What's in the news?

[Toddybad]

19 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

Are the Tories against the backstop because of the sea change it would bring?

 

GB reacts to an economic world outside the Common Market. Northern Ireland, to an economic world inside the Common Market.

 

They'd hardly be the same country. It would be the beginning of end of the Union.

 

And if we have no backstop, then we have a hard border: aka a civil war in Northern Ireland again.

 

Briliian choices. Brilliant.

No because the backstop was UK wide. 

The ERG are against the backstop for invented reasons - the claim that the EU are going to try to force us to remain in a state where we have single market access without freedom of movement or EU membership. It's a blatent fallacy. 

Edited 4 February 2019 by Toddybad

[Foxxed]

20 minutes ago, EnderbyFox said:

 

It's the DUP that are dead against the Backstop as well as the ERG isn't it? If May loses them then she has even less of a functioning government than she has now

 

Edit: Nevermind.

Edited 4 February 2019 by Foxxed

[Foxxed]

8 minutes ago, Toddybad said:

No because the backstop was UK wide. 

The ERG are statist the backstop for invented reasons - the claim that the EU are going to try to force us to remain in a state where we have single market access without freedom of movement or EU membership. It's a blatent fallacy. 

Oh yeah. My mistake. The more I read about I see May wants the potential backstop, and ergo the Common Market, to apply to the whole of the UK.

 

Why are the DUP against the Common Market applying to the whole of the UK?

I can see why the ERG would be against that though: A UK wide common market isn't the bold new world where the UK doesn't need a trading agreement with its collectively-larger neighbours.

Edited 4 February 2019 by Foxxed

[Toddybad]

3 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

Oh yeah. My mistake. The more I read about I see May wants it to apply to the whole of the UK.

 

Why are the DUP against the Common Market applying to the whole of the UK?

I can see why the ERG would be against that though.

 

 

I can't see why anybody that wants to leave is against it tbh.

The idea you can have no insurance policy against running out of time is nuts. 

[Foxxed]

Just now, Toddybad said:

I can't see why anybody that wants to leave is against it tbh.

The idea you can have no insurance policy against running out of time is nuts. 

Aren't the ERG worried that if we fail to find an agreement with the EU, then we'll forver be in the Common Market?

 

It's a fairly valid concern. They're obviously nuts and highly reckless for thinking we don't need a trading agreement with the EU though.

[Toddybad]

2 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

Aren't the ERG worried that if we fail to find an agreement with the EU, then we'll forver be in the Common Market?

 

It's a fairly valid concern. They're obviously nuts and highly reckless for thinking we don't need a trading agreement with the EU though.

Honestly don't know how anybody can take them seriously. But the arguments used by right wing tabloids basically play into their hands and 35% of the country genuinely believes no deal would be fine.

 

I can only think that there's an extroadinarily large amount of money on the line for ERG members if they can get us out and collapse our economy.

 

Its the only explanation for why somebody like John Redwood argues for it yet in his second job advised his financial chums to get their investments out of the UK.

 

JRM has an interest in a company that moves its resources out of the UK (which he has no sway over whatsoever of course). 

 

Lawson has moved to the continent. 

 

Ex investment banker Farage has made sure his European family all have European passports. 

 

They couldn't be more obvious about it if they tried. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Foxxed said:

I don't understand this backstop thing.

 

So there's a failsafe: if agreements fail with the EU, Northern Ireland stays in the EU's common market.

 

This means there's no hard border between Northern and the Republic of Ireland.

 

And having no hard border is very arguably the linchpin of peace in Northern Ireland.

 

But the Tories aren't happy with this and refuse to sign off on any deal that has the backstop in it?

 

What's May going to go and do now? Remove the backstop, have a hard border, and ignite another civil war in Northern Ireland and resurrect the IRA?

I'm not sure they ever went away to be honest.

 

 

1 hour ago, Foxxed said:

Are the Tories against the backstop because of the sea change it would bring?

 

GB reacts to an economic world outside the Common Market. Northern Ireland, to an economic world inside the Common Market.

 

They'd hardly be the same country. It would be the beginning of end of the Union.

 

And if we have no backstop, then we have a hard border: aka a civil war in Northern Ireland again.

 

Briliian choices. Brilliant.

Well there is another choice. The Irish stop trying to kill each other.

 

They are different countries after all.

[Foxxed]

21 minutes ago, FIF said:

I'm not sure they ever went away to be honest.

 

 

Well there is another choice. The Irish stop trying to kill each other.

