prior to that. The GFA is the only agreement that has seemed to work. Most of the alternatives have been proposed. It is quite possible there is no alternative to the GFA.
That will be a shame if so.
I have more faith in human ability to compromise though where there's a will there's a way. But some things can't be compromised on and democracy is one of them.
We are compromising the democratic will of the Irish people by damaging the GFA.
So be it if necessary. Brexit supersedes the GFA. Permitting it via the Lisbon Treaty was voted on after the GFA by both Britain and Ireland.
The Withdrawal Agreement was negotiated under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty...
And rejected by Parliament. The Withdrawal Agreement is an undemocratic betrayal of Britain and unionists in Northern Ireland and it is dead.
The sooner people accept that we will not back down on democracy . . . the sooner people accept that we will neither be undemocratically cancelling Brexit nor ratifying the undemocratic abomination that is the backstop . . . then the sooner we can find a real solution rather than this pathetic merry-go-round of hunting unicorns.
By trying to impose a narrow interpretation of a referendum result without a specific mandate, you have already become an enemy of democracy. You will fail.
The moral principle is democracy. We voted to leave the EU. If the GFA can't cope with this strain then it is due re-negotiation.
I'm asking why, given the Irish people voted for the GFA in a referendum in both jurisdictions, why they should consider our leaving the EU takes priorety?
Because we have voted to leave the EU. It's called democracy. If the GFA can't take the strain of democracy then it's due re-negotiation
But they voted for the GFA. It's called democracy. If Brexit can't take the strain of the democratic will of the Irish people then it's due to look again at it.
I am 100% sure that the GFA would get approval in a subsequent referendum. So we have competing democratic mandates. So who compromises on their democracy - us or them?
Neither. Lisbon was ratified by both parties after the GFA.
If the GFA can't handle the strain of Lisbon then it should have been thought of at the time. Oops. As it happens I opposed Lisbon at the time and I think Brexit would never have occured had it not been ratified but too late now.
The moral principle is democracy. We voted to leave the EU. If the GFA can't cope with this strain then it is due re-negotiation.
I'm asking why, given the Irish people voted for the GFA in a referendum in both jurisdictions, why they should consider our leaving the EU takes priorety?
The NI electorate had more sense than DUP having a majority to remain in the EU in the referendum a fact that is conveniently overlooked by many spouting drivel.
Overlooked by who??? It was a UK wide referendum dimwit.
Ireland ratified the Lisbon Treaty which permitted Brexit AFTER the GFA.
Too late to take it back if they didn't mean it.
The Lisbon Treaty did not 'permit' Brexit. Brexit was always permissable by the simple expedient of repealing the European Communities Act 1972 unilaterally. Brexit was a possibility in 1998. The mechanism of Brexit, Art 50, was introduced unler Lisbon but many treaties have been unilaterally abrogated before. Indeed we have done so. We could have left through a non-Art 50 mechanism had we wished at any point since 1973.
So I ask again, given that the Irish have never "permitted" Brexit via democratic means, who should compromise on the wlll of their people?
We aren't talking about abrogation.
The Irish explicitly agreed to the introduction of Article 50 when they ratified it.
The letter of the law in Lisbon was ratified after and takes precedence over the spirit of the law of the GFA.
The moral principle is democracy. We voted to leave the EU. If the GFA can't cope with this strain then it is due re-negotiation.
I'm asking why, given the Irish people voted for the GFA in a referendum in both jurisdictions, why they should consider our leaving the EU takes priorety?
Because we have voted to leave the EU. It's called democracy. If the GFA can't take the strain of democracy then it's due re-negotiation
But they voted for the GFA. It's called democracy. If Brexit can't take the strain of the democratic will of the Irish people then it's due to look again at it.
I am 100% sure that the GFA would get approval in a subsequent referendum. So we have competing democratic mandates. So who compromises on their democracy - us or them?
Neither. Lisbon was ratified by both parties after the GFA.
If the GFA can't handle the strain of Lisbon then it should have been thought of at the time. Oops. As it happens I opposed Lisbon at the time and I think Brexit would never have occured had it not been ratified but too late now.
I repeat for the simple of understanding - The Lisbon Treaty did not 'permit' Brexit. Brexit was always permissable by the simple expedient of repealing the European Communities Act 1972 unilaterally. Brexit was a possibility in 1998. The mechanism of Brexit, Art 50, was introduced unler Lisbon but many treaties have been unilaterally abrogated before. Indeed we have done so. We could have left through a non-Art 50 mechanism had we wished at any point since 1973.
So I ask again, given that the Irish have never "permitted" Brexit via democratic means, who should compromise on the wlll of their people?
The moral principle is democracy. We voted to leave the EU. If the GFA can't cope with this strain then it is due re-negotiation.
I'm asking why, given the Irish people voted for the GFA in a referendum in both jurisdictions, why they should consider our leaving the EU takes priorety?
Because we have voted to leave the EU. It's called democracy. If the GFA can't take the strain of democracy then it's due re-negotiation
But they voted for the GFA. It's called democracy. If Brexit can't take the strain of the democratic will of the Irish people then it's due to look again at it.
I am 100% sure that the GFA would get approval in a subsequent referendum. So we have competing democratic mandates. So who compromises on their democracy - us or them?
Neither. Lisbon was ratified by both parties after the GFA.
If the GFA can't handle the strain of Lisbon then it should have been thought of at the time. Oops. As it happens I opposed Lisbon at the time and I think Brexit would never have occured had it not been ratified but too late now.
I repeat for the simple of understanding - The Lisbon Treaty did not 'permit' Brexit. Brexit was always permissable by the simple expedient of repealing the European Communities Act 1972 unilaterally. Brexit was a possibility in 1998. The mechanism of Brexit, Art 50, was introduced unler Lisbon but many treaties have been unilaterally abrogated before. Indeed we have done so. We could have left through a non-Art 50 mechanism had we wished at any point since 1973.
