No deal?

[Thomas]

Once again it will go to the wire. I admit I suspected as much and we will have to see if the fat lady sings again.

Well toots as i said i think we will have an indication by july of how things are going . If talks havent progressed , and all commentators seem to believe that a deal cant be struck within 6 / 7 months , then july is the latest date apparently where they can put a further "extension " in place.



If johnson does that , then no matter how he spins it it will make him look weak. If not , then it shows he is prepared to go through with no deal to get what he wants.

Can anyone remember if no deal going off the table was made law?

Cant remember toots , but even if it was , no past parliament can bind a future parliament so they can simply repeal it.

[T00ts]

The no deal legislation law referred to our leaving on the 31st October which without a deal in place a further extension was applied .  There is nothing stopping a no deal when we leave at the end of the year (as it stands ) if no agreement has been finalised .  

The tories  if they keep their MP's in line can more or less play it how they choose now they have a majority in Parliament . But as you say Toots has Boris got them tied up ?

At the moment I would say yes

Let's hope all the Conservative MPs agree with you.

[Streetwalker]

Once again it will go to the wire. I admit I suspected as much and we will have to see if the fat lady sings again. Can anyone remember if no deal going off the table was made law? I have a feeling it wasn't. As I posted originally the temptation will be there with this majority, let's see where the cracks appear on the Governet benches. Or has BJ got discipline tied up? Interesting times coming.

The no deal legislation law referred to our leaving on the 31st October which without a deal in place a further extension was applied .  There is nothing stopping a no deal when we leave at the end of the year (as it stands ) if no agreement has been finalised .  

The tories  if they keep their MP's in line can more or less play it how they choose now they have a majority in Parliament . But as you say Toots has Boris got them tied up ?

At the moment I would say yes

[T00ts]

Once again it will go to the wire. I admit I suspected as much and we will have to see if the fat lady sings again. Can anyone remember if no deal going off the table was made law? I have a feeling it wasn't. As I posted originally the temptation will be there with this majority, let's see where the cracks appear on the Governet benches. Or has BJ got discipline tied up? Interesting times coming.

[Thomas]

NO DEAL

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7902843/Ministers-secretly-restart-No-Deal-plans-amid-fears-trade-talks-Brussels-collapse.html">//https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7902843/Ministers-secretly-restart-No-Deal-plans-amid-fears-trade-talks-Brussels-collapse.html

OK, it's the Daily Mail and has to be taken with a pinch of rock salt.

However, we can't leave without a trade deal because the MPs voted against it, didn't they?

 :mrgreen:

We dont seem to be very further forward than when may was in charge regarding the eu with the exception at the end of the month 73 UK MEP`s are being withdrawn and we are going into another "extension " this time called a transition where everything else remains the same.



Th eu are saying what they have said from day one barry , about the uk being as far away or as close as they like  , but whatever they choose there will be consequences , ie the closer to the single market , the more rules the uk obeys.



Someone is going to have to climb down somewhere....the uk red lines and the eu red lines are simply incompatible.



Therefore the threat of no deal has to be there , with the willingness to go through with it. They have until july to come up with the beginnings of a deal , and if things havent budged , the choice at that stage will be a further extension which apparently must be agreed by then.



I cant see any trade deal talks have collapsed or look like collapsing , they simply havent moved one inch since day one with both sides reiterating their red lines and a few minor tweaks here and there.

[Barry]

NO DEAL

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7902843/Ministers-secretly-restart-No-Deal-plans-amid-fears-trade-talks-Brussels-collapse.html">//https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7902843/Ministers-secretly-restart-No-Deal-plans-amid-fears-trade-talks-Brussels-collapse.html

OK, it's the Daily Mail and has to be taken with a pinch of rock salt.

However, we can't leave without a trade deal because the MPs voted against it, didn't they?

 :mrgreen:

[cromwell]

I dont think stormount was the main problem, but I do agree with the rest of your post. Nobody wants to see people living through that and yes history is valuable as a reminder that we need to protect the peace we live in.



Merry christmas to you and yours, we don't often agree but this would be a good time of the yr to.

Cheers Gerry and all the best to you and yours too :hattip

[GerryT]

No Gerry the mistake was sending in the army and not suspending Stormont immediately  and imposing direct rule till problems were sorted









No because the empire no longer existed,the problem was people living in the past  and glorifying moments in history,history is interesting and I love it but it's also there to show you not to repeat past mistakes





And the bombings and murders were humiliating too.