 

They are different countries after all.

Yeah. I'm not sure this will help calm things down somehow.

[RoboFox]

 

 

[Toddybad]

2 hours ago, RoboFox said:

 

 

Liam Neeson: After a friend was raped, I wanted to kill a black man

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/feb/04/liam-neeson-after-a-friend-was-raped-i-wanted-to-kill-a-black-man?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

There are lots of people who did things in their youth that they regret and wouldn't dream of doing now.

 

People calling Neeson out on this are ironically being prejudice, judging him on one solitary action.

 

He doesn't help himself though by repeatedly making "eye for an eye" movies, where his characters are without an iota of forgiveness or remorse.

[WigstonWanderer]

On 03/02/2019 at 03:36, SouthStandUpperTier said:

 

I voted remain, not through any love for the EU, but because I just want a quiet life. If the EU ever caused me any problems, at least they were first world problems.

Exactly. Being in the EU, with all its faults, is/was a working system that the UK’s modern “just in time”, finely tuned economy depends upon. It absolutely should have been incumbent upon the Brexiteer leaders to prove their case beyond a shadow of doubt. They should have had to put forward concrete proposals for how it would work both in transition and in the long run and explain why it would be a change for the better.

 

Instead they’ve got away with lies and fudges in a hopelessly vague and abstract referendum proposal, whipping up nationalism (always a very dangerous force to stir) to get this monstrosity, riddled with contradictions, across the line, making Britain an international laughing stock in the process.

 

People can cling to the outside possibility that it will all be OK in the end, that Britain will somehow muddle through, and that any view expressing doubt is just “Project Fear”. But the reality is that it is at best a huge risk that is unlikely to achieve much, is likely to negatively affect people’s jobs, businesses, savings and house prices, and may even end up destabilising the Good Friday agreement.

 

The UK’s standing in the world will be hugely diminished as it goes from a strong voice in a strong grouping to a bit part player on the world stage.

Edited 5 February 2019 by WigstonWanderer

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

There are lots of people who did things in their youth that they regret and wouldn't dream of doing now.

 

People calling Neeson out on this are ironically being prejudice, judging him on one solitary action.

 

He doesn't help himself though by repeatedly making "eye for an eye" movies, where his characters are without an iota of forgiveness or remorse.

John Barnes was great on this today. The press have completely misreported what he said. Neeson has actually shown that he's analysed his behaviour, realised it was wrong and has learnt from it. This should be celebrated not lambasted.

[The Guvnor]

On ‎04‎/‎02‎/‎2019 at 15:07, Foxxed said:

I don't understand this backstop thing.

 

So there's a failsafe: if agreements fail with the EU, Northern Ireland stays in the EU's common market.

 

This means there's no hard border between Northern and the Republic of Ireland.

 

And having no hard border is very arguably the linchpin of peace in Northern Ireland.

 

But the Tories aren't happy with this and refuse to sign off on any deal that has the backstop in it?

 

What's May going to go and do now? Remove the backstop, have a hard border, and ignite another civil war in Northern Ireland and resurrect the IRA?

Camilla Tominey made a very interesting point on the Backstop.

There is a Backstop paradox where 'No Deal', as the Irish have admitted, could lead to the very 'hard border' that the Backstop is designed to protect.

[Toddybad]

8 minutes ago, The Guvnor said:

Camilla Tominey made a very interesting point on the Backstop.

There is a Backstop paradox where 'No Deal', as the Irish have admitted, could lead to the very 'hard border' that the Backstop is designed to protect.

The Irish will be lucky to have a border in that case. They'll need something to keep all the British refugees out. 

[Toddybad]

I mean, you don't need Dara to tell you that the MP is blatantly lying. The hard brexiteers do nothing but lie but somehow keep getting airtime. Britain received 26% of the pot under the Marshall Plan. Only Germany got more. 

[Toddybad]

 

 

[Kopfkino]

14 minutes ago, Toddybad said:

I mean, you don't need Dara to tell you that the MP is blatantly lying. The hard brexiteers do nothing but lie but somehow keep getting airtime. Britain received 26% of the pot under the Marshall Plan. Only Germany got more. 

 

At least get it right, the UK got the most by quite some distance, and I'm pretty sure mostly in grants rather than loans. Just we pissed it up the wall whilst West Germany actually spent it on rebuilding and modernising.