So I ask again, given that the Irish have never "permitted" Brexit via democratic means, who should compromise on the wlll of their people?
But we aren't leaving via abrogation. If we were abrogating you would have a leg to stand on. But we are exercising our rights the Irish agreed to when they ratified Lisbon. Lisbon trumps agreements that came before it.
Ireland ratified the Lisbon Treaty which permitted Brexit AFTER the GFA.
Too late to take it back if they didn't mean it.
The Lisbon Treaty did not 'permit' Brexit. Brexit was always permissable by the simple expedient of repealing the European Communities Act 1972 unilaterally. Brexit was a possibility in 1998. The mechanism of Brexit, Art 50, was introduced unler Lisbon but many treaties have been unilaterally abrogated before. Indeed we have done so. We could have left through a non-Art 50 mechanism had we wished at any point since 1973.
So I ask again, given that the Irish have never "permitted" Brexit via democratic means, who should compromise on the wlll of their people?
We aren't talking about abrogation.
The Irish explicitly agreed to the introduction of Article 50 when they ratified it.
The letter of the law in Lisbon was ratified after and takes precedence over the spirit of the law of the GFA.
You've moved the goalposts. We're talking about Brexit/ You said they "permitted Brexit" when they did no such thing. Brexit was always possible - Lisbon just introduced a new mechanism
And why does Lisbon take legal precdence? I've been a qualified lawyer for 20 years and am always looking for novel legal principles to explore and it looks like you've found one.
There are idiots everywhere, but the Brexit manifesto is/was in every key tenet a lie.
Those advocating it (Johnson etc) are smart enough to know it is a lie.
The economic benefits of trade is not a debate. The cost of European membership is not a debate. The implications of reinstating a customs border is not a debate. The relative weight of “global opportunities” versus the European bloc is not a debate. The idea that the EU give us an open border to Syria is not a debate.
There are aspects of EU membership which can and should be debated.
But the Brexit gang preferred to peddle lies, pure and simple. And they’re still at it.
You are right. The 93% of the globe outside the EU is more important than the 6% in it without us. There is no debate.
And trade with the Antarctic is worth how much?
I was going on population percentages not proportion of the globe. By population percentage the Antarctic is 0% so that is moot.
And as we go forward in the 21st century rather than looking back through history it is population percentages that matter most for opportunities because the rest of the world is catching up with (or overtaking) Europe in per capita GDP.
As you well know (since you claim to be an economist), trade intensity is highly correlated with geographic proximity.
Europe is 6% of population, and less than 20% of global GDP but in practical terms represents a much higher % of realistic trading opportunity for the U.K.
No surprise therefore that EU is around 50% of our total trade, and about that the value of this trade is THREE times that with the US.
Of course, we should be positioning ourselves for opportunities in Asia Pacific, while also understanding that the US, China and India in no way represent easy FTAs, AND that there is no opportunity on the table that can somehow make up for jettisoning those with our European neighbours.
With your glib numbers, you effectively lie about the importance of the EU to our economic, and you lie about the size of the non-EU “prize”.
There are idiots everywhere, but the Brexit manifesto is/was in every key tenet a lie.
Those advocating it (Johnson etc) are smart enough to know it is a lie.
The economic benefits of trade is not a debate. The cost of European membership is not a debate. The implications of reinstating a customs border is not a debate. The relative weight of “global opportunities” versus the European bloc is not a debate. The idea that the EU give us an open border to Syria is not a debate.
There are aspects of EU membership which can and should be debated.
But the Brexit gang preferred to peddle lies, pure and simple. And they’re still at it.
You are right. The 93% of the globe outside the EU is more important than the 6% in it without us. There is no debate.
And trade with the Antarctic is worth how much?
I was going on population percentages not proportion of the globe. By population percentage the Antarctic is 0% so that is moot.
And as we go forward in the 21st century rather than looking back through history it is population percentages that matter most for opportunities because the rest of the world is catching up with (or overtaking) Europe in per capita GDP.
As you well know (since you claim to be an economist), trade intensity is highly correlated with geographic proximity.
Europe is 6% of population, and less than 20% of global GDP but in practical terms represents a much higher % of realistic trading opportunity for the U.K.
No surprise therefore that EU is around 50% of our total trade, and about that the value of this trade is THREE times that with the US.
Of course, we should be positioning ourselves for opportunities in Asia Pacific, while also understanding that the US, China and India in no way represent easy FTAs, AND that there is no opportunity on the table that can somehow make up for jettisoning those with our European neighbours.
With your glib numbers, you effectively lie about the importance of the EU to our economic, and you lie about the size of the non-EU “prize”.
If you think his economics is bad, you should look at his law...
@Philip_Thompson I've just wasted five minutes researching your legal point that Lisbon trumps the GFA because it is more recent and have drawn a blank. Can you save me some time and give me a citation?
@Philip_Thompson I've just wasted five minutes researching your legal point that Lisbon trumps the GFA because it is more recent and have drawn a blank. Can you save me some time and give me a citation?
just think another minute on the clock and you can charge a client for it
There are idiots everywhere, but the Brexit manifesto is/was in every key tenet a lie.
Those advocating it (Johnson etc) are smart enough to know it is a lie.
The economic benefits of trade is not a debate. The cost of European membership is not a debate. The implications of reinstating a customs border is not a debate. The relative weight of “global opportunities” versus the European bloc is not a debate. The idea that the EU give us an open border to Syria is not a debate.
There are aspects of EU membership which can and should be debated.
