Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[hughesie27]

On 10/10/2019 at 22:26, RobboM said:

Apologies for the length of this post but it's an interesting read on the events around the development of the backstop. It comes from a series of blog posts I'd posted links for yesterday. My reading on who was behind the "backstop" is that the UK proposed it and the EU defined it.

https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2019/05/25/brexit-part-5/content.html
 

London did have one thing right. The structure of the negotiation was awkward. The UK was being asked to write a formula for the Irish border without knowing its broader future relationship.

The Taoiseach Leo Varadkar at Downing Street after talks with Theresa May on the backstop

 

This is the origin of the so-called “backstop” – the central problem of the talks. The backstop is a guarantee of how, even if the talks were to end acrimoniously, the UK would manage Northern Ireland so that there would not be a noticeable border.

In the event that the UK completed a deal with Europe which meant the border was clear and frictionless, the backstop need never be used. But, in the event of talks collapsing or the UK not meeting that bar, the backstop was a treaty within a treaty. It would provide a legal framework that would kick in and take effect. It sought to set a floor on the relationship between Northern Ireland and Ireland.

As the clock ticked ever louder, the need to move the talks on became a weight on government. And it became clear that the backstop would need to be ambitious. In November, a leaked report revealed just how ambitious: the Commission was considering solutions involving keeping Northern Ireland tied closely to the EU, with checks on goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

By the start of December 2017, the prime minister took personal control of the talks. Davis told me: “Juncker calls up and says: ‘We should have a meeting over lunch with Theresa and David and Olly and Michel and Martin and me.’ And I think: ‘Great. That means we’re going to get movement.’”

On 3 December, May called Davis. “On the Sunday, she calls me up and tells me, ‘We’ve agreed the wording’ and I must admit I thought: ‘We’ve already agreed the wording’. I didn’t say it.”

He says May said: “There are two areas where you might have some concern. One on the role of the European Court with respect to citizens.’ … I did, but it wasn’t major. ‘And the other is that we’ve agreed on Northern Ireland; there’ll be full alignment’.”

“I said to her: ‘You can’t say that, prime minister. That’s harmonisation. We’re explicitly against harmonisation.’”

A promise of Brexit for many Tories had been less regulation. Harmonisation would mean taking EU rules for Northern Ireland – which, now, the UK would not be involved in writing.

The prime minister told him: “Oh, no no it’s not harmonisation. It’s full alignment of outcomes.”

Later on, Brexiter cabinet ministers would be assured, as Davis was, that this did not mean Northern Ireland would be required to take on EU rules. It just meant, they were told, that rules needed to lead to the same sort of results. (“This was just a lie”, one former official told me. “She knew that wasn’t true”. Another said: “We hoped it was ambiguous enough and we could stretch it.”)

Davis says he replied to her: “Are you sure, prime minister, the other side see it that way? Let me tell you, the history of diplomacy where two sides agree the same words but mean different things by them is not a very good history. From the Balfour Declaration onwards …”

“Well, we need to make progress,” she said. Tick tock. Tick tock.

This was a big step. This was a logical consequence of the August paper on Ireland – which made much the same pledge. But it meant that if the UK were to diverge from the rest of Europe on rules, regulations and trade, Northern Ireland would be left behind inside the EU.

The EU and UK negotiating teams had agreed a text to that effect. But Connelly, the RTÉ journalist, got hold of some of the drafts. The final version he obtained matched what Davis had been told: “In the absence of agreed solutions the UK will ensure that there continues to be continued regulatory alignment from those rules of the internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation and the protection of the Good Friday Agreement.”

The DUP leader Arlene Foster and her deputy, Nigel Dodds. They were furious to discover via a press leak Northern Ireland would effectively be left in the EU

The leak meant the DUP now knew. Davis says: “So we go to Brussels for the lunch and while we’re walking down the corridor in the Berlaymont, Ian Paisley [a DUP MP] rings me: ‘This doesn’t work, David’. ‘Well you better get your boss to ring my boss.’”

