skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
You made the statement so I’m asking you. Starting to sound like you’ve made a statement that you can’t back up.
Tony I explained this on this thread to Mart. He went predictably silent other than muttering something about the “spirit of the agreement”
If you want the answer ask your friend. I am not posting the relevant sections within the act again.
No. You haven’t linked anything to support your and Rees Mogg‘s interpretation. The framework of the GFA is that there is no border. With a border the rest is nonsense. E.g. if you feel you are Irish, you lose that feeling if you come to a border. You are guaranteed to feel Irish, British or British Irish. Start putting a border with physical checkpoints and there is the end of the agreement.
Oh I have said there will be some significant negatives for Britain (& some positives) many times. That is why I voted remain myself.you think companies haven't moved because of Brexit?
You think BMW pulling forward their shut downs isn't anything to do with Brexit?
You think they haven't put the brakes on investment, of course they have?
Lets face it, you won't admit anything negative about Brexit whereas I can acknowledge positives when they're presented like the link you provided.
You made the statement so I’m asking you. Starting to sound like you’ve made a statement that you can’t back up.
It’s not even about physical check points. Not understanding that and being selective at which parts of the GFA he’s taking notice of is why Grendull has misunderstood the situation and made inaccurate statement.
Oh I have said there will be some significant negatives for Britain (& some positives) many times. That is why I voted remain myself.
Once again though, you are not citing the fact of the matter. Companies are not leaving Britain - the same as Britain is not leaving Europe. They are simply saying they are transferring (Britain's loss) their EU base (not British or Global base) from Britain into the EU once we leave...who would expect anything different? BMW as you have pretty much said yourself were leaving anyhow. They simply bought plans forward.
You (re?) joined this thread fairly recently coming over as fairly balanced & open minded to the dabate. Quickly though you have joined Mart & Tony in frothing manically at anything anyone else says which is not anti-Brexit. Many of the rest of us post anti-scaremongering stories, opinions & Martfacts.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Have you read the whole agreement Tony?
Tony if once again you need me to hold your hand and show you a previous post I made then of course I will hold your hand and guide you.
Do you need help Tony to show you the way?
Not answering the question then. Somehow didn’t think you would.
Have you read the whole agreement Tony?
to be honest, it doesn't matter, in December 2017 the UK government signed up to the frame work for the talks and agreed additional infrastructure at the North/South border was out of the question as this was a red line for the Irish government.
A border in the sea between Britain and Northern Ireland is a red line for the DUP and a border between the south and mainland Europe is a redline for the EU so that's the conundrum we're faced with .
No it isn’t as the agreement has a solution
I agree though it’s gonernment policy they will not create the border - Eire will need to instigate that
Oh I have said there will be some significant negatives for Britain (& some positives) many times. That is why I voted remain myself.
Once again though, you are not citing the fact of the matter. Companies are not leaving Britain - the same as Britain is not leaving Europe. They are simply saying they are transferring (Britain's loss) their EU base (not British or Global base) from Britain into the EU once we leave...who would expect anything different? BMW as you have pretty much said yourself were leaving anyhow. They simply bought plans forward.
You (re?) joined this thread fairly recently coming over as fairly balanced & open minded to the dabate. Quickly though you have joined Mart & Tony in frothing manically at anything anyone else says which is not anti-Brexit. Many of the rest of us post anti-scaremongering stories, opinions & Martfacts.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
but they won't sign up to it so no agreement. What happens then I don't know.
edit - what's the solution in the agreement?
Agreed timeframe?
That is what makes me laugh. The EU states something will happen or the EU states that something will happen in a certain way. They dictate what is happening. This then becomes something agreed at a later date.
The EU said that we would have to solve the problem of Ireland before we could go any further. How was this an agreed framework?
And yet again we have to solve issues we don't know about until we know about any sort of trade deal. It is ifs and buts until we know the details.
The Belfast Agreement of Surrender starts with a lot of waffle that all decisions need to be in the best interests of the whole of Ireland.
It gets to the point though quickly. Unlike the welsh and Scottish devolution Ireland has effectively sovereign powers. If it’s deemed an act will be against the interest of Ireland then it can, without consent of the British Parliament, have a referendum of unification. By definition rejection of the unification would mean the action that caused the referendum is the accepted solution.
A subsequent clause allows another referendum 7 years later if this previously agreed strategy is now deemed not suitable.
So the Irish have the option of unification or the decision agreed on the border
and the DUP would pull the rug from under May straight away if she suggested that.
Er that makes no sense may has nothing to do with it - it’s down to Ireland the uk cannot stop a referendum
The Belfast Agreement of Surrender starts with a lot of waffle that all decisions need to be in the best interests of the whole of Ireland.