But the Brexit gang preferred to peddle lies, pure and simple. And they’re still at it.
You are right. The 93% of the globe outside the EU is more important than the 6% in it without us. There is no debate.
And trade with the Antarctic is worth how much?
I was going on population percentages not proportion of the globe. By population percentage the Antarctic is 0% so that is moot.
And as we go forward in the 21st century rather than looking back through history it is population percentages that matter most for opportunities because the rest of the world is catching up with (or overtaking) Europe in per capita GDP.
As you well know (since you claim to be an economist), trade intensity is highly correlated with geographic proximity.
Europe is 6% of population, and less than 20% of global GDP but in practical terms represents a much higher % of realistic trading opportunity for the U.K.
No surprise therefore that EU is around 50% of our total trade, and about that the value of this trade is THREE times that with the US.
Of course, we should be positioning ourselves for opportunities in Asia Pacific, while also understanding that the US, China and India in no way represent easy FTAs, AND that there is no opportunity on the table that can somehow make up for jettisoning those with our European neighbours.
With your glib numbers, you effectively lie about the importance of the EU to our economic, and you lie about the size of the non-EU “prize”.
If you think his economics is bad, you should look at his law...
There’s actually a third lie buried in there, which is that EU trade can be posed as an alternative to extra-EU trade.
That would come as quite a surprise to German manufacturers (currently suffering a downturn precisely because of their exposure to China).
There are idiots everywhere, but the Brexit manifesto is/was in every key tenet a lie.
Those advocating it (Johnson etc) are smart enough to know it is a lie.
The economic benefits of trade is not a debate. The cost of European membership is not a debate. The implications of reinstating a customs border is not a debate. The relative weight of “global opportunities” versus the European bloc is not a debate. The idea that the EU give us an open border to Syria is not a debate.
There are aspects of EU membership which can and should be debated.
But the Brexit gang preferred to peddle lies, pure and simple. And they’re still at it.
You are right. The 93% of the globe outside the EU is more important than the 6% in it without us. There is no debate.
And trade with the Antarctic is worth how much?
I was going on population percentages not proportion of the globe. By population percentage the Antarctic is 0% so that is moot.
And as we go forward in the 21st century rather than looking back through history it is population percentages that matter most for opportunities because the rest of the world is catching up with (or overtaking) Europe in per capita GDP.
As you well know (since you claim to be an economist), trade intensity is highly correlated with geographic proximity.
Europe is 6% of population, and less than 20% of global GDP but in practical terms represents a much higher % of realistic trading opportunity for the U.K.
No surprise therefore that EU is around 50% of our total trade, and about that the value of this trade is THREE times that with the US.
Of course, we should be positioning ourselves for opportunities in Asia Pacific, while also understanding that the US, China and India in no way represent easy FTAs, AND that there is no opportunity on the table that can somehow make up for jettisoning those with our European neighbours.
With your glib numbers, you effectively lie about the importance of the EU to our economic, and you lie about the size of the non-EU “prize”.
If you think his economics is bad, you should look at his law...
His history is even worse.
The backstop is worse than the Croke Park massacre.
@Philip_Thompson I've just wasted five minutes researching your legal point that Lisbon trumps the GFA because it is more recent and have drawn a blank. Can you save me some time and give me a citation?
just think another minute on the clock and you can charge a client for it
All I can find is Article 59 of the Vienna Convention —
Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty implied by conclusion of a later treaty 1. A treaty shall be considered as terminated if all the parties to it conclude a later treaty relating to the same subject-matter and:
(a) it appears from the later treaty or is otherwise established that the parties intended that the matter should be governed by that treaty; or (b) the provisions of the later treaty are so far incompatible with those of the earlier one that the two treaties are not capable of being applied at the same time.
2. The earlier treaty shall be considered as only suspended in operation if it appears from the later treaty or is otherwise established that such was the intention of the parties.
The problem is that (1) Lisbon did not deal with the same subject matter and (2) there is no suggestion that the parties intended the peace process to be governed by Lisbon.
Accordingly, contrary to @Philip_Thompson 's assertion, my view is that the GFA takes precedence and the UK is in breach by enacting domestic legislation potentially in breach of it.
There are idiots everywhere, but the Brexit manifesto is/was in every key tenet a lie.
Those advocating it (Johnson etc) are smart enough to know it is a lie.
The economic benefits of trade is not a debate. The cost of European membership is not a debate. The implications of reinstating a customs border is not a debate. The relative weight of “global opportunities” versus the European bloc is not a debate. The idea that the EU give us an open border to Syria is not a debate.
There are aspects of EU membership which can and should be debated.
But the Brexit gang preferred to peddle lies, pure and simple. And they’re still at it.
You are right. The 93% of the globe outside the EU is more important than the 6% in it without us. There is no debate.
And trade with the Antarctic is worth how much?
I was going on population percentages not proportion of the globe. By population percentage the Antarctic is 0% so that is moot.
And as we go forward in the 21st century rather than looking back through history it is population percentages that matter most for opportunities because the rest of the world is catching up with (or overtaking) Europe in per capita GDP.
As you well know (since you claim to be an economist), trade intensity is highly correlated with geographic proximity.
Europe is 6% of population, and less than 20% of global GDP but in practical terms represents a much higher % of realistic trading opportunity for the U.K.
No surprise therefore that EU is around 50% of our total trade, and about that the value of this trade is THREE times that with the US.
Of course, we should be positioning ourselves for opportunities in Asia Pacific, while also understanding that the US, China and India in no way represent easy FTAs, AND that there is no opportunity on the table that can somehow make up for jettisoning those with our European neighbours.
With your glib numbers, you effectively lie about the importance of the EU to our economic, and you lie about the size of the non-EU “prize”.
