5 ways to avoid a hard brexit

death or glory

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
19,569
I never said I agree I said depends on who you ask and what day of the week what they say is going to happen I can find political comentators that comment on every scenario.
If his entire stratergy is to depend on the EU to refuse a extension well what more can I say there will be no hard border on the 1st as it is very unlikely the EU will take his bait .
The scenario if the 31st October is the next looming deadline, that is why it is so relevant.
Almost all political commentators say a no deal Brexit is a distinct possibility on the 31st October.
It is only you that claims it is off the table, butcascthey say ignorance is bliss.
 


Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,431
"On Thursday Mr Varadkar said there were five ways to avoid a hard border – the reunification of Ireland; the Irish Republic re-joining the UK; the UK remaining in the single market or customs union; the border backstop mechanism; or the UK reversing the Brexit decision."1

Sammy Wilson responded with "talking up support for a united Ireland to an international audience."1

It looks like sammy thinks the united Ireland is the best option.


1
They're not half obvious. They're being roasted alive at home over the disadvantage that they're putting NI into so they're going on the offensive against the old bogeyman in the south in order to deflect attention, get their supporters heightened and get the Independent Group to up their game when it comes to promoting the interests of the UK down here.
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
1,712
You see this is the bit you are wrong on . Boris deal doesn't lead to a "Soft Border" as there is no such things . Any border infrastructure will require to be protected on both sides that means the army that is a hard border simple as that that means the troubles mark 2 ...
1. Boris has always said there should be no new infrastructure at the border. That's in the proposed deal now.
2. Boris's deal involves north/south regulatory alignment, unlike a No Deal Brexit. That's a lot of bureaucracy and checks gone, straight away.
3. We have already signed a CTA agreement (independent of the EU) allowing for free movement of people post-Brexit.
Putting together all the above, it amounts to "a soft border".
4. You can threaten violence if you don't get your own way 100%, but history shows that both Unionists and Brits have always hardened their position in the face of threats. Its a mindset. A classic example is Airy Neave. His life would have been a lot easier (and longer) if he had been a surrender monkey.
 

cytex

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
3,502
1. Boris has always said there should be no new infrastructure at the border. That's in the proposed deal now.
2. Boris's deal involves north/south regulatory alignment, unlike a No Deal Brexit. That's a lot of bureaucracy and checks gone, straight away.
3. We have already signed a CTA agreement (independent of the EU) allowing for free movement of people post-Brexit.
Putting together all the above, it amounts to "a soft border".
4. You can threaten violence if you don't get your own way 100%, but history shows that both Unionists and Brits have always hardened their position in the face of threats. Its a mindset. A classic example is Airy Neave. His life would have been a lot easier (and longer) if he had been a surrender monkey.
I will answer 4 first :
Im not Threatening Violence so you can stop that right now . The people that are threatning violence are the UVF if they don't get there own way and The Disident republicans if they dont get ther own way along with the unionist remind me again how the troubles started the first time. My personal view as long as there is peace up there and no one is again treated like second class citizens you can do whatever you like up there and call yourself what ever nationality you want. But They are Irish citizens by birth up in the north and these peoples rights need to be protected as both EU citizens and Irish Citizens.
Secondly to answer your points :
1. What is in the proposal is infrastructure away from the border this is unacceptable as it will require being protected and no one is quite sure how this will work not even Boris . Which seems as we are three weeks away is unacceptable.
2. for 4 years then a hard border when the udp veto the deal ie it is the same as a no deal just in 4 years. This is unacceptable and Ireland is much better off going for a no deal and continue negociatians in the trade deal or in the extension.
3.True but as I said no such thing as a soft border any infrastructure up there will need to be protected.
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
1,712
The people that are threatning violence are the UVF if they don't get there own way and The Disident republicans if they dont get ther own way
First I've heard of the UVF sticking their oar in. When did they threaten violent action against customs officers?

Customs and excise located away from the actual border does not need special protection anyway. What about the VRT office in Dublin, are they in danger right now?

If the "two communities" veto is unacceptable in its current form, then that should be looked at and modified. It is not specifically a DUP veto though, nor is it a veto for any one party.
The principle of consent is important to retain in matters of sovereignty. It is arrogant to claim that the Republic of Ireland can object to the people of NI deciding their own destiny and their own sovereignty. If you object to the unionists having a veto of the Irish Backstop, you are saying they must effectively leave the UK and come under EU sovereignty in 4 years time, whether they like it or not.
 

james toney

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
16,403
What have the DUP put up as alternatives to the farming community in the six counties?
 