It gets to the point though quickly. Unlike the welsh and Scottish devolution Ireland has effectively sovereign powers. If it’s deemed an act will be against the interest of Ireland then it can, without consent of the British Parliament, have a referendum of unification. By definition rejection of the unification would mean the action that caused the referendum is the accepted solution.
A subsequent clause allows another referendum 7 years later if this previously agreed strategy is now deemed not suitable.
So the Irish have the option of unification or the decision agreed on the border
I have answered it Tony - unlike you and Mart. I’ve read the agreement - now if I’ve missed something then please direct me to the relevant heading and sub section
Frankly I’m tired of you and Mart. You are like a pair of gruesome two year olds who scream and shout in a bistro when you are enjoying a meal - no added value at all - and ruining the occasion
Still I am a kind fellow. Read first 1.1 if the first section Tony - read this then come back to me with the inevitable questions and then I’ll lead your hand to the next relevant section so you can understand the complete picture
Always here to help Tony
isn't it basically creating the opportunity for a referendum on unification? Or have I misunderstood. I think just the mention of a referendum on unification would have the DUP up in arms.
I'm interested in just how much produce crosses that border. I know ordinary people do according to the relative strength of the Euro or Pound for shopping deals ?! How many checks are actually required ?to be honest, it doesn't matter, in December 2017 the UK government signed up to the frame work for the talks and agreed additional infrastructure at the North/South border was out of the question as this was a red line for the Irish government.
A border in the sea between Britain and Northern Ireland is a red line for the DUP and a border between the south and mainland Europe is a redline for the EU so that's the conundrum we're faced with .
The treaty of surrender states that the Irish Parliament is allowed to call a referendum unilaterally - the uk Parliament has no influence on this
The waffle, as you put it, was a major diplomatic success and ended 30 years of armed struggle.
It was give and take and you call it surrender.
Now people in England, wound up by dodgy populists, have put the whole agreement on the line.
Not deliberately, but through astounding ignorance, for some by stupidity and/ or recklessness in a flawed and partly illegally campaigned for advisory referendum with no qualified majority.
Recently described as a triumph of democracy. Haha
You wriggle around and try to decry the work and determination of many people in order to bend the GFA into insignificance as compared to Brexit. Brexit being a singular act of self harm for this country and for our neighbours.
didn't they change their constitution to give up their claim to the 6 counties of the north as part of the GFA?
I'm interested in just how much produce crosses that border. I know ordinary people do according to the relative strength of the Euro or Pound for shopping deals ?! How many checks are actually required ?
God read the agreement it’s in the first section
It’s the biggest Surrender in unionist history - the Belfast parliament could call a referendum at anytime
That's not something I could see happening. I think things are complex enough.
On top of that why would the Republic, whose economy is doing pretty well want to take the other 6 counties on and all that that entailed?
Then that also settles the provisional statement of being in the whole of Ireland interest does it not?
you're going to have to explain this one to me because i'm struggling.
The Irish government has to call a referendum they don't want to win?
The treaty of Surrender clearly allows the Northern Ireland parliament to call a referendum of unification with no consent from Eire. So if the parliament believed the core principal of the agreement
the NI parliament is currently collapsed and there's no way the DUP would call a referendum even as part of some sort of political maneuvering.
I have answered it Tony - unlike you and Mart. I’ve read the agreement - now if I’ve missed something then please direct me to the relevant heading and sub section
Frankly I’m tired of you and Mart. You are like a pair of gruesome two year olds who scream and shout in a bistro when you are enjoying a meal - no added value at all - and ruining the occasion
Still I am a kind fellow. Read first 1.1 if the first section Tony - read this then come back to me with the inevitable questions and then I’ll lead your hand to the next relevant section so you can understand the complete picture
Always here to help Tony
Which agreement have you read? Just so you know there’s two. You’ve clearly read a snippet of one, probably misquoted by someone else put two and two together and came up with three.
You don’t even know that it’s two agreements not one. Why am I going to take notice of someone on the GFA when they don’t even know that it isn’t a single agreement. People who don’t know anything about it might take you at face value but I’m not one of them.
When you understand even the basics (like it’s two agreements not one) of what you’re talking about come back to me. Until then you’re just bullshitting based on little knowledge.
Just quoye the relevant section Tony then we will discuss this like mature adults.
Sadly Tony I’m now putting you and Mart on ignore. I agree with astute - debate is pointless. I understand you get excited that someone likes your posts - even if it’s a mad dribbling lunatic - but I’ve presented countless arguments which you and your rabid chum just ignore and indulge in playground defensiveness
My opumion of the Irish agreement is I believe entirely accurate - you lack the ability to debate and as ever indulge in some purile comment based on Wiki to condratict with zero alternative view
The thread is ruined by mart - who clearly has mental issues - and you who seems to have latched on him like a pitiful love struck teenager
Bye bye
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?