• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Why I no longer trust the EU on the backstop


flavirostris

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
25,031
Yup. They ran away at Dunkirk for them.
You're a bit smarter than this Prof.

The British Expeditionary Force were defeated on mainland Europe by a far superior Wehrmacht and had to evacuate. That's not 'running away'.
 

Prof Honeydew

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2010
Messages
5,222
You're a bit smarter than this Prof.

The British Expeditionary Force were defeated on mainland Europe by a far superior Wehrmacht and had to evacuate. That's not 'running away'.
And the French, particularly de Gaulle, were forever grateful for Britain's Magnificent Victory of Dunkirk.
 

flavirostris

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
25,031
And the French, particularly de Gaulle, were forever grateful for Britain's Magnificent Victory of Dunkirk.
I actually thought you were a bit smarter than the kneejerk anglophobe merchants that infest the Brexit thread. Apparently not.
 

Mickeymac

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
38,234
You're a bit smarter than this Prof.

The British Expeditionary Force were defeated on mainland Europe by a far superior Wehrmacht and had to evacuate. That's not 'running away'.


At least you admit you and your ilk would have been speaking German if it were not for the United States and the Red Army.:laugh:
 

Prof Honeydew

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2010
Messages
5,222
I actually thought you were a bit smarter than the kneejerk anglophobe merchants that infest the Brexit thread. Apparently not.
Flav, many of Britain's current political difficulties are down to living off a WW2 mythology for the past 75 years. It's a dreamworld very much at odds with what actually happened. The behaviour of Britain and France during the Phoney War from the Invasion of Poland in September 1939 to the Fall of France in June 1940 is a shameful chronology of incompetence and cowardice. Instead of moving into Germany when war was declared, they hid behind their bunkers for the next eight months, even after Denmark and Norway fell to Hitler and only mobilised themselves when the Wehrmacht flooded into Belgium, Luxembourg and Holland. France's fossilised military command wasn't replaced until it was too late and any chance they had of holding the German advance disappeared when the British pulled out. It probably didn't matter at that stage but Dunkirk left a very sour taste in French mouths.

You may disagree with my interpretation of what happened but it's a widespread one in French and German accounts of WW2. Unfortunately, almost all of what we come across in English-language popular culture is sourced from Britain which is still dominated by the propaganda of the 1940s. Because WW2 didn't end well for either France or Germany, the myths of their experiences have been subject to far greater challenge.
 

Beachcomber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
10,576
At least you admit you and your ilk would have been speaking German if it were not for the United States and the Red Army.:laugh:
That would never have happened Mort.

BTW
What language are you attempting to communicate in? It's English, isn't it?
 

Beachcomber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
10,576
And our leader showed his respects and signed the book of condolence at the German embassy in Dublin :lol:
True.

That was at the Nazi German embassy. Dev knew exactly what the Nazis were and still he paid Hitler respect.

How many other countries did such a thing?
 

cranberry1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2018
Messages
864
Yup. The Poles loved the way the Brits stood up for them in 1939. Chamberlain's strongly worded letter to Hitler was an act of incomparable bravery. As was Churchill defending Poland against Stalin in Yalta and repatriating Polish prisoners so that they could be re-educated into accepting the Soviet-imposed People's Republic.

In fact, what the Poles really admire is the way the Brits always keep their word.
In all fairness what was Britain supposed to do in regards to Poland , don't forget this is 1939, your comments make it sound like
it would have been easy for the Brits to just go in and save the day in regards to Poland , even then Britain was in decline as far as being a world superpower , jays-us I know you hate the Brits , but give them some credit in WW2 , you do know it was an Irish man who was responsible for getting Churchill into power , just thought I'd throw that in there the mans name was Brendan Bracken .
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,351
The system that might be required by the NI-Republic doesn't yet exist, but the required elements of the technology do.
What technology? How does it work?

So far the only example you've offered is toll road technology which, by definition, requires new physical infrastructure which has been ruled out.

So given your repeated claims that the required technology without infrastructure exists, you can surely tell us what it is?

The more people express scepticism about the technological possibilities, the more I question their reasons for being difficult. Remember that the Human Genome Project and the Manhatten Project were planned and executed on the basis of reasoned judgments about anticipated technological developments.
Your scepticism about scepticism might be understandable if you offered examples of what could be actually used. But you haven't.

Your position is "I can't possibly understand why you're so sceptical about this fanciful claim of technological but non-infrastructural solution that I haven't explained or given any solid example of". It's nonsense.
 

Catalpast

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
26,196
I felt right from the beginning that this would go right down to the wire

- and it looks like this is what will happen...

Deal without a permanent Backstop

The UK can leave the Customs Union with the North in tow if it wants to

- but a 5 year moratorium if it does

The onus will then be to ensure that that scenario never happens

If it does the this State will get a massive reduction in its EU budget contribution

Or something pretty well along those lines
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
1,407
You completely ignored the very strong caveats in the article you linked. The article also predates the backstop by a year. Events overtook it.
I don't know what caveats you allude to, but yes the article I quoted does predate the Joint Report. That's the whole point.
I was responding to The Erudite Caveman who cited British references to the backstop arrangement in that Joint Report, to show that the backstop idea originated with them.

Not so. That reference to Simon Coveney arrogantly placing the onus on the UK to find an arrangement that would ensure a totally frictionless border is the first instance I can find of a new political doctrine. The concept of the backstop as a pre-condition to any Withdrawal Agreement. From then on, it became impossible for the UK to square the circle.

