The Politics Thread 2019

[Stive Pesley]

20 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I see there were more convictions in Rotherham child exploitation cases yesterday, convenient time for reporting this on the day BJ made his announcement...

Not sure I follow. They were convicted - which is good. You're suggesting that the reporting of this being obfuscated by Brexit news is deliberate and/or a problem?

[Ghost of Clough]

 

[AndyinLiverpool]

35 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I see there were more convictions in Rotherham child exploitation cases yesterday, convenient time for reporting this on the day BJ made his announcement...

That two things happened on the same day is some kind of conspiracy? Blimey. I thought I had a low opinion of Johnson but to suggest he is trying to bury news about paedophile convictions...

[AndyinLiverpool]

8 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

 

It’s a stark choice for Tories- parliament or party. I have a feeling I know which way they will go. 

[G STAR RAM]

8 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

That two things happened on the same day is some kind of conspiracy? Blimey. I thought I had a low opinion of Johnson but to suggest he is trying to bury news about paedophile convictions...

Nah probably just a coincidence

[AndyinLiverpool]

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Nah probably just a coincidence

Can you clarify what you meant by your post about the Rotherham trial because you Gould follow your own creed here and provide evidence?

[Highgate]

15 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

Why this bizarre talk of a hard border? The UK government sure as hell won't put one up. I'd be amazed if the Irish government decided too. It's total scaremongering. 

That's why I say Varadkar was weaponizing it. Nothing materially will change unless he changes it. But he figured it would play well in Ireland to look to be standing tough against the Brits. 

As has been said many times, no country in the world could ever sign a treaty that included something like the backstop that it's not in their power to withdraw from, unless it was part of a post-war surrender. You're right it was Theresa May's idea. Thank goodness she's no longer in charge. 

If there is no deal there will be a hard border.  There simply has to be a hard border.  The EU will quite naturally insist on it in order to protect the integrity of the Single Market, even if the UK doesn't wish to control it's own borders after leaving the EU (although i thought that was a central reason it wished to leave in the first place).

The backstop only relates to a scenario where a deal between the EU and UK is reached,  It will only be enforced if other arrangements can't be agreed or put in place to prevent a hard border.  Brexiteers tell us that there are a multitude of ways that this could and will be achieved, and yet they don't seem to believe it themselves, because if it were true then the dreaded backstop is a mere irrelevance and would never come into play.

The UK has found itself in an admittedly unusual and unenviable position.  It has signed previous treaties not allowing it to agree to anything that would cause a return of a hard border on Ireland, and for parliamentary arithmetical reasons it extended this commitment to all of the UK, not just N.Ireland. If May had not called that election that would never have happened.

The notion of a backstop was intended (when people thought there would be a deal) to prevent a hard border that could spark the return of the dark days N.Ireland has suffered in the past. I feel that the UK, having orchestrated this unusual situation itself (by signing the GFA, then voting for Brexit, then agreeing to DUP demands to extend the backstop to all of the UK), should really just live with the situation it has created and accept the backstop, which remember is designed as a last resort and is intended never to be used. I know this notion is anathema to Brexiteers

The notion of a time limit on the backstop or a unilateral withdrawal from it would render it entirely impotent and pointless. So by necessity, those proposals were always a non-starter.

You are correct in the sense that it has always been a good look (with the electorate) for an Irish political party to appear as tough as it can when negotiating with the British government.  At least, not to appear too weak or to roll over.  And Varadkar's party has traditionally been accused of the latter far more often than it's main rival.  But I think you are wrong if you don't think there is genuine conviction behind his, or his party's insistence on the inclusion of the backstop in any withdrawal agreement.  There is pretty much unanimity in our parliament on the issue.   However, the miscalculation here seems to be that nobody really thought that the UK would actually consider going through with a No Deal Brexit.  The irony may well be, that the very backstop that was designed to prevent a hard border in Ireland may well end up help creating it.  And yet, I cannot see a different course of action for the Irish government.

[Wolfie]

14 minutes ago, Highgate said:

If there is no deal there will be a hard border.  There simply has to be a hard border.  The EU will quite naturally insist on it in order to protect the integrity of the Single Market,

They can insist all they like but if the UK and Ireland both say they can't, due to the GFA, then what can the EU do about it?.