Anyway came across this and it does illustrate that people can take something from history and perhaps learn from it too.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-50856271">//https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-50856271

I dont think stormount was the main problem, but I do agree with the rest of your post. Nobody wants to see people living through that and yes history is valuable as a reminder that we need to protect the peace we live in.



Merry christmas to you and yours, we don't often agree but this would be a good time of the yr to.

[cromwell]

The troubles were not an isolated period of war, is was merely a continuation of a long period of struggle for equality and self determination. To try take a snap shot in time like you are is at best very misleading.  The English conquered Ireland, left southern Ireland in 1922 but partitioned the country and kept NI because of its booming business. Yes in those days NI was a very wealthy region, well it was for protestant Unionists but for the indigenous Catholic Nationalists it was a life of 2nd class citizens and struggle, they had seen their land taken and given to English landlords, without property they had no vote (that's 1969, just before you arrived). When the peaceful civil rights marches started in the 60's the Unionist population would attack the nationalists but the RUC would stand aside. When the Nationalists attacked the Unionists they were murdered by the RUC. That was the precursor to the IRA RETURNING to protect the Nationalist community seen as the UK Govt couldn't give a sh*t.

No Gerry the mistake was sending in the army and not suspending Stormont immediately  and imposing direct rule till problems were sorted

You might not like it or agree but it was not a civil war, it was an Irish people trying to protect themselves from a country that had invaded their country and robbed their land, that's a fact. The 3,600 people that died during the troubles were't terrorists as you might thing, you were in a country that your country had invaded and you were being used to keep the locals at bay. That's what the empire was all about.

No because the empire no longer existed,the problem was people living in the past  and glorifying moments in history,history is interesting and I love it but it's also there to show you not to repeat past mistakes

I don't agree with everything the IRA did or what they stand for, but you need to climb off your high horse. What the English did in NI should be a national humiliation.

And the bombings and murders were humiliating too.



Anyway came across this and it does illustrate that people can take something from history and perhaps learn from it too.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-50856271">//https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-50856271

[GerryT]

I have no wish to continue this exchange but feel that I must make two points.

I find if you stop posting that puts an end to the exchange.

The first must unfortunately be prefaced with an apology. I had got my threads crossed. I was most put out that you accused me of wishing to throw N.I. out of the Union without due democratic process, particularly as I knew I had made it as clear as crystal that my view was the exact opposite and that I had stated as much. I now realise that this was in a another thread, started by myself and titled 'More Nationalist MPs than Unionist MPs in N.I.' In that opening post I stated.

''Now let me declare my position on the Union. I am English and happy to be so. I frankly am largely disinterested in whether Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales want to stay in the Union or leave as long as the decision is democratically reached by the respective populations of each of those countries.

To say otherwise would paint me as a hypocrite and we already have enough of those on the forum. As someone who voted Leave and now, finally despite the undemocratic behaviour of the opposition and a small minority of the governing party's MPs, the majority vote of the UK is about to move on toward full implementation of Brexit. How then can I possibly deny the Scots the right to vote to leave the UK, or the N.Irish or Welsh. Surely democracy is the right of self determination by an existing, identifiable state.

I am disappointed that the Conservative Government is not prepared to agree to the same democratic rights for member nations to leave the UK as they quite rightly demand following a majority vote for the UK to leave the EU. The first step that this new, exciting one nation Conservative government should do is acknowledge that if any of the UK nations wish to leave the UK, then they should be allowed to hold a referendum without the permission of the Westminster government.''

I hope you now accept that while I think that the UK would benefit economically from the departure of N.I. from the Union and would warmly welcome such an outcome, it should only be achieved through the majority wishes of the N.Irish people.

No apology required, I was a bit confused but your point was eventually made. However it does look like Johnson will catapult NI if that gets England the brexit he wants, I honestly don't think he cares one bit for NI.

I owe no apology for my second clarification and am indeed surprised I needed to provide it. When I referred to a 'civil war' I would have thought it obvious to a blind man in a darkened room that I was referring to what are euphemistically called The Troubles commencing in 1969 and lasting for the best part of thirty years. During this time terrorists on both sides of an ethno-nationalist civil war were slaughtering their own countrymen and as an English soldier,as much to my despair, hundreds of British soldiers ordered there for the purpose of trying to maintain some sort of peace died at the hands of IRA terrorists.