If you think his economics is bad, you should look at his law...
His history is even worse.
The backstop is worse than the Croke Park massacre.
I recall he implied it was worse than the Famine because Ireland sent MPs to Westminster during the Famine.
@Philip_Thompson I've just wasted five minutes researching your legal point that Lisbon trumps the GFA because it is more recent and have drawn a blank. Can you save me some time and give me a citation?
just think another minute on the clock and you can charge a client for it
All I can find is Article 59 of the Vienna Convention Article 59 —
Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty implied by conclusion of a later treaty 1. A treaty shall be considered as terminated if all the parties to it conclude a later treaty relating to the same subject-matter and:
(a) it appears from the later treaty or is otherwise established that the parties intended that the matter should be governed by that treaty; or (b) the provisions of the later treaty are so far incompatible with those of the earlier one that the two treaties are not capable of being applied at the same time.
2. The earlier treaty shall be considered as only suspended in operation if it appears from the later treaty or is otherwise established that such was the intention of the parties.
The problem is that (1) Lisbon did not deal with the same subject matter and (2) there is no suggestion that the parties intended the peace process to be governed by Lisbon.
Accordingly, contrary to @Philip_Thompson 's assertion, my view is that the GFA takes precedence and the UK is in breach by enacting domestic legislation potentially in breach of it.
as a lawyer once told me things change
and thats where we are, it;s like a divorce the two parties have lost the romance and all you can do is split up the assets and move on.
Along with removing the option of studying higher economics in state schools the SNP have also removed the module for statistics in higher maths. They are thorough, you have to give them that.
The disaster that has overtaken the Scottish education system in recent years is a major scandal of our age but no-one seems to give a monkeys.
There are idiots everywhere, but the Brexit manifesto is/was in every key tenet a lie.
Those advocating it (Johnson etc) are smart enough to know it is a lie.
The economic benefits of trade is not a debate. The cost of European membership is not a debate. The implications of reinstating a customs border is not a debate. The relative weight of “global opportunities” versus the European bloc is not a debate. The idea that the EU give us an open border to Syria is not a debate.
There are aspects of EU membership which can and should be debated.
But the Brexit gang preferred to peddle lies, pure and simple. And they’re still at it.
You are right. The 93% of the globe outside the EU is more important than the 6% in it without us. There is no debate.
And trade with the Antarctic is worth how much?
I was going on population percentages not proportion of the globe. By population percentage the Antarctic is 0% so that is moot.
And as we go forward in the 21st century rather than looking back through history it is population percentages that matter most for opportunities because the rest of the world is catching up with (or overtaking) Europe in per capita GDP.
As you well know (since you claim to be an economist), trade intensity is highly correlated with geographic proximity.
Europe is 6% of population, and less than 20% of global GDP but in practical terms represents a much higher % of realistic trading opportunity for the U.K.
No surprise therefore that EU is around 50% of our total trade, and about that the value of this trade is THREE times that with the US.
Of course, we should be positioning ourselves for opportunities in Asia Pacific, while also understanding that the US, China and India in no way represent easy FTAs, AND that there is no opportunity on the table that can somehow make up for jettisoning those with our European neighbours.
With your glib numbers, you effectively lie about the importance of the EU to our economic, and you lie about the size of the non-EU “prize”.
If you think his economics is bad, you should look at his law...
His history is even worse.
The backstop is worse than the Croke Park massacre.
I recall he implied it was worse than the Famine because Ireland sent MPs to Westminster during the Famine.
Philip Thompson is just a HYUFD with intellectual pretensions.
There are idiots everywhere, but the Brexit manifesto is/was in every key tenet a lie.
Those advocating it (Johnson etc) are smart enough to know it is a lie.
The economic benefits of trade is not a debate. The cost of European membership is not a debate. The implications of reinstating a customs border is not a debate. The relative weight of “global opportunities” versus the European bloc is not a debate. The idea that the EU give us an open border to Syria is not a debate.
There are aspects of EU membership which can and should be debated.
But the Brexit gang preferred to peddle lies, pure and simple. And they’re still at it.
You are right. The 93% of the globe outside the EU is more important than the 6% in it without us. There is no debate.
And trade with the Antarctic is worth how much?
I was going on population percentages not proportion of the globe. By population percentage the Antarctic is 0% so that is moot.
And as we go forward in the 21st century rather than looking back through history it is population percentages that matter most for opportunities because the rest of the world is catching up with (or overtaking) Europe in per capita GDP.
As you well know (since you claim to be an economist), trade intensity is highly correlated with geographic proximity.
Europe is 6% of population, and less than 20% of global GDP but in practical terms represents a much higher % of realistic trading opportunity for the U.K.
No surprise therefore that EU is around 50% of our total trade, and about that the value of this trade is THREE times that with the US.
Of course, we should be positioning ourselves for opportunities in Asia Pacific, while also understanding that the US, China and India in no way represent easy FTAs, AND that there is no opportunity on the table that can somehow make up for jettisoning those with our European neighbours.
With your glib numbers, you effectively lie about the importance of the EU to our economic, and you lie about the size of the non-EU “prize”.
If you think his economics is bad, you should look at his law...
His history is even worse.
The backstop is worse than the Croke Park massacre.
I recall he implied it was worse than the Famine because Ireland sent MPs to Westminster during the Famine.
Philip Thompson is just a HYUFD with intellectual pretensions.
OT but has anyone established what the initials HYUFD stand for?
Thanks. I still resist being on Twitter. Is it really too much to ask for the ONS to have a news page with their latest releases.
which probably means the dip in GDP last quarter will disappear with revisions.
HMG should be putting more money into ONS to get sensible statistics.
I am slightly nervous about using another.
Although it is not possible to predict
I think we’ve had enough of faux naivety.
