Francesca R
Girl
Do you agree what I wrote is what they want to achieve? (Helps to understand your opponent)
Last edited:
- Status
Yes, I think you're right. If you are, I wonder how they will justify abandoning their manifesto commitments.
If they are it's only because the EU won't compromise on that. But this still remains to be seen - you are prejudging the outcome.
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
Because obviously that never happens....
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
Hardly a one-sided phenomenon. When Leave supporters put pre-conditions they're "red lines," when the EU does the same it's, "the EU won't compromise."
So are you.
Francesca R
Girl
I don't
Which is only that the UK leaves the EU, not the manner in which it leaves. A solution like that of Norway or Switzerland would be perfectly in line with what was voted for - that the UK leaves the EU.
Could you elaborate on these points?
Because his succession strategy was based on Cameron being the one to lead the UK out of the EU. Cameron leaving cocked the whole thing up for him.
Perhaps the Tories should take a leaf out of their colonial counterparts and label those parts of the manifesto as "non-core promises".
Strawberry
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 2,151
One of the amendments passed last night requires no hard border between Ireland and NI. Since there is no way to uphold that without staying in the SM and CU, Brexit is effectively dead in the water, or at least a hard Brexit is.
Its no wonder the remain rebels didn't kick up too much of a stink, they didn't really need to with that written into UK law.
Its no wonder the remain rebels didn't kick up too much of a stink, they didn't really need to with that written into UK law.
I suppose it comes down to what is meant by "no hard border" - maybe anything short of a Berlin Wall-style construction could be considered "soft" in the context of a political agreement. Checkpoints and custom posts and airborne patrols are "soft" because the hardened infrastructure is only localised.
Then again, that requirement could be dropped (and the blame laid at the feet of the EU) in order to achieve the version of Brexit that the majority of the Conservative Party seem to be working towards.
Or, the hard border could be between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. The DUP won't be happy with that but the removal of parliamentary oversight over any deal has done away with their ability to do anything about it.
Strawberry
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 2,151
I suppose it comes down to what is meant by "no hard border" - maybe anything short of a Berlin Wall-style construction could be considered "soft" in the context of a political agreement. Checkpoints and custom posts and airborne patrols are "soft" because the hardened infrastructure is only localised.
Then again, that requirement could be dropped (and the blame laid at the feet of the EU) in order to achieve the version of Brexit that the majority of the Conservative Party seem to be working towards.
Or, the hard border could be between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. The DUP won't be happy with that but the removal of parliamentary oversight over any deal has done away with their ability to do anything about it.
The amendment specifies no physical infrastructure at the Irish border.
I can't see any British government allowing NI to stay in the SM and CU while the rest of the UK leaves, it would risk half the City of London moving to Belfast.
Francesca R
Girl
I agree pretty much.
. . . . although if some magic tech appeared that required no additional infrastructure then that bet is off.
How about 1 mile away ?
If the amendment is that specific then it'll have to be ignored instead because the Conservative government is hellbent on at least a "firm" Brexit if not a "hard" Brexit
Better than it moving to Paris or Frankfurt ?
Nonsense. There was no hard border between Ireland and NI before the SM and CU even existed. How was that managed if membership of the SM and CU is a prerequisite?
All it takes for us to be out of the SM and the CU and have no hard border is the agreement of the EU to allow it.
Last edited:
Francesca R
Girl
?
There was a customs border before the single market arose. And a military border during the troubles.
It was managed because Ireland was not part of a large bloc with freedom of movement.
It is now, as are we (currently).
Since we decided to leave, that has changed things somewhat.
Or, to put it another way, it is 2018, not 1968.
It is now, as are we (currently).
Since we decided to leave, that has changed things somewhat.
Or, to put it another way, it is 2018, not 1968.
The only card they'd have left to play would be to support the opposition in a vote of no confidence. Chances of that happening are slim since Brexit is shaping up to be a massive own goal for the Tories.
Because there was a hard border, specifically for goods. And with The Troubles it was made even worse since the UK was looking for contraband to stop Republican paramilitary groups. Hell even the BBC did a story on the history of the border.
No. No it does not.
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
It's bizarre counter-factual claims like this that undermine whatever slim reserves of credibility you may still have left.
True. There was always a common travel area so people could move freely across the border without passports. During the troubles the military would request some means of verifying identity - but this didn't have to be by passport - and such checks were sometimes also made at places other than the border.
Francesca R
Girl
Then your statement was wrong. There was a customs border. That falls under "hard" as I think almost everyone understands it (referring not to you or this forum but everyone "out there")
The reason why a new customs border is distinctly not wanted (by almost everyone) is because it would "sentimentally" echo the military one, and thereby threaten the peace accord.
In short there are good reasons why this is a significant problem not to be dismissed as tail wagging dog, still less non-existent tail wagging dog.
The reason why a new customs border is distinctly not wanted (by almost everyone) is because it would "sentimentally" echo the military one, and thereby threaten the peace accord.
In short there are good reasons why this is a significant problem not to be dismissed as tail wagging dog, still less non-existent tail wagging dog.
- Status