During the lunch, the phone rang.

In a room, with Juncker, Barnier, Selmayr, Robbins and Davis present, the prime minister had to take a call from Arlene Foster, the DUP leader: “It must have been … an hour later. We were past the main course … Arlene Foster spent half an hour berating the prime minister during the lunch.” Juncker, Davis says, left the room out of courtesy.

In a public statement, Foster said: “We will not accept any form of regulatory divergence which separates Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the United Kingdom.” The DUP’s votes were essential to the government – and the collapse of the Northern Ireland assembly meant no other voices were heard. That Monday afternoon, the deal seemed to fall apart.

But, by Friday, the UK government had put together a plan. Davis said: “We ended up having this crack-of-dawn departure to Brussels from Northolt [a Royal Air Force base in London] – 3.30 in the morning. Breakfast in Brussels with Juncker to agree it. All sorts of things you learn from that. They were desperate to do a deal. ‘How much time do you need? Can we talk to people?’… He desperately didn’t want it to get blown up.”

A text was agreed. The backstop appeared, finally, in December 2017 in a document known as the Joint Report. It is worth reading paragraph 49 of that document:

“In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.”

“Full alignment” had been the problem before. But paragraph 50 sought to mollify the DUP: “In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.”

This created something of a trap. It was a paragraph with two readings.

To Britain, it meant that the EU could not do anything that would require the UK to erect barriers between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

To the EU, it was a promise made by Britons to themselves. The internal issues of the UK – how movement within the country is treated – are for Britain. They are not for the EU.

There was ambiguity in the Joint Report. But seizing the advantage in the gaps in meaning would require some enterprise.

A UK negotiator told me: “One of the mistakes made was not getting out in front of that … There were [officials] inside here … pushing for us to publish [draft treaty] text“. Such a legal text could press their version of “full alignment” or paragraph 50, for example. The Commission, too, remained bemused that the UK did not issue a legal text.

Robbins is named, widely, as a block on this sort of action in this period.

In February 2018, the UK paid a price for this inaction. The Commission published a draft text of a withdrawal agreement. It set out that Northern Ireland would be drawn into “a common regulatory area”. Northern Ireland would, in effect, be drawn into a customs union with the EU, and follow a range of other EU rules. The rest of the UK would be outside this net.

This meant that the EU’s reading of Paragraph 50 – the one barring east-west checks – became the one that counted.

A negotiator told me: “Once they had done that, and it was just so far away from anything we could ever accept, we were then trying to claw back, and that was a fundamental problem. If you look at the path of the negotiation … it’s been quite rare for one side that is completely … out of whack with the other side … There’s usually some back-channelling so you know how stuff is going to land.”

Theresa May accidentally negotiated an agreement which would cut the Union in two

The DUP, whatever else it stands for, stands against division between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The prime minister announced that “no UK prime minister could ever agree to” this proposal because it would threaten the “constitutional integrity of the UK”.

The unionist prime minister reliant on DUP votes had accidentally negotiated a deal which would cut the union in two.

Absolutely terrifying that May photo on my mobile...

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

24 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Absolutely terrifying that May photo on my mobile...

Yes. Fugly.

[Cade]

Any way you look at it, the GFA makes a hard brexit impossible.

The Tory bellends are slowly realising this.

Al of their posturing and red lines mean nothing.

The UK is under international pressure, not least from the USA who are one of the guarantors of the GFA (and who we need to do a trade deal with) to uphold the GFA.

 

It's all rather splendid.

[jamboy1982]

Is this supposed deal just bluster? Can they pretend to be agreeing to eu demands to make the eu make noises that a deal is possible in order to avoid asking fir an extension? Then the tories pull out at the last minute leaving no time to ask for an extension. 

[Francis Albert]

6 minutes ago, Cade said:

Any way you look at it, the GFA makes a hard brexit impossible.

The Tory bellends are slowly realising this.

Al of their posturing and red lines mean nothing.