I don’t disagree with
The logic, however, is that if we opted to keep the backstop for the whole of the UK and kept SM access as a result there would be no economic impact at all.
No, because it is intended as an interim solution only, and thus investment into the U.K. as a long term base for intra-European activity will be dampened.
The debate is essentially mendacious.
A more honest debate would look at how the impact of trading benefits certain groups versus others.
This basic dishonesty is why I cannot get behind any Brexit, except grudgingly.
The backstop is not intended to be temporary. May would have done a deal which effectively retained it indefinitely. That’s the main reason that the ERG were so opposed and she is no longer PM. But I agree that there is simplistic drivel on both sides and for every possible gain there are losses.
There are idiots everywhere, but the Brexit manifesto is/was in every key tenet a lie.
Those advocating it (Johnson etc) are smart enough to know it is a lie.
The economic benefits of trade is not a debate. The cost of European membership is not a debate. The implications of reinstating a customs border is not a debate. The relative weight of “global opportunities” versus the European bloc is not a debate. The idea that the EU give us an open border to Syria is not a debate.
There are aspects of EU membership which can and should be debated.
But the Brexit gang preferred to peddle lies, pure and simple. And they’re still at it.
You are right. The 93% of the globe outside the EU is more important than the 6% in it without us. There is no debate.
And trade with the Antarctic is worth how much?
we're gonna need lots of ice to cool down the global warming
Salvini obviously thinks the time is right to push for a Gov't without M5S. His hope obviously would be to form a coalition with Forza Italia and Fratelli D'Italia with Lega as the dominant partner and himself as PM of course.
If both sides are focusing on assigning blame that makes it more unlikely they'll find a solution.
There's not a bloody solution though is there. Let's just erect that hard border and if Adams and co want to pick up their rifles again then so be it.
It won't be Adams and Co - it will be the UDF once the border vote is comprehensively won..
UDF is a new one on me, who are they ?
Ulster Defence Force (not sure but weren’t they the NI equivalent of the TA?) although it’s alphabet soup with UDVF and others so maybe it was a typo ?
Mr. JS, well, it's been a while since the last election in Italy.
Mr. Eagles, I have some sympathy for EU negotiators given they agreed something with May that has failed utterly in the Commons (ironically due to pro-EU MPs wanting to 'have their say').
I have less sympathy for their idiotic and deceitful claims to be ready to talk, whilst ruling out renegotiating, insisting that the withdrawal agreement cannot be changed yet at the same time demanding that the PM comes up with an alternative to the backstop.
He should. But what's the point when they've said repeatedly they won't accept any changes?
There was a little bit of conciliation in the letter he sent (engage constructively etc). There was none, at least in the news report [which might be rubbish], from the EU.
Thanks. I still resist being on Twitter. Is it really too much to ask for the ONS to have a news page with their latest releases.
which probably means the dip in GDP last quarter will disappear with revisions.
HMG should be putting more money into ONS to get sensible statistics.
I am slightly nervous about using another.
Although it is not possible to predict
I think we’ve had enough of faux naivety.
I don’t disagree with
The logic, however, is that if we opted to keep the backstop for the whole of the UK and kept SM access as a result there would be no economic impact at all.
No, because it is intended as an interim solution only, and thus investment into the U.K. as a long term base for intra-European activity will be dampened.
The debate is essentially mendacious.
A more honest debate would look at how the impact of trading benefits certain groups versus others.
This basic dishonesty is why I cannot get behind any Brexit, except grudgingly.
The backstop is not intended to be temporary. May would have done a deal which effectively retained it indefinitely. That’s the main reason that the ERG were so opposed and she is no longer PM. But I agree that there is simplistic drivel on both sides and for every possible gain there are losses.
There are idiots everywhere, but the Brexit manifesto is/was in every key tenet a lie.
Those advocating it (Johnson etc) are smart enough to know it is a lie.
The economic benefits of trade is not a debate. The cost of European membership is not a debate. The implications of reinstating a customs border is not a debate. The relative weight of “global opportunities” versus the European bloc is not a debate. The idea that the EU give us an open border to Syria is not a debate.
There are aspects of EU membership which can and should be debated.
But the Brexit gang preferred to peddle lies, pure and simple. And they’re still at it.
You are right. The 93% of the globe outside the EU is more important than the 6% in it without us. There is no debate.
And trade with the Antarctic is worth how much?
we're gonna need lots of ice to cool down the global warming
I know you're joking but ... it is GLOBAL warming!
If both sides are focusing on assigning blame that makes it more unlikely they'll find a solution.
There's not a bloody solution though is there. Let's just erect that hard border and if Adams and co want to pick up their rifles again then so be it.
It won't be Adams and Co - it will be the UDF once the border vote is comprehensively won..
UDF is a new one on me, who are they ?
Ulster Defence Force (not sure but weren’t they the NI equivalent of the TA?) although it’s alphabet soup with UDVF and others so maybe it was a typo ?
Yep - I meant it will be loyalist paramilitaries fighting within a united Ireland.
WTO tariffs will destroy agricultural in Northern Ireland almost overnight..
A new YouGov poll has found that none of the potential candidates to become a ‘temporary Prime Minister’ in a ‘Government of National Unity’ achieve the backing of more than a quarter of the public:
Ken Clarke – 25% Harriet Harman – 19% Jeremy Corbyn – 15% Jo Swinson – 13% Caroline Lucas – 13%
It’s even more damning for Jeremy Corbyn when you look at net figures. The person most likely to be installed as a ‘National Unity Prime Minister’ has the lowest approval of any official opposition leader, ever.
If both sides are focusing on assigning blame that makes it more unlikely they'll find a solution.