The troubles were not an isolated period of war, is was merely a continuation of a long period of struggle for equality and self determination. To try take a snap shot in time like you are is at best very misleading.  The English conquered Ireland, left southern Ireland in 1922 but partitioned the country and kept NI because of its booming business. Yes in those days NI was a very wealthy region, well it was for protestant Unionists but for the indigenous Catholic Nationalists it was a life of 2nd class citizens and struggle, they had seen their land taken and given to English landlords, without property they had no vote (that's 1969, just before you arrived). When the peaceful civil rights marches started in the 60's the Unionist population would attack the nationalists but the RUC would stand aside. When the Nationalists attacked the Unionists they were murdered by the RUC. That was the precursor to the IRA RETURNING to protect the Nationalist community seen as the UK Govt couldn't give a shit. You might not like it or agree but it was not a civil war, it was an Irish people trying to protect themselves from a country that had invaded their country and robbed their land, that's a fact. The 3,600 people that died during the troubles were't terrorists as you might thing, you were in a country that your country had invaded and you were being used to keep the locals at bay. That's what the empire was all about.

I don't agree with everything the IRA did or what they stand for, but you need to climb off your high horse. What the English did in NI should be a national humiliation.

I raise these two points because they were clear misunderstandings. The remainder of our exchange was one hundred percent disagreement with no hope of establishing common ground so I see little purpose in continuing it, particularly as an Englishman I have got everything I wanted three and a half years ago: A  Conservative Government with a convincing majority, the complete collapse of a Marxist Labour party, the almost certain implementation of Brexit

YOur an Englishman as you say, not a UK man. Getting the UK out is not a great goal, leaving for a better future would be better, which was promised. But the outcome from the past 3 yrs would suggest that's very unlikely to happen.

[Sheepy]

I did notice that the Russians were quick to notice and the Chinese,with the US not far behind.

So I guess when somebody deals you a top hand,it would be smart not to fold it at the first opportunity.

[Sheepy]

I guess the brains of the outfit,hasn't worked out,the UK is now seen as showing the way in democracy after years of decline and dystopian thinking ,which like it or not,for those who think outside the box,a trade deal with the UK is now a feather in the cap.

[Major Sinic]

No fact, go back over my posts about how Johnson was found guilty of lying..fact. How he was sacked for lying...fact. How his comments caused him to apologise...fact. His Mayor embarrassments with water canons, Buses, Ms Rathcliff, Indian temples, Kipling in Myanmar -- fact fact fact fact. There are dozens more examples, On the other hand you had opinion.



 



No distortion, go back and read. You said

 

That's pretty clear, the best thing for the UK is to "get rid of a whinging minority" of NI, you later twisted what you wrote to some nonsense that you would happily see NI chose to leave the UK. But it's not what you wrote. I'm not distorting anything, your words. But just keep coming with personal insults, you have no other argument. I'll accept that what you meant to say was NI should chose it's own future. If you do believe that then you would know it has nothing to do with brexit and NI should wait until the final deal is trashed out before considering making a decision.



 

Only because the UK drove NI into the position it finds itself in. Why is it Ireland has prospered while NI did the opposite over the past 100 yrs. Some investment from GB would have helped.





You have a very poor understanding of Irish history if you don't understand that GB was an invading country that held Ireland through force, that's a fact go read a book. Your ignorance on the subject is bewildering.  1 million people were starved to death because GB took all the food out of the country..fact. IF you want to read about how Cromwell stole land from Irish read this https://www.enjoy-irish-culture.com/cromwell-in-ireland.html">https://www.enjoy-irish-culture.com/cro ... eland.html">https://www.enjoy-irish-culture.com/cromwell-in-ireland.html  Irish land ownership went from 70% Irish catholic to 10% UK soldiers, with hundreds of thousands killed...fact.

So roll on and some of your fellow soldiers are killed, you might call them terrorists but your totally overlooking why.



GB held onto NI for a number of reasons, one major one was it's industry, the Titanic left port in 1912, from a very wealthy region of Ireland just 4 yrs before Ireland's fight for freedom was at it's peak. In this country the men that fought GB soldiers through 1916 were hero's and are commemorated in this country, you probably think their terrorists, but let me remind you those UK soldiers were in another country that didn't recognise their authority on this island.

