Brexit never? Britain can still change its mind, says Article 50 autho

chorleythehord

Forum Patron
Patron
Absolute rubbish (IMO, of course). Same for Liberation's view.

Basically, the country voted Leave - after a Leave campaign that largely sold the version of Leave outlined in that 2017 Labour manifesto. But once the vote was won, the Tory Party grabbed the goalposts and shifted them to the right by an absolute mile - and somehow sold the LIE that the country had voted for a hard Brexit.

Rewriting history again Reg. Once the vote was won, Cameron resigned and May tried to get her own deal through. What exactly was to the absolute right / hard Brexit about what she was trying to do?
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
Everything else in history remains the same. The only difference is that we never joined.
What happens when Eire does?

Well I see where you're going with this... and it's an interesting hypothetical way of looking at it. My view is that when the RoI decided to join the EU, it would not do it unilaterally, with no consultation with the EU. Ridiculously obvious as that sounds, that would be the mirror of what we did.

Before anything was agreed, the RoI would have engaged in negotiation with the UK, to ensure that the terms of their entry into the EU was compatible with their international agreements... including the GFA (in whatever form that existed).
 

chorleythehord

Forum Patron
Patron
I think you need to rewrite that post. It doesn't make sense.
You said
But once the vote was won, the Tory Party grabbed the goalposts and shifted them to the right by an absolute mile - and somehow sold the LIE that the country had voted for a hard Brexit.

i said

Rewriting history again Reg. Once the vote was won, Cameron resigned and May tried to get her own deal through. What exactly was to the absolute right / hard Brexit about what she was trying to do?



 

Liberation

Forum Patron
Patron
Well I see where you're going with this... and it's an interesting hypothetical way of looking at it. My view is that when the RoI decided to join the EU, it would not do it unilaterally, with no consultation with the EU. Ridiculously obvious as that sounds, that would be the mirror of what we did.

Before anything was agreed, the RoI would have engaged in negotiation with the UK, to ensure that the terms of their entry into the EU was compatible with their international agreements... including the GFA (in whatever form that existed).
Wriggle, squirm etc :)
 
OP
raefil

raefil

Dolly Patron
Patron
Question.
I want you to imagine that we had never joined the EEC. Later the ROI joined.
Would that have forced checks on goods in the Irish Sea between GB and NI?
Question,

What part of Johnson saying there would be NO checks on goods between NI and GB didnt you hear him say?
 
OP
raefil

raefil

Dolly Patron
Patron
Wriggle, squirm etc :)
so you didnt get the answer you wanted to hear so in your world that is wriggle and squirm.

The question is of no purpose because the promise made by the Tories, @chorleythehord , take note, was that there would be no checks at all. None, nothing, Zilch. Yet CTH attempts to paint others as liars.

You really couldnt make this shit up at times.

Your hero is a liar.

@Mer5eywhite your scenario didnt happen so it is of no relevance, what did happen, however was Johnson said, very clearly there would be no borders. He lied, nothing unusual but your whataboutery question serves only to justify his lying, which is what is happening on a daily basis by so many.
 
Last edited:

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
You said


i said
It was the second sentence I didn’t understand linguistically, but should have done.

May’s attempts to get her deal included the drawing of red lines that did not come close to matching the rhetoric on which the Leave vote was won. Her plan was probably an attempt to compromise between the “promises” of the campaign and the goals of the Tory hard Brexiteers.

The ERG made sure there would be no such compromise- and cleared the path for the hard Brexit we got - one which broke not only Tory promises, but international law.
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
so you didnt get the answer you wanted to hear so in your world that is wriggle and squirm.

The question is of no purpose because the promise made by the Tories, @chorleythehord , take note, was that there would be no checks at all. None, nothing, Zilch. Yet CTH attempts to paint others as liars.

You really couldnt make this shit up at times.

Your hero is a liar.

@Mer5eywhite your scenario didnt happen so it is of no relevance, what did happen, however was Johnson said, very clearly there would be no borders. He lied, nothing unusual but your whataboutery question serves only to justify his lying, which is what is happening on a daily basis by so many.

I agree with almost all the post - except I do think Mer5ey’s hypothetical question has relevance as a focus of debate. It’s interesting to consider the creation of that EU/UK border - if it had been created by the Irish rather than by us.

I already gave my view on the scenario- and I genuinely hope for some reasonable comment on it. Basically, I see no way in the world that the Irish would have held a referendum committing themselves to membership of the EU - where the Ireland/ Northern Ireland border was not the focus of enormous scrutiny and negotiation beforehand.

