Jump to content

The Consequences of Brexit [Part 6] READ FIRST POST BEFORE COMMENTING


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, ads36 said:

Yeah, childish tit-for-tat, that's historically the way to a mutually beneficial trade deal...

 

 

No, it's called give and take and is the way all countries approach trade talks.

 

There are some EU politicians (mainly the French ones) who want to punish us for having the effrontery to want to leave their 'project' and there are some who are more pragmatic. At the end of the day the deciding factor will be financial, as it always is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, apelike said:

But the point you and others are missing is that this is parliament our sovereign body and they need to show they are consolidated in their decisions both to the EU and the people of this country. Most of the amendments put forward have been defeated and the ones that have been carried are not binding and shows them up in a bad light to all.

 

They would? Why?

 

 

I’m not missing any point. 

 

As for the New IRA (and other groups) they’ll seek to destroy anything that divides Ireland again. Wait and see.

7 minutes ago, Broakham said:

No, it's called give and take and is the way all countries approach trade talks.

 

There are some EU politicians (mainly the French ones) who want to punish us for having the effrontery to want to leave their 'project' and there are some who are more pragmatic. At the end of the day the deciding factor will be financial, as it always is.

If it’s financial we should have killed Brexit long ago

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, I1L2T3 said:

As for the New IRA (and other groups) they’ll seek to destroy anything that divides Ireland again. Wait and see.

But NI is already divided and cant even form a working government. I'm asking the reason why this may cause a resurgence of terrorism as nobody seems to be able to answer that question and wait and see is not an answer or a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Broakham said:

There are some EU politicians (mainly the French ones) who want to punish us for having the effrontery to want to leave their 'project' and there are some who are more pragmatic. At the end of the day the deciding factor will be financial, as it always is.

You're taking too much notice of the Tory press and Brexiteer elements within the Tory Party regarding the French - always a convenient scapegoat for a certain section. They are equating "punish" with "not giving way to everything the UK demands (even though they've been told a dozen times it's not up for grabs)"

 

Politicians and people over here in France are more baffled than anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Broakham said:

No, it's called give and take and is the way all countries approach trade talks.

 

There are some EU politicians (mainly the French ones) who want to punish us for having the effrontery to want to leave their 'project' and there are some who are more pragmatic. At the end of the day the deciding factor will be financial, as it always is.

Here is what the EU would give if there was no solution for the Irish situation without a customs union:

 

All imports into the EU would arrive via the non-tariff (unilateral, remember Rees-Mogg's promise?) and then get distributed to Ireland without checks, to then get sold in the whole of the EU without tariffs.

 

In other words, agreeing to this would force the EU to accept unilateral freetrade. It isn't going to happen, the EU actually cares about its workers. The first industries to die from this would be things like steel, oil refineries and so on. The next would be cars, machines etc. Then it would be medicine, high-tech and the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, apelike said:

But NI is already divided and cant even form a working government. I'm asking the reason why this may cause a resurgence of terrorism as nobody seems to be able to answer that question and wait and see is not an answer or a reason.

Without getting involved in a history lesson it was a long and hard journey to persuade militant republicans to not only agree to a permanent ceasefire but also to decommission and eventually destroy their weapons. 

 

In exchange for this concession, two key points of the Belfast Agreement was to give the nationalist community 'parity of esteem' which means that the structures of state can no longer treat them as second class citizens and they were given an equal role in the democratic process. Hence a Unionist First Minister will have Nationalist deputy and vice versa (most famously the two old enemies, Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness). As well as 'parity of esteem' was 'parity of aspiration' which again allowed nationalists to aspire to a united Ireland without being seen as subversive, or enemies of the state. Two key parts of this 'parity of aspiration' was to allow a mechanism for a border poll of people in the North if it ever looked likely that there was a majority to leave the UK and join a united Ireland and a legally backed guarantee that the border in Ireland to all intents and purpose didn't exist with completely free movement in either direction.

 

So, back to your original question 'why would Republican paramilitaries attack the border?' maybe a more appropriate question would be be 'why wouldn't they?'

 

Any form of border structures imposed without the consent of the people North or South would be seen by nationalists as a reneging of a hard won deal and therefore a legitimate target. On top of that, attacks on the border structures would attract the support of a majority of nationalists who live on the border as well as many other parts of Ireland which would give a much needed shot in the arm for the dissident republican movement. Then the British government has to decide how to respond knowing full well that if troops or police are sent to the border to intervene, they will be targetted. Once the first soldier or policeman is shot dead or killed by a roadside bomb, the war will then be restarted.

 

Those who say that the Irish backstop is a 'made up' thing by remainers trying to 'steal their Brexit' and who also play down the dangers of ignoring the Belfast Agreement should maybe stop reading fake news on their facebook pages and read a little Irish History instead! 😏

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Penistone999 said:

We should have thrown Northern Ireland under the bus right from the off ,and put the border down the Irish Sea, and Brexit would have been sorted long ago. 

Not something the Conservative and Unionist Party are ever likely to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting way of looking at brexit here

https://thedeceptionscanner.com/uk-eu-brexit-what-brexits-6-ws-reveal-about-the-british-democracy/?fbclid=IwAR0yDRpWnu4lLAGtwMpb6X_CuycFarp8RBpG6Ti5yjIlPonbqWBEL_h9gtU

 

i'll leave you all to read and believe whether theres truth, conspiracy or lies involved. Its interesting in how it views the Greek debt crisis which gets brought up on here and how the EU protects or doesnt, each countries economies.

Just now, Mister Gee said:

Wow! 

 

 

1 minute ago, Longcol said:

Not something the Conservative and Unionist Party are ever likely to do.

Dont feed the troll

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.