To further prove my point, the ROI had in it's constitution a legitimate claim on NI as a part of the ROI, that was only removed in 1998 after a referendum, long after you left these lands.





Most of what I have presented have been facts, you can choose to ignore fact, from you all I've got is opinion. Not one of which has been backed up by any fact.

If you don't want to engage that's fine.

I have no wish to continue this exchange but feel that I must make two points.



The first must unfortunately be prefaced with an apology. I had got my threads crossed. I was most put out that you accused me of wishing to throw N.I. out of the Union without due democratic process, particularly as I knew I had made it as clear as crystal that my view was the exact opposite and that I had stated as much. I now realise that this was in a another thread, started by myself and titled 'More Nationalist MPs than Unionist MPs in N.I.' In that opening post I stated.



''Now let me declare my position on the Union. I am English and happy to be so. I frankly am largely disinterested in whether Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales want to stay in the Union or leave as long as the decision is democratically reached by the respective populations of each of those countries.



To say otherwise would paint me as a hypocrite and we already have enough of those on the forum. As someone who voted Leave and now, finally despite the undemocratic behaviour of the opposition and a small minority of the governing party's MPs, the majority vote of the UK is about to move on toward full implementation of Brexit. How then can I possibly deny the Scots the right to vote to leave the UK, or the N.Irish or Welsh. Surely democracy is the right of self determination by an existing, identifiable state.



I am disappointed that the Conservative Government is not prepared to agree to the same democratic rights for member nations to leave the UK as they quite rightly demand following a majority vote for the UK to leave the EU. The first step that this new, exciting one nation Conservative government should do is acknowledge that if any of the UK nations wish to leave the UK, then they should be allowed to hold a referendum without the permission of the Westminster government.''



I hope you now accept that while I think that the UK would benefit economically from the departure of N.I. from the Union and would warmly welcome such an outcome, it should only be achieved through the majority wishes of the N.Irish people.



I owe no apology for my second clarification and am indeed surprised I needed to provide it. When I referred to a 'civil war' I would have thought it obvious to a blind man in a darkened room that I was referring to what are euphemistically called The Troubles commencing in 1969 and lasting for the best part of thirty years. During this time terrorists on both sides of an ethno-nationalist civil war were slaughtering their own countrymen and as an English soldier,as much to my despair, hundreds of British soldiers ordered there for the purpose of trying to maintain some sort of peace died at the hands of IRA terrorists.



I raise these two points because they were clear misunderstandings. The remainder of our exchange was one hundred percent disagreement with no hope of establishing common ground so I see little purpose in continuing it, particularly as an Englishman I have got everything I wanted three and a half years ago: A  Conservative Government with a convincing majority, the complete collapse of a Marxist Labour party, the almost certain implementation of Brexit

[Thomas]

T May agreed the WA,

Politically theresa may is dead and gone. No point in bringing her up now.



The english have this wee law that states no future parliament can be bound by a past parliament , and in case you didnt notice , theresa may could agree anything she wanted to , but for it to mean anything she had to get it through her parliament and she failed three times to do so , so what are you talking about?



From your perspective it will be what johnson and the current incumbents agree and pass through parliament that matters.

Johnson changed that form a backstop to a front stop, effectively making it front and central. So it's pretty much guaranteed that NI stays in alignment with the EU and has free access to the GB market. But Johnson agreed that there would be a border down the Irish sea to ensure Ni stays in alignment.

So let the sh*t-storm start.

Dont know what more i can keep saying to yese gerry ?!!



Thats brilliant , but lets see how it progresses and dont count yer chickens yet.



I fervently hope you stay in alignment and we are going to milk it for all its worth. :thup:

[GerryT]

What has happened is that it has gone from the EU holding all the cards to the UK actually having control. We are the ones saying we are leaving and that we can do very well without the EU thank you. It's on our terms, we live or die by our decisions, the EU's only input is whether they want to deal or not and I'm guessing they will.

As for leaving you have always been 100% in control. The EU has done nothing to stop that. So it has to be on your terms.



As for a future trade deal if the UK leaves the transition with no deal then it's in a far weaker position than it is today. Johnson is doing exactly what May did, painting red lines that makes what it wants, a trade deal, even more difficult.

Comments i've read coming from Europe are suggesting with such a short time the only deal that might be agreed would be a Canada--- without services. If that's what happens it's another spectacular own goal and fail for Johnson, just another clanger to add to his CV.