There's not a bloody solution though is there. Let's just erect that hard border and if Adams and co want to pick up their rifles again then so be it.
We have a solution in place now. It might be an idea for you to do some research on NI before posting bloody stupid responses tolerating violence. You do remember that there was an element of mainland campaign to the Troubles?
If both sides are focusing on assigning blame that makes it more unlikely they'll find a solution.
There's not a bloody solution though is there. Let's just erect that hard border and if Adams and co want to pick up their rifles again then so be it.
We have a solution in place now. It might be an idea for you to do some research on NI before posting bloody stupid responses tolerating violence. You do remember that there was an element of mainland campaign to the Troubles?
If Adams and co want to pick up their rifles again then that's their prerogative. Meanwhile we should get on with the democratic implementation of Brexit.
If both sides are focusing on assigning blame that makes it more unlikely they'll find a solution.
There's not a bloody solution though is there. Let's just erect that hard border and if Adams and co want to pick up their rifles again then so be it.
We have a solution in place now. It might be an idea for you to do some research on NI before posting bloody stupid responses tolerating violence. You do remember that there was an element of mainland campaign to the Troubles?
If Adams and co want to pick up their rifles again then that's their prerogative. Meanwhile we should get on with the democratic implementation of Brexit.
Which involves trampling all over the democratic implementation of the GFA which, in turn, leads to violence.
If both sides are focusing on assigning blame that makes it more unlikely they'll find a solution.
There's not a bloody solution though is there. Let's just erect that hard border and if Adams and co want to pick up their rifles again then so be it.
It won't be Adams and Co - it will be the UDF once the border vote is comprehensively won..
UDF is a new one on me, who are they ?
Ulster Defence Force (not sure but weren’t they the NI equivalent of the TA?) although it’s alphabet soup with UDVF and others so maybe it was a typo ?
Yep - I meant it will be loyalist paramilitaries fighting within a united Ireland.
WTO tariffs will destroy agricultural in Northern Ireland almost overnight..
The loyalist paramilitaries have been banging their heads aginst Varadkars brit bashing on the grounds of "what the hell are you strring all that up again for ?". The paramilitaries themselves are split between Leave and Remain.
So far the only one talking up violence is Varadkar, even SF arent saying back to the armalites. Really he;s not fit for the office.
If both sides are focusing on assigning blame that makes it more unlikely they'll find a solution.
There's not a bloody solution though is there. Let's just erect that hard border and if Adams and co want to pick up their rifles again then so be it.
We have a solution in place now. It might be an idea for you to do some research on NI before posting bloody stupid responses tolerating violence. You do remember that there was an element of mainland campaign to the Troubles?
If Adams and co want to pick up their rifles again then that's their prerogative. Meanwhile we should get on with the democratic implementation of Brexit.
Which involves trampling all over the democratic implementation of the GFA which, in turn, leads to violence.
The GFA needed re-negotiation the second SF entered government.
If both sides are focusing on assigning blame that makes it more unlikely they'll find a solution.
There's not a bloody solution though is there. Let's just erect that hard border and if Adams and co want to pick up their rifles again then so be it.
We have a solution in place now. It might be an idea for you to do some research on NI before posting bloody stupid responses tolerating violence. You do remember that there was an element of mainland campaign to the Troubles?
If Adams and co want to pick up their rifles again then that's their prerogative. Meanwhile we should get on with the democratic implementation of Brexit.
Which involves trampling all over the democratic implementation of the GFA which, in turn, leads to violence.
The GFA needed re-negotiation the second SF entered government.
See Also, Scotland.
Sinn Fein were signatories to the GFA so there is absolutely no basis for your assertion that it needed renegotiation when they entered government. The main absence from the signature page of the GFA was the DUP but even they signed up eventually.
If both sides are focusing on assigning blame that makes it more unlikely they'll find a solution.
There's not a bloody solution though is there. Let's just erect that hard border and if Adams and co want to pick up their rifles again then so be it.
We have a solution in place now. It might be an idea for you to do some research on NI before posting bloody stupid responses tolerating violence. You do remember that there was an element of mainland campaign to the Troubles?
If Adams and co want to pick up their rifles again then that's their prerogative. Meanwhile we should get on with the democratic implementation of Brexit.
Which involves trampling all over the democratic implementation of the GFA which, in turn, leads to violence.
The GFA needed re-negotiation the second SF entered government.
See Also, Scotland.
Sinn Fein were signatories to the GFA so there is absolutely no basis for your assertion that it needed renegotiation when they entered government. The main absence from the signature page of the GFA was the DUP but even they signed up eventually.
What about Scotland?
Scotland has had a separatist majority in Holyrood for 10 years now. It's time to shut the place down.
Ken Clarke at 20-1 on the exchange is batshit bonkers. Where is his support coming from with both front benches opposing any sort of vote of confidence in him ? That's IF we get to that stage, which I highly doubt we will.
Yeah I've laid a little at that price.
I actually think Corbyn at 4.4 might be value. Looks likely he'll be leading Labour into the next election, he could become PM before that and it doesnt seem likely Boris is going to be replaced as Tory leader anytime soon.
Labour most seats price is 7-2 as well. There are routes where one or the other may not win but perhaps they should be a similiar price.
I'm surprised Bercow has been matched below 30 too, I assumed @AlistairMeeks and @Rottenborough were matching in the low hundreds as per their conversation on the matter.
I've been laying all the unlikely ones below 30 - very happy about that.
1. New elections, likely won by Salvini 2. A new coalition between M5S and the DP 3. A technocratic government
M5S feels very bruised by their junior coalition partners, and would probably prefer to snipe from opposition. But they don't want an election now, because it might see them fall from first to third.
LN/Salvini want elections now, because they are leading the polls nicely.