The UK is under international pressure, not least from the USA who are one of the guarantors of the GFA (and who we need to do a trade deal with) to uphold the GFA.

 

It's all rather splendid.

Which part of the GFA would prohibit a border in Ireland and make such a border a breach of the terms of the GFA?

 

My way of looking at it is to read the thing.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

4 minutes ago, jamboy1982 said:

Is this supposed deal just bluster? Can they pretend to be agreeing to eu demands to make the eu make noises that a deal is possible in order to avoid asking fir an extension? Then the tories pull out at the last minute leaving no time to ask for an extension. 

 

No, I think they have to ask for an extension by this Saturday in the event of a no-deal.

[shaun.lawson]

45 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Which part of the GFA would prohibit a border in Ireland and make such a border a breach of the terms of the GFA?

 

My way of looking at it is to read the thing.

 

Oh good grief.

[RobboM]

52 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Which part of the GFA would prohibit a border in Ireland and make such a border a breach of the terms of the GFA?

 

My way of looking at it is to read the thing.

Why oh why have you never mentioned this before?

[Francis Albert]

8 minutes ago, RobboM said:

Why oh why have you never mentioned this before?

Why oh why has no-one answered a simple question?

And why oh why do people keep  repeating that a border in Ireland would breach the GFA, an assertion simply not supported by the wording of the GFA?

And why oh why  if a border was already prohibited in a binding international agreement would  a back stop be necessary? 

Edited October 15, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Cade]

Do not feed the troll

 

It's beyond pathetic now.

[RobboM]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

Why oh why has no-one answered a simple question?

And why oh why do people keep  repeating than a border in Ireland would breach the GFA, an assertion simply not supported by the wording of the GFA?

And why oh why  if a border was already prohibited in a binding international agreement would  a back stop be necessary? 

Because it is evident to the world and their dog that the GFA is a treaty that has established a successful peace on the island of Ireland and that would be at risk with a hard border.

 

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, RobboM said:

Because it is evident to the world and their dog that the GFA is a treaty that has established a successful peace on the island of Ireland and that would be at risk with a hard border.

 

Absolutely. It is an answer to a different question however.

[RobboM]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

Absolutely. It is an answer to a different question however.

You really think you have uncovered some previously undiscovered truth?

Maybe you should stroll into the Brexit negotiations just as Boris Johnson is about to stick his thumb print at the bottom of the agreement, you pop up like Columbo "Just one more thing....." and the room gasps at your forensic genius?

Francis Albert .... you ain't no Columbo! 😋

 

[AlphonseCapone]

Does anyone know someone that has read the GFA? Thanks.

[Cade]

I have explained the GFA and the border many, many, MANY times on this thread since it was begun two years ago.

 

If certain morons decide to continue their blinkered ignorance, that's their issue.

[Justin Z]

30 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

Does anyone know someone that has read the GFA? Thanks.

 

Read it for my ****ing Brexit class, for **** sake. We've been over it ad nauseam.

[AlphonseCapone]

2 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Read it for my ****ing Brexit class, for **** sake. We've been over it ad nauseam.

 

Whoosh.

[Justin Z]

Just now, AlphonseCapone said:

Whoosh.

 

My frustration in playing off of your sarcastic question--not directed not at you--seems to have whooshed right past you indeed.

[AlphonseCapone]

Just now, Justin Z said:

 

My frustration in playing off of your sarcastic question--not directed not at you--seems to have whooshed right past you indeed.

 

Ah a meta-whoosh... I'm out.

[Justin Z]

Just now, AlphonseCapone said:

Ah a meta-whoosh... I'm out.

 

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

Edited October 15, 2019 by Joey J J Jr Shabadoo

[Mikey1874]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

I have explained the GFA and the border many, many, MANY times on this thread since it was begun two years ago.

 

If certain morons decide to continue their blinkered ignorance, that's their issue.

 

It's okay. 

 

We've also had everyone else explaining it too. Pretty clearly. 