[Highgate]

7 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

With the EU.

All of our cards would be back on the negotiating table rather than having the surrender treaty being used against us.

How idiotic do you think the EU are?  Don't you think they have some concept of self-preservation?

Do you honestly think they would give a better trade deal to a country that has just left the EU?  Thereby encouraging every other country in the EU to queue up to exit the EU too.

Any trade deal the UK will get with the EU after Brexit will be considerably worse than it is now. It has to be so, or the European Union will cease to exist.  That fact is the most fundamental and blatantly obvious outcome of any Brexit. 

[AndyinLiverpool]

9 minutes ago, Van Wolfie said:

They can insist all they like but if the UK and Ireland both say they can't, due to the GFA, then what can the EU do about it?.

There are several options, one of which would involve a hard border around the whole of Ireland so goods and people are checked before entering Ireland. Who wants that?

[Highgate]

8 minutes ago, Van Wolfie said:

They can insist all they like but if the UK and Ireland both say they can't, due to the GFA, then what can the EU do about it?.

Very little to the UK if you are outside the EU, unless you are in the process of negotiating a trade deal.  They can do quite a lot to Ireland, including imposing all sorts of financial penalties or simply stating if we are not abiding by the rules of the single market and controlling it's external border with a non-EU state, then we too are outside the single market until we comply. 

[ariotofmyown]

Why don't we just build a wall around the uk to keep the Irish out. I'm fed up of them coming over here and taking our jobs. A lot of them are rapists/deviants too and we are not safe. Build the wall, build the wall. Britain Trump can do it.

If you think this is harsh against the Irish, just pretend it is the 60s when this is what people thought. Or pretend it was 70s/80s and blame Blacks or Asians. Or pretend it was now and it was Muslims or Eastern Europeans. Or terrorists entering the EU through the new member state of Turkey that Farage and Britain Trump warned us about.

[Ghost of Clough]

36 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Very little to the UK if you are outside the EU, unless you are in the process of negotiating a trade deal.  They can do quite a lot to Ireland, including imposing all sorts of financial penalties or simply stating if we are not abiding by the rules of the single market and controlling it's external border with a non-EU state, then we too are outside the single market until we comply. 

Best solution all round then ?

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, Highgate said:

How idiotic do you think the EU are?  Don't you think they have some concept of self-preservation?

Do you honestly think they would give a better trade deal to a country that has just left the EU?  Thereby encouraging every other country in the EU to queue up to exit the EU too.

Any trade deal the UK will get with the EU after Brexit will be considerably worse than it is now. It has to be so, or the European Union will cease to exist.  That fact is the most fundamental and blatantly obvious outcome of any Brexit. 

Sorry, I meant better than the deal that is on the table now.

And yes, self preservation is the only thing the EU care about, that is one of the reasons they are disliked and why so many people voted Leave.

They can offer as bad a deal as they want, we do not have to sign it which will hit their members very hard financially, that's another very fundamental and blatantly obvious outcome of a no deal Brexit.

[Highgate]

1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

Sorry, I meant better than the deal that is on the table now.

Ok, well that's at least coherent then. 

[Highgate]

Are you angry at people clearing up a misunderstanding or what @Norman ?

[McRamFan]

36 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

And yes, self preservation is the only thing the EU care about, that is one of the reasons they are disliked and why so many people voted Leave.

37% of the voting population voted leave, that is not a majority.  28% opted not to vote, as they probably thought it was a daft question and was happy with the status quo

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

58 minutes ago, McRamFan said:

37% of the voting population voted leave, that is not a majority.  28% opted not to vote, as they probably thought it was a daft question and was happy with the status quo

 That makes no sense. If your happy with the Status Quo, you would need to vote to keep it. I would assume if someone who can cast a vote decides they can't be arsed, they can't be arsed about the outcome either way . 

[FindernRam]

1 hour ago, McRamFan said:

37% of the voting population voted leave, that is not a majority.  28% opted not to vote, as they probably thought it was a daft question and was happy with the status quo

A ridiculous assertion. In any general election, and local elections the turnout is well below the 72 % that voted in the referendum. By your reckoning we would never change governments because we never get a 50% majority.

[King Kevin]

Interesting