death or glory

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
19,569
I will answer 4 first :
Im not Threatening Violence so you can stop that right now . The people that are threatning violence are the UVF if they don't get there own way and The Disident republicans if they dont get ther own way along with the unionist remind me again how the troubles started the first time. My personal view as long as there is peace up there and no one is again treated like second class citizens you can do whatever you like up there and call yourself what ever nationality you want. But They are Irish citizens by birth up in the north and these peoples rights need to be protected as both EU citizens and Irish Citizens.
Secondly to answer your points :
1. What is in the proposal is infrastructure away from the border this is unacceptable as it will require being protected and no one is quite sure how this will work not even Boris . Which seems as we are three weeks away is unacceptable.
2. for 4 years then a hard border when the udp veto the deal ie it is the same as a no deal just in 4 years. This is unacceptable and Ireland is much better off going for a no deal and continue negociatians in the trade deal or in the extension.
3.True but as I said no such thing as a soft border any infrastructure up there will need to be protected.
The UVF threatening custom posts.
Now you are in the realms of the ridiculous.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,728
If the "two communities" veto is unacceptable in its current form, then that should be looked at and modified. It is not specifically a DUP veto though, nor is it a veto for any one party.
The principle of consent is important to retain in matters of sovereignty. It is arrogant to claim that the Republic of Ireland can object to the people of NI deciding their own destiny and their own sovereignty. If you object to the unionists having a veto of the Irish Backstop, you are saying they must effectively leave the UK and come under EU sovereignty in 4 years time, whether they like it or not.
This is nonsense that yet again shows you don’t understand the GFA. The principle of consent in the GFA does not require cross community support. It merely requires majority support.

So NI can consent to leave the UK without a DUP veto but it can’t consent to align with EU regulations governing the production of sausages without a DUP veto? Give us s break.

As I said previously - a consent mechanism would not be problematic. There is likely to be majority support among the population and among MLAs for measures to avoid a border. But the default should be those provisions will apply unless consent is given that they should not, and no community should have a veto. Meet those tests and I doubt the consent provisions will be problematic.
 

firefly123

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
28,351
'Washington' can only push The UK so hard you know. There are other players on the international scene - Russia, China, Iran, etc. Perhaps The UK could help and be helped by these states?
Look at what you've written? The state of it.

Maybe the UK can cosy up to Russia, China or ...Iran??

Two of those economies are far smaller than even the UK and what exactly do you believe the plan would be? Some sort of pirate pact? Rogue nation status.
It was the kind of Garbage Greece was coming out with near the end.
 

cytex

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
3,502
First I've heard of the UVF sticking their oar in. When did they threaten violent action against customs officers?

Customs and excise located away from the actual border does not need special protection anyway. What about the VRT office in Dublin, are they in danger right now?

If the "two communities" veto is unacceptable in its current form, then that should be looked at and modified. It is not specifically a DUP veto though, nor is it a veto for any one party.
The principle of consent is important to retain in matters of sovereignty. It is arrogant to claim that the Republic of Ireland can object to the people of NI deciding their own destiny and their own sovereignty. If you object to the unionists having a veto of the Irish Backstop, you are saying they must effectively leave the UK and come under EU sovereignty in 4 years time, whether they like it or not.
Never said it was against custom posts :
for example. This is the troubles starting up again.

The principal of consent is important . But here is the thing you are dragging the border communities (both sides ) out of the EU against there wishes . No consent there . You are then going to inflict a hard border on them ( again no consent) . The NI backstop had a majority of stormount parties for it ( Thats consent) the majority of the people of NI for it ( again consent ) . The DUP or unionists are not the majority any more in NI the sway of power is held by moderates which are happy with a ni backstop and not leaving the EU .

 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
28,419
Twitter
No
We could have a competition between Dissident Republican factions and the unionist factions to see how many customs posts and officials we can all collect.
 

Mickeymac

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
39,622
We could have a competition between Dissident Republican factions and the unionist factions to see how many customs posts and officials we can all collect.

Dissident Republicans will most likely be told to FO if they try to disrupt protests by the British border Irish communities opposed to any border on the island of Ireland.
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
8,796
1) Reunion of Ireland - thats a long term goal, not possible in short term
It's increasingly looking like the only way to resolves this. It is possible, though will not be welcomed by nearly half the population of the north but all the signs are that a majority would now vote for it.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
28,419
Twitter
No
Quite nice to be in a position to watch a British Government effectively hasten reunification by pissing off rural unionists whose income depends on farming, damaging the Northern Ireland economy by effectively forcing it into a no-deal Brexit, which in itself is undemocratic as no one in Northern Ireland voted for a no-deal Brexit, and even unionists must feel like a political football in this Brexit game played out in Westminster by now.
 

Mickeymac

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
39,622
It's increasingly looking like the only way to resolves this. It is possible, though will not be welcomed by nearly half the population of the north but all the signs are that a majority would now vote for it.

Under the circumstances, Brexit vote and its aftermath, Irish unity became the only solution to resolve the whole FU created by Cameron.

I never thought Irish unity would have came so swiftly.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top