[I P Knightley]

On 10/10/2019 at 15:31, jamboy1982 said:

Just allow England and Wales to leave. Build a massive wall on the English/Scottish border. Any Scottish person that doesn’t want independence can move to England. Likewise any English folk that want to live in a beautiful forward thinking country can come live in Scotland. Job done. 

I'd love to be living back in Scotland if only it could offer me the prosperity that I have here in London. I'm not knocking Scotland, there, it's just that I can get better pay for what I'm good at down here. 

 

However, I have to take you to task on the description of my home country as being forward-thinking. It's a fine country in many, many ways but 'forward-thinking' would be the last on my list if I were to describe it. 

 

On 11/10/2019 at 20:48, jake said:

They've all been caught lying.

Can you name one that hasn't?

This phrase "fake news" has been twisted out of all recognition by that fat, orange bozo in Pennsylvania Avenue. When I first came across it, it related to outlets such as The Daily Mash, which (quite literally) made up stories for the fun of it. Bozo the Thick Wnkpiece has commandeered it to mean anything that is in anyway critical of him. 

 

The mainstream press has always given a twist to its stories. You would know which paper to take based upon your ideology so that you would have an easy read. Unless you were an arsepiece, you knew that the story was twisted a little bit to make it more digestable for you. Didn't mean it was a lie, though, of "fake". 

 

I should have taken this discussion to the "seethe" thread. I hate the phrase "fake news". 

[shaun.lawson]

4 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Why oh why has no-one answered a simple question?

 

Francis, dear boy. O Great One. O Ye who thinks he knows more about this issue than any politician in Northern Ireland, any person in Northern Ireland, or any politician or person in the Republic of Ireland too.

 

What exasperates me - and many others - about your position (whatever the heck it even is) is your wilful, categorical, miserable failure to even attempt to understand the remotest thing about the context behind the Good Friday Agreement or The Troubles. The Good Friday Agreement operates through both letter, and spirit - because without the latter, there's no trust, and the whole thing collapses.

 

We're talking about a conflict which lasted getting on towards 500 bloody years, in which there was no trust at any point; only hatred, paranoia, and fear. Peace in Northern Ireland was the most wondrous achievement - and it could only be achieved when the two sides learnt to trust and believe in each other. 

 

The spirit of the Agreement works as follows. Everything is interdependent; which means that with regard to Northern Ireland, the UK cannot do something which the Republic of Ireland expressly does not want, and vice versa. No new arrangement can be imposed on Northern Ireland (which voted to Remain in the EU, for heaven's sake) from above. And a hard border is most certainly a new arrangement. 

 

That's why so many Irish politicians have warned against it. That's why George Mitchell, who worked so hard to achieve the Agreement in the first place, has warned against it. That's why UNESCO have warned against it.

 

The lack of a physical border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland symbolises that hard won trust and peace itself. A hard border symbolises lack of trust and conflict. If you're incapable of seeing that, there's no point in anyone responding to you. You just don't get it. 

 

That instead, we're now looking at a border in the Irish Sea means:

 

1. The SNP will go mad and, as Barry Davies would put it, they'll have every right to go mad

 

2. A united Ireland will move a massive step closer

 

3. If Ireland unites, Scotland will very obviously leave the UK too.

[SectionDJambo]

As far as the Ireland situation goes, for me, the most telling thing within the thoughts of the extreme Brexiteers, or Spartans as they like to call themselves 😂, is the complete lack of concern that the “troubles”, and there’s a term that is grossly understated, could return if the people negotiating this get it wrong.

IDS, a Spartan?! I remember him being regularly rag dolled by Tony Blair during PMQs, during his “leadership” of the Tory party. The rest of them are as hopeless as him, and they’re trying to call the shots, like the wee agitator in the school playground, who tries to get the bully to sort out somebody who they don’t like.

I watched them on tv, trooping out of No10, with the lips firmly in petted mode.

My memory may be fading, or maybe I wasn’t paying attention, but I can’t remember the Ireland issue being discussed as a deal breaker during the referendum campaign. We were all told it would be easy peasy to leave.