For anybody who hasn't visited Belfast. The 'taxi tour' is one of the most remarkable, eye-opening car journeys I have ever been on.
We were taken round Belfast (Georgie Best's house/grave, Stormont, the Peace Wall, Johnny Adair's house, the Ardoyne, Shankill and Falls Road... Bobby Sands mural etc) and were AMAZED at it all. It's bonkers how close (50 metres maybe - Bombay Streer) the dividing line of the Troubles was between either side! And it still bristles with tension even today. I've been out there on rugby tour numerous times and it's not a place to mess with.
There will NEVER be a hard border in NI, regardless of the outcome of the negotiations. My Dubliner boss told me the very same last week. NEVER NEVER NEVER.
1. New elections, likely won by Salvini 2. A new coalition between M5S and the DP 3. A technocratic government
M5S feels very bruised by their junior coalition partners, and would probably prefer to snipe from opposition. But they don't want an election now, because it might see them fall from first to third.
LN/Salvini want elections now, because they are leading the polls nicely.
The DP doesn't know what it wants.
Salvini is relying on taking a chunk of the southern vote. Its no longer the Lega Nord but the Lega. We now have a couple of months of manoeuvring with the president trying to avoid a GE. Getting approval on any Brexit changes just got more complicated,
Comments
I am 100% sure that the GFA would get approval in a subsequent referendum. So we have competing democratic mandates. So who compromises on their democracy - us or them?
The sooner people accept that we will not back down on democracy . . . the sooner people accept that we will neither be undemocratically cancelling Brexit nor ratifying the undemocratic abomination that is the backstop . . . then the sooner we can find a real solution rather than this pathetic merry-go-round of hunting unicorns.
*Shrug*
Ireland ratified the Lisbon Treaty which permitted Brexit AFTER the GFA.
Too late to take it back if they didn't mean it.
If the UK wants to do some kind of Brexit that the GFA (allegedly) doesn't allow I would have thought the UK would have to renegotiate the GFA before doing that kind of Brexit.
So I ask again, given that the Irish have never "permitted" Brexit via democratic means, who should compromise on the wlll of their people?
You should follow Dr Johnson's recommendation: clear your mind of cant, and don't *think* foolishly.
If the GFA can't handle the strain of Lisbon then it should have been thought of at the time. Oops. As it happens I opposed Lisbon at the time and I think Brexit would never have occured had it not been ratified but too late now.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1163809773512380418
Late wicket. Cook 6-12. (That's Little Chef, not Sir A.)
The Irish explicitly agreed to the introduction of Article 50 when they ratified it.
The letter of the law in Lisbon was ratified after and takes precedence over the spirit of the law of the GFA.
So I ask again, given that the Irish have never "permitted" Brexit via democratic means, who should compromise on the wlll of their people?
And why does Lisbon take legal precdence? I've been a qualified lawyer for 20 years and am always looking for novel legal principles to explore and it looks like you've found one.
Europe is 6% of population, and less than 20% of global GDP but in practical terms represents a much higher % of realistic trading opportunity for the U.K.
No surprise therefore that EU is around 50% of our total trade, and about that the value of this trade is THREE times that with the US.
Of course, we should be positioning ourselves for opportunities in Asia Pacific, while also understanding that the US, China and India in no way represent easy FTAs, AND that there is no opportunity on the table that can somehow make up for jettisoning those with our European neighbours.
With your glib numbers, you effectively lie about the importance of the EU to our economic, and you lie about the size of the non-EU “prize”.
That would come as quite a surprise to German manufacturers (currently suffering a downturn precisely because of their exposure to China).
The backstop is worse than the Croke Park massacre.
Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty implied by conclusion of a later treaty
1. A treaty shall be considered as terminated if all the parties to it conclude a later treaty relating to the same subject-matter and:
(a) it appears from the later treaty or is otherwise established that the parties intended that the matter should be governed by that treaty; or (b) the provisions of the later treaty are so far incompatible with those of the earlier one that the two treaties are not capable of being applied at the same time.
2. The earlier treaty shall be considered as only suspended in operation if it appears from the later treaty or is otherwise established that such was the intention of the parties.
The problem is that (1) Lisbon did not deal with the same subject matter and (2) there is no suggestion that the parties intended the peace process to be governed by Lisbon.
Accordingly, contrary to @Philip_Thompson 's assertion, my view is that the GFA takes precedence and the UK is in breach by enacting domestic legislation potentially in breach of it.
I’m not even sure Boris is playing cards. Hungry Hippo, perhaps.
and thats where we are, it;s like a divorce the two parties have lost the romance and all you can do is split up the assets and move on.
https://news.sky.com/story/italys-prime-minister-announces-resignation-11789894
https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1163730129115394049
Thanks. I still resist being on Twitter. Is it really too much to ask for the ONS to have a news page with their latest releases.
which probably means the dip in GDP last quarter will disappear with revisions.
HMG should be putting more money into ONS to get sensible statistics.
I am slightly nervous about using another.
Although it is not possible to predict
I think we’ve had enough of faux naivety.
I don’t disagree with
The logic, however, is that if we opted to keep the backstop for the whole of the UK and kept SM access as a result there would be no economic impact at all.
No, because it is intended as an interim solution only, and thus investment into the U.K. as a long term base for intra-European activity will be dampened.
The debate is essentially mendacious.
A more honest debate would look at how the impact of trading benefits certain groups versus others.
This basic dishonesty is why I cannot get behind any Brexit, except grudgingly.
The backstop is not intended to be temporary. May would have done a deal which effectively retained it indefinitely. That’s the main reason that the ERG were so opposed and she is no longer PM. But I agree that there is simplistic drivel on both sides and for every possible gain there are losses.