The previous doctrine under Enda Kenny had been much more realistic. It recognised that it takes two to tango. There was a willingness to co-operate with the UK to ensure there would be no hard border. There was an acceptance that the UK was actually going to leave the UK. There was no Irish policy to prevent or frustrate an orderly Brexit. It was the opposite.
I cited examples of the Irish side being willing to help along with technology based solutions and with UK border controls based inside RoI.

For whatever reason, the Varadkar/Coveney doctrine has been characterised by an anti-British attitude, an unwillingness to help find a solution that would avoid a hard border, and a refusal to have bilateral meetings with the UK. The UK has been left to try and dance the tango alone.

Ireland's fate and the fate of the NI border has been entirely placed in the hands of Juncker.
So no Irish person should be surprised when Juncker makes the final decision to impose a hard border. Common sense tells us the EU single market will have to be separated from the UK after a No Deal Brexit.

As for the Poles, they don't support either Britain or Ireland in this. Other countries don't see it as a confrontation between the two. They just can't understand why Ireland would frustrate an orderly Brexit when we are the ones who will suffer most after the UK leaves without their deal.
And quite frankly, there are a lot of Irish people who can't understand it either.
 

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
4,552
I don't know what caveats you allude to, but yes the article I quoted does predate the Joint Report. That's the whole point.
I was responding to The Erudite Caveman who cited British references to the backstop arrangement in that Joint Report, to show that the backstop idea originated with them.

Not so. That reference to Simon Coveney arrogantly placing the onus on the UK to find an arrangement that would ensure a totally frictionless border is the first instance I can find of a new political doctrine. The concept of the backstop as a pre-condition to any Withdrawal Agreement. From then on, it became impossible for the UK to square the circle.

The previous doctrine under Enda Kenny had been much more realistic. It recognised that it takes two to tango. There was a willingness to co-operate with the UK to ensure there would be no hard border. There was an acceptance that the UK was actually going to leave the UK. There was no Irish policy to prevent or frustrate an orderly Brexit. It was the opposite.
I cited examples of the Irish side being willing to help along with technology based solutions and with UK border controls based inside RoI.

For whatever reason, the Varadkar/Coveney doctrine has been characterised by an anti-British attitude, an unwillingness to help find a solution that would avoid a hard border, and a refusal to have bilateral meetings with the UK. The UK has been left to try and dance the tango alone.

Ireland's fate and the fate of the NI border has been entirely placed in the hands of Juncker.
So no Irish person should be surprised when Juncker makes the final decision to impose a hard border. Common sense tells us the EU single market will have to be separated from the UK after a No Deal Brexit.

As for the Poles, they don't support either Britain or Ireland in this. Other countries don't see it as a confrontation between the two. They just can't understand why Ireland would frustrate an orderly Brexit when we are the ones who will suffer most after the UK leaves without their deal.
And quite frankly, there are a lot of Irish people who can't understand it either.
You expect Coveney and others to suggest a baseline to the UK? One that would establish a position from which the UK could extract further concessions?

That ain't the way it works.
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
1,407
You expect Coveney and others to suggest a baseline to the UK? One that would establish a position from which the UK could extract further concessions?
That ain't the way it works.
I don't know what baseline you're talking about.
I'm talking about the NI border.
Do you agree that if the border was to be as seamless as possible after Brexit, both jurisdictions would have to co-operate with each other?
How is this a "UK only" problem?

Varadkar/Coveney decided to make the border issue into a challenge for the UK.
"If you can't find a perfect solution, on your own, then either you can't leave the EU or else we will impose a hard border."
Well they have called our bluff now.

Juncker handed the grenade to Varadkar, who stood next to the UK, grinning as he pulled out the pin.
Now Juncker is hiding behind the sand bags saying "Go on Leo you're nearly there, keep that grenade in your hand, its only another few seconds before it goes off. We're going to show those Brits who is the boss around here."
 

londonpride

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
662
How can we expect a United Island when there is not even a united republic,never mind a united six counties, We have a minority on both sides running around trying to find someone to hate. The Orange state would never have existed if the South had never ceded from the UK. Sticking with and supporting Northern nationalists at the time would have been the better option.

The British land owning conservative class and the Jesus freaks of the North created a situation which lead to this division
 

galteeman

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,352
You are, as ever, the voice of reason. But please be patient with me and, remembering that what is obvious to you may not be obvious to me, could you explain what is wrong with what I have written?
You are supposed to be one of the mythical reasonable unionists yet when the heat comes on you scuttled back to to the side of your DUP pals.
 

JacquesHughes

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
1,124
'We want the withdrawal agreement,but without the bits we don't like.'

The backstop is the EU's price for a partnership with the UK. They can't have the rest of the partnership without the backstop. The backstop sets the character of the UK's future partnership with the EU- close and respecting the regulations necessary for the EU's smooth functioning, and the necessity for those regulations to change without a new fraught negotiation( held to ransome by minority factional parties).

Ireland, the electorates on each side of the border, and other EU states, correctly do not want an economic border through Ireland: and as long as the UK wants a unique partnership with the EU, the price includes the backstop.
 

Niall996

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
12,142
If it had not been for Dunkirk, there would have been no French liberation in 1944.

So I would imagine they are grateful or they should be.
The US rescue of Europe mission would have come regardless of Dunkirk.
 
Top