There’s going to be a lot of backtracking going on here. They probably need that pen thingy that the Men in a Black use to eradicate what they have said and done before.

What fun to watch them. And that’s before Farage implodes.

[ri Alban]

7 hours ago, I P Knightley said:

I'd love to be living back in Scotland if only it could offer me the prosperity that I have here in London. I'm not knocking Scotland, there, it's just that I can get better pay for what I'm good at down here. 

 

However, I have to take you to task on the description of my home country as being forward-thinking. It's a fine country in many, many ways but 'forward-thinking' would be the last on my list if I were to describe it. 

 

This phrase "fake news" has been twisted out of all recognition by that fat, orange bozo in Pennsylvania Avenue. When I first came across it, it related to outlets such as The Daily Mash, which (quite literally) made up stories for the fun of it. Bozo the Thick Wnkpiece has commandeered it to mean anything that is in anyway critical of him. 

 

The mainstream press has always given a twist to its stories. You would know which paper to take based upon your ideology so that you would have an easy read. Unless you were an arsepiece, you knew that the story was twisted a little bit to make it more digestable for you. Didn't mean it was a lie, though, of "fake". 

 

I should have taken this discussion to the "seethe" thread. I hate the phrase "fake news". 

You'll be earning less as soon as London becomes doubly fecked, with No deal Brexit and Scottish Independence. Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Glasgow should double pretty quickly.

Good times!

[Montgomery Brewster]

10 hours ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

So true. 👍🏻

[shaun.lawson]

On 11/10/2019 at 14:36, Gorgiewave said:

 

The Belfast Agreement barely mentions the border and it doesn't prohibit a customs union, border posts or anything else.

 

This man thinks he's a British patriot and unionist.

 

In practice, this man could not care less about Britain or the union and could not be less patriotic. 

 

This man only cares about himself.

[ri Alban]

7 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

This man thinks he's a British patriot and unionist.

 

In practice, this man could not care less about Britain or the union and could not be less patriotic. 

 

This man only cares about himself.

Shaun! As an Englishman,  do you think England/The English give two Donalds if Scotland left the Union or not?

 

I'd like a thorough answer and the reasoning behind why you'd come to these conclusions.

 

Thanks!

 

 

If you don't mind and you have the time, that is.

Edited October 16, 2019 by ri Alban

[shaun.lawson]

4 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Shaun! As an Englishman,  do you think England/The English give two Donalds if Scotland left the Union or not?

 

I'd like a thorough answer and the reasoning behind why you'd come to these conclusions.

 

Thanks!

 

 

If you don't mind and you have the time, that is.

 

Many would, hugely. Sadly, more probably wouldn't.

 

Those who very much would are mostly young, liberal, with similar politics to the SNP but no desire at all for Scotland to leave. Those who wouldn't are mostly old, reactionary, miserable *******s. Of whom there would seem to be ever-increasing numbers.

[DETTY29]

Reports apparently coming out Boris is prepared to pay the flat earth believers significant billions well in excess of what May did to agree deal.

 

 

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by DETTY29

[shaun.lawson]

45 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

Reports apparently coming out Boris is prepared to pay the flat earth believers significant billions well in excess of what May did to agree deal.

 

 

 

 

British democracy, you can't beat it, can you? Said flat earthers have a major, major problem. 

 

1. They're committed to Northern Ireland not being treated in any way differently from the rest of the UK. If it is, they rightly fear it hugely advancing the cause of a united Ireland: a catastrophe for the DUP.

 

2. No Deal is a catastrophe for Northern Ireland... and hence, for the DUP as well. Can they afford to be the ones forcing through No Deal when Northern Ireland voted to stay in the EU? To coin a phrase so beloved of these dinosaurs, never.

 

Meaning we're well past time for their bluff finally to be called.

Edited October 16, 2019 by shaun.lawson

[Francis Albert]

9 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Francis, dear boy. O Great One. O Ye who thinks he knows more about this issue than any politician in Northern Ireland, any person in Northern Ireland, or any politician or person in the Republic of Ireland too.