There are idiots everywhere, but the Brexit manifesto is/was in every key tenet a lie.
Those advocating it (Johnson etc) are smart enough to know it is a lie.
The economic benefits of trade is not a debate. The cost of European membership is not a debate. The implications of reinstating a customs border is not a debate. The relative weight of “global opportunities” versus the European bloc is not a debate. The idea that the EU give us an open border to Syria is not a debate.
There are aspects of EU membership which can and should be debated.
But the Brexit gang preferred to peddle lies, pure and simple. And they’re still at it.
You are right. The 93% of the globe outside the EU is more important than the 6% in it without us. There is no debate.
And trade with the Antarctic is worth how much?
we're gonna need lots of ice to cool down the global warming
Mr. Eagles, I have some sympathy for EU negotiators given they agreed something with May that has failed utterly in the Commons (ironically due to pro-EU MPs wanting to 'have their say').
I have less sympathy for their idiotic and deceitful claims to be ready to talk, whilst ruling out renegotiating, insisting that the withdrawal agreement cannot be changed yet at the same time demanding that the PM comes up with an alternative to the backstop.
He should. But what's the point when they've said repeatedly they won't accept any changes?
There was a little bit of conciliation in the letter he sent (engage constructively etc). There was none, at least in the news report [which might be rubbish], from the EU.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/01/38/0c/01380ccb523a685eac70e6a025a34143.jpg
https://www.telegraph.co.uk
which probably means the dip in GDP last quarter will disappear with revisions.
HMG should be putting more money into ONS to get sensible statistics.
I am slightly nervous about using another.
Although it is not possible to predict
I think we’ve had enough of faux naivety.
I don’t disagree with
The logic, however, is that if we opted to keep the backstop for the whole of the UK and kept SM access as a result there would be no economic impact at all.
No, because it is intended as an interim solution only, and thus investment into the U.K. as a long term base for intra-European activity will be dampened.
The debate is essentially mendacious.
A more honest debate would look at how the impact of trading benefits certain groups versus others.
This basic dishonesty is why I cannot get behind any Brexit, except grudgingly.
The backstop is not intended to be temporary. May would have done a deal which effectively retained it indefinitely. That’s the main reason that the ERG were so opposed and she is no longer PM. But I agree that there is simplistic drivel on both sides and for every possible gain there are losses.
There are idiots everywhere, but the Brexit manifesto is/was in every key tenet a lie.
Those advocating it (Johnson etc) are smart enough to know it is a lie.
The economic benefits of trade is not a debate. The cost of European membership is not a debate. The implications of reinstating a customs border is not a debate. The relative weight of “global opportunities” versus the European bloc is not a debate. The idea that the EU give us an open border to Syria is not a debate.
There are aspects of EU membership which can and should be debated.
But the Brexit gang preferred to peddle lies, pure and simple. And they’re still at it.
You are right. The 93% of the globe outside the EU is more important than the 6% in it without us. There is no debate.
And trade with the Antarctic is worth how much?
we're gonna need lots of ice to cool down the global warming
I know you're joking but ... it is GLOBAL warming!
OT but has anyone established what the initials HYUFD stand for?
Have
You
Used
Funny
Data
Yep - I meant it will be loyalist paramilitaries fighting within a united Ireland.
WTO tariffs will destroy agricultural in Northern Ireland almost overnight..
3600 civilian deaths over 1400 British military deaths and you make light of it!
A new YouGov poll has found that none of the potential candidates to become a ‘temporary Prime Minister’ in a ‘Government of National Unity’ achieve the backing of more than a quarter of the public:
Ken Clarke – 25%
Harriet Harman – 19%
Jeremy Corbyn – 15%
Jo Swinson – 13%
Caroline Lucas – 13%
It’s even more damning for Jeremy Corbyn when you look at net figures. The person most likely to be installed as a ‘National Unity Prime Minister’ has the lowest approval of any official opposition leader, ever.
It might be an idea for you to do some research on NI before posting bloody stupid responses tolerating violence. You do remember that there was an element of mainland campaign to the Troubles?
WTO tariffs will destroy agricultural in Northern Ireland almost overnight..
The loyalist paramilitaries have been banging their heads aginst Varadkars brit bashing on the grounds of "what the hell are you strring all that up again for ?". The paramilitaries themselves are split between Leave and Remain.
So far the only one talking up violence is Varadkar, even SF arent saying back to the armalites. Really he;s not fit for the office.
A suggestion? Maybe rational articles not behind a paywall may encourage more views? Just a thought.
See Also, Scotland.
What about Scotland?
They should be called "We kill Paddies" as they top the chart.
They could also run a subset called "No More Catholics" as theyve done more than their fair share
1. New elections, likely won by Salvini
2. A new coalition between M5S and the DP
3. A technocratic government
M5S feels very bruised by their junior coalition partners, and would probably prefer to snipe from opposition. But they don't want an election now, because it might see them fall from first to third.
LN/Salvini want elections now, because they are leading the polls nicely.
The DP doesn't know what it wants.
For anybody who hasn't visited Belfast. The 'taxi tour' is one of the most remarkable, eye-opening car journeys I have ever been on.
We were taken round Belfast (Georgie Best's house/grave, Stormont, the Peace Wall, Johnny Adair's house, the Ardoyne, Shankill and Falls Road... Bobby Sands mural etc) and were AMAZED at it all. It's bonkers how close (50 metres maybe - Bombay Streer) the dividing line of the Troubles was between either side! And it still bristles with tension even today. I've been out there on rugby tour numerous times and it's not a place to mess with.
There will NEVER be a hard border in NI, regardless of the outcome of the negotiations. My Dubliner boss told me the very same last week. NEVER NEVER NEVER.
I'd put my house on it.
NEW THREAD