[Toddybad]

Just now, Kopfkino said:

 

At least get it right, the UK got the most by quite some distance, and I'm pretty sure mostly in grants rather than loans. Just we pissed it up the wall whilst West Germany actually spent it on rebuilding and modernising.

Fair enough. I'd read about this false tweet yesterday and what I read said what I've parroted above. I dream of living in a country that spends money to rebuild and modernise. Alas, my fellow countrymen would rather devalue the currency and watch over a government destroying all that was once great. 

[Heathrow fox]

I wouldn’t call setting up the NHS and building thousands of council houses pissing it up the wall.Also Germany had the luxury of having the American army parked in its back garden.The U.K. and France have had to pay for and maintain their nuclear weapons systems,at colossal expense.

[Foxxed]

6 hours ago, The Guvnor said:

Camilla Tominey made a very interesting point on the Backstop.

There is a Backstop paradox where 'No Deal', as the Irish have admitted, could lead to the very 'hard border' that the Backstop is designed to protect.

This is false, though, isn't it?

 

In the event of a no deal the backstop comes into play, which would mean a Customs Union between the UK and Ireland, and therefore no border?

[WigstonWanderer]

39 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

This is false, though, isn't it?

 

In the event of a no deal the backstop comes into play, which would mean a Customs Union between the UK and Ireland, and therefore no border?

With respect, I think you have this wrong. In the event of no deal, there is no backstop (no agreement with the EU in which to have a backstop).

 

In that case the EU will want to secure their border to protect the customs union. Also, the UK may be forced to apply tariffs to any trade with the EU. All of this suggests that there would need to be a hard border unless some alternative can be negotiated, but that doesn’t seem likely, particularly in the context of no deal and arguments over the settlement payment, etc.

 

Indeed, it is difficult to see how it is possible for 2 neighbouring countries with a common border but in different customs areas can avoid a hard border. I believe this is what the Tories are currently trying to cobble together.

 

I am no expert, so others can tell me if I’m wrong.

[Foxxed]

Lol I clearly don't understand the backstop.

 

 

 

What is the Brexit backstop?

Variously described as an insurance policy or safety net, the backstop is a device intended to ensure that there will not be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, even if no formal deal can be reached on trade and security arrangements.

 

It would mean that if there were no workable agreement on such matters, Northern Irelandwould stay in the customs union and much of the single market, guaranteeing a friction-free border with the Republic.

 

Both the UK and EU signed up to the basic idea in December 2017 as part of the initial Brexit deal, but there have been disagreements since on how it would work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So we need a deal on the backstop so if we can't reach other agreements then there's no hard border?

 

But we need a deal first otherwise we don't get a backstop but then some people don't want a deal and thus a backstop? Or do want a deal but no backstop? 

 

We are truly ****ed.

[Innovindil]

50 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

Lol I clearly don't understand the backstop.

 

 

 

What is the Brexit backstop?

Variously described as an insurance policy or safety net, the backstop is a device intended to ensure that there will not be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, even if no formal deal can be reached on trade and security arrangements.

 

It would mean that if there were no workable agreement on such matters, Northern Irelandwould stay in the customs union and much of the single market, guaranteeing a friction-free border with the Republic.

 

Both the UK and EU signed up to the basic idea in December 2017 as part of the initial Brexit deal, but there have been disagreements since on how it would work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So we need a deal on the backstop so if we can't reach other agreements then there's no hard border?

 

But we need a deal first otherwise we don't get a backstop but then some people don't want a deal and thus a backstop? Or do want a deal but no backstop? 

 

We are truly ****ed.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Foxxed said:

Lol I clearly don't understand the backstop.

 

 

 

What is the Brexit backstop?

Variously described as an insurance policy or safety net, the backstop is a device intended to ensure that there will not be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, even if no formal deal can be reached on trade and security arrangements.

 

It would mean that if there were no workable agreement on such matters, Northern Irelandwould stay in the customs union and much of the single market, guaranteeing a friction-free border with the Republic.

 

Both the UK and EU signed up to the basic idea in December 2017 as part of the initial Brexit deal, but there have been disagreements since on how it would work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So we need a deal on the backstop so if we can't reach other agreements then there's no hard border?

 

But we need a deal first otherwise we don't get a backstop but then some people don't want a deal and thus a backstop? Or do want a deal but no backstop? 

 

We are truly ****ed.

No. “Even if no deal on trade and security can be reached” is the future arrangements.

We are currently negotiating a withdrawal agreement, if there is no deal on that, there is no backstop.

Edited 6 February 2019 by Strokes