I misunderstood. I thought you meant people in the UK.Sorry - that is a waaaaay too big a leap to take things out of context - even for you
My comment was clearly about the EU project architects - you associate it to the old Daily Mail article
A clear fail and disappointingly cheap shot - keep it civil and sensible mate please
I made a perfectly valid comment on your post. I did not insult you personally. You need to stop playing the victim.Such lack of basic comprehension
This is supposed to be a new start thread - why to you keep exposing yourself to be someone that needs to be always making cheap/snide one-liners?
Just give it up mate and please adhere to the request from Ric to stop such provocative shit
So if it's not the wine...Seriously - to UK tastes - it is pretty shit
I have tried it on many occasions - just had to give up
It’s the whine.So if it's not the wine...
correct, he said it in French - 'prix' - and his meaning was crystal clear.For a start, he didn't say "heavy price".....
Yep - how can this be so docilely misunderstood?
It absolutely does.For a start, he didn't say "heavy price".
"The United Kingdom would like to leave but without paying the consequences. It's not possible", insists the president. "We are not going to remain ambiguous. We must go to the conclusion of the will of the British to leave the Union. There must be a price, a threat, a risk, otherwise there will be others who want to go out. We must defend our conception of Europe based on the four freedoms. "
Seems fair enough.
We'll start to find out in three and a half hours, I’m sure.Right, 100 days to go to 31 October
what's the plan?
Change locally at your destination mate - far better - 110 in Cyprus today
We'll start to find out in three and a half hours, I’m sure.
Right, 100 days to go to 31 October
what's the plan?
Sorry - but it needs to be said.Lol
That obsession about the GFA and the backstop is absolutely justified and exactly why we haven’t left and it’s the only thing stopping you getting what you want.
It’s astonishing you don’t take it more seriously.
It’s far and away the most important aspect of getting a Withdrawal Agreement through.
It’s also very telling that you wish to move the debate away from it and your only alternative is to say “we need more good will”.
There’s no detail from Leavers on how to get around it, there’s no clear answer how to negate the issue.
If there was then the backstop wouldn’t matter a jot, because we’d be able to immediately get rid of it upon leaving anyway.
A crucial point often missed is that it’s only there until the solution is found, so if you have the solution you better do more of that consultancy work with the government so they can pass the Withdrawal Agreement.
Sorry - but it needs to be said.
You have received soooooo many replies to your posts that set out the views of many posters that you are just plain wrong
Your only response if to keep banging on with the repetition of the someone that is unable to question their won views because they 'place winning an exchange on an internet football forum' above listening to the views of others and engaging and undertaking some rational and objective analysis
At the risk of disappointing you - a lot of us on here do not hold you to be the oracle on all things Brexit with your specialist subject being the GFA and implications of the Irish Protocol. We are not sitting here waiting for you to tell us what we should think.
I hope that this is not too much of a crushing blow to you - but I do think that it needs saying.
Now, with regard to the GFA and implications of the Irish Protocol on the GFA, here are the views of someone that might be considered well informed.
(Spoiler - he clearly holds the view that the Irish protocol is absolutely not - as you insist: ".....the only way to protect the GFA" - indeed he sets out why instead, "... The Protocol ignores and undermines the very thing that makes the 1998 Agreement work....." and explains why: "...….The Protocol is not capable of upholding the Good Friday Agreement — it has run a coach and horses through it; it has driven it into the ditch....")
For those not minded to read a document of this length, I found this statement to be a valid summary:
"Far from protecting the Belfast Agreement as the EU27 claims, the Protocol, if implemented, would severely damage the working of the Agreement and destroy the principle and mechanism which holds it together — consent."
If you do feel the need to come back on and demand that we accept your views to be authoritative - I will be all ears.
But could you please start your dissertation with a compelling explanation of why your views should be considered to be more informed and authoritative and be taken as more considered than the:
RT Hon Lord Trimble, the individual who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in securing the 1998 Belfast Agreement. This man was First Minister of Northern Ireland 1998-2002 and leader of the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) from 1995-2005.
https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-co...top-would-Wreck-the-Good-Friday-Agreement.pdf
I am Doctor Who it seems. How else do I reply to a post before it's made?For a start, he didn't say "heavy price".....
Why do you apologise before every post?
The people that think I am are wrong are the 3/4 Leave voters on here that are continuously in the same pack. It’s not many posters at all, there is in fact some leave posters who agree with me on the severity of the border issue.
Please don’t use these posters as some sort of point about how the forum thinks. Most remainers on here think you’re the worst poster on the forum, that doesn’t really matter though and doesn’t need saying.
My last exchange with a leave poster, that actually got into detail, resulted in me explaining why just checking at ports and at source isn’t realistic nor achievable and I never received a response.
I’m repetitive on it because it is the key issue and the key reason we’ve not yet left.
You not thinking it is just shows that you know absolutely nothing about the situation we’re in.
The whole purpose of the backstop is to keep the GFA, it’s the absolute essence and whole point of it. It means we keep our customs in line with the EU until another solution is found, so that the border remains open and so that it’s not compromised.
His point is on consent between both London and Brussels when a solution is found and he may have a point but it doesn’t completely go against it, it’s not a technical point he’s making but more of an emotional one in line with the EU having the final say on when we can leave.
You seem to presume that my position is one of love for the backstop, it isn’t. I just acknowledge the need for it and if YOU want to leave the EU, this is the only way, whilst maintaining our international obligations.
I can raise you RT Hon Lord Trimble by informing you that the European Union, the Irish Government and the UK government all agreed that if we were to leave the Customs Union, this is the most secure way of ensuring the GFA wasn’t compromised.
I don’t demand you accept my views, I’m not here to claim victory and wank over point scoring, I’m here because I enjoy debating politics and it’s best place to read contrary views to my own.
The fact still remains you do not have an alternative to the backstop, because there isn’t one at the moment and won’t be for some time.
If you or the RT Hon Lord Trimble have an alternative, I’m all ears, but until that point, you cannot expect anyone to push for another version of Brexit than the one we have waiting to be signed.
Here’s an overview of what it’s for, for anyone that would like to know-
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/northern-ireland-backstop
Well that was fascinating. Two problems: I think Trimble's argument was rejected in the Miller case (which also dealt with McCord) and if it's consent he's bothered about, where is the consent of the people of NI to leaving the EU?
And that's without his wanting to use arguments from the ERG (hardly a "bottom up" approach in NI) which would not have consent in NI (including from the party he led in 1998).
If it's consent in NI he wants, revoke article 50.
We’re leaving.
We'll start to find out in three and a half hours, I’m sure.