 

What exasperates me - and many others - about your position (whatever the heck it even is) is your wilful, categorical, miserable failure to even attempt to understand the remotest thing about the context behind the Good Friday Agreement or The Troubles. The Good Friday Agreement operates through both letter, and spirit - because without the latter, there's no trust, and the whole thing collapses.

 

We're talking about a conflict which lasted getting on towards 500 bloody years, in which there was no trust at any point; only hatred, paranoia, and fear. Peace in Northern Ireland was the most wondrous achievement - and it could only be achieved when the two sides learnt to trust and believe in each other. 

 

The spirit of the Agreement works as follows. Everything is interdependent; which means that with regard to Northern Ireland, the UK cannot do something which the Republic of Ireland expressly does not want, and vice versa. No new arrangement can be imposed on Northern Ireland (which voted to Remain in the EU, for heaven's sake) from above. And a hard border is most certainly a new arrangement. 

 

That's why so many Irish politicians have warned against it. That's why George Mitchell, who worked so hard to achieve the Agreement in the first place, has warned against it. That's why UNESCO have warned against it.

 

The lack of a physical border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland symbolises that hard won trust and peace itself. A hard border symbolises lack of trust and conflict. If you're incapable of seeing that, there's no point in anyone responding to you. You just don't get it. 

 

That instead, we're now looking at a border in the Irish Sea means:

 

1. The SNP will go mad and, as Barry Davies would put it, they'll have every right to go mad

 

2. A united Ireland will move a massive step closer

 

3. If Ireland unites, Scotland will very obviously leave the UK too.

Lots of words Shaun (as usual).  None is a quote from the legally binding written terms of the GFA unfortunately. After decades working on legally binding agreements, drafting, interpreting, and in litigation I know that reliance on appeals to the "spirit" of the agreement usually means you are legally on dodgy ground.

As I have repeatedly said a border in Ireland would be a bad idea for the reasons you mention and others. I accept the "spirit of the agreement" point and  am aware of the context.

People despite your rather too rosy picture are still being killed and knee-capped in Northern Ireland thankfully in small numbers (though for the victims the numbers are of little comfort). My objection is to loose talk of the UK breaching the GFA while there are still a number in NI who would welcome an excuse to multiply the number of victims.

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Cade]

Who cares about the DUP?

Now that the Tories are in a minority even WITH their 10 votes, Boris can surely find the votes he needs elsewhere and for much less hassle (and much less cash).

 

I still think that firing 21 of his own MPs was planned to remove the DUP's role as the kingmakers.

They are irrelevant now.

[ri Alban]

2 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

British democracy, you can't beat it, can you? Said flat earthers have a major, major problem. 

 

1. They're committed to Northern Ireland not being treated in any way differently from the rest of the UK. If it is, they rightly fear it hugely advancing the cause of a united Ireland: a catastrophe for the DUP.

 

2. No Deal is a catastrophe for Northern Ireland... and hence, for the DUP as well. Can they afford to be the ones forcing through No Deal when Northern Ireland voted to stay in the EU? To coin a phrase so beloved of these dinosaurs, never.

 

Meaning we're well past time for their bluff finally to be called.

Does the Republic of Ireland even want NI?

[DETTY29]

27 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Does the Republic of Ireland even want NI?

Going by my in laws, surprisingly yes.

 

Not sure I could be bothered with crap that could go with it, especially as Eire is now by far the more forward thinking modern day society and even more importantly do we end up going back to killing each other.

 

There is  load of stuff on BBC iPlayer just now about Northern Ireland.

 

Spotlight on the troubles, BBC4 every Tuesday is 6 into 7 episodes.

 

The other I have watched recently is this by a journalist Peter Taylor, who has been covering the troubles from the start.

 

Near the end he concludes that Ireland will become one country again, even in his lifetime, but the unionists have to be be brought long in the journey and not prejudiced against when it eventually happens.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0007pb4/peter-taylor-my-journey-through-the-troubles

 

 

 

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by DETTY29

[DETTY29]

2 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

Going by my in laws, surprisingly yes.

 

Not sure I could be bothered with crap that could go with it, especially as Eire is now by far the more forward thinking modern day society and even more importantly do we end up going back to killing each other.

 

There is  load of stuff on BBC iPlayer just now about Northern Ireland.

 

Spotlight on the troubles, BBC4 every Tuesday is 6 into 7 episodes.

 

The other I have watched recently is this by a journalist Peter Taylor, who has been covering the troubles from the start.

 

Near the end he concludes that Ireland will become one country again, even in his lifetime, but the unionists have to be be brought long in the journey and not prejudiced against when it eventually happens.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0007pb4/peter-taylor-my-journey-through-the-troubles

Should add that as we get close to the end of the series the clear view is that ceasefire mainly happened because of the number of spies within the IRA working for the UK govt and in collusion with the UK authorities and RUC, the unionists paramilitaries were able to pick off more targets plus pushing towards what was termed more 'innocent' members of the public and the IRA, catholic community became weary of it all.

 

So, do the communities want to go back to that and risk it with a United Ireland?

 

Anyway off topic a bit and a thread for it's own.

[Mikey1874]

DUP have been looking at JKB and have helpfully clarified the position of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. 

 

 

[Mikey1874]

This is consent from a body that might as well not exist given its 3 years since it met. 

 

Consent that needs to be given before 31 October. 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Mikey1874

[Justin Z]

@jake 😶

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/brexit-is-less-people-s-revolution-and-more-mid-life-crisis-1.4049122

[Governor Tarkin]

17 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Ah a meta-whoosh... I'm out.

[ri Alban]

18 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

My frustration in playing off of your sarcastic question--not directed not at you--seems to have whooshed right past you indeed.

Yer arse!

18 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Ah a meta-whoosh... I'm out.

His arse!

[DETTY29]

ERG more comfortable if DUP onside, but ERG not willing to vote for any UK,EU deal this Saturday unless all written legalities in place by 31,10 which is unlikely.

 

Is Rees-Mogg still chair of ERG or did he stand down to become part of the cabinet?

[Victorian]

IDS on why Scotland should not have the same deal to stay in the customs union...

 

"Ahhhh but then they would need to stay in the union.   Northern Ireland is part of the union... ".

 

[redjambo]

1 hour ago, DETTY29 said:

ERG more comfortable if DUP onside, but ERG not willing to vote for any UK,EU deal this Saturday unless all written legalities in place by 31,10 which is unlikely.

 

Is Rees-Mogg still chair of ERG or did he stand down to become part of the cabinet?

 

He stood down last month. Steve Baker is the new chair.

[Pans Jambo]

1 hour ago, DETTY29 said:

ERG more comfortable if DUP onside, but ERG not willing to vote for any UK,EU deal this Saturday unless all written legalities in place by 31,10 which is unlikely.

 

Is Rees-Mogg still chair of ERG or did he stand down to become part of the cabinet?

Thought Boris’s cabinet WAS the ERG?

[Mikey1874]

The arch Brexiteers yet again the ones who could stop Brexit happening.

 

The ones who again have it in their grasp to make Brexit happen.

[jake]

6 hours ago, Justin Z said:

@jake 😶

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/brexit-is-less-people-s-revolution-and-more-mid-life-crisis-1.4049122

Liked that although i hope your no comparing me to a shweaty biker on a shit Harley.

 

I'm on my lambretta mate with my good lady modette .

😁 

[JackLadd]

Will be odd to see the Ulster says No party support a deal and Sturgeon oppose it so she can ride on a no deal to herd Iref2 sheep. I see right through the SNP and so should any thinking Scot. 

[The Real Maroonblood]

17 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

Will be odd to see the Ulster says No party support a deal and Sturgeon oppose it so she can ride on a no deal to herd Iref2 sheep. I see right through the SNP and so should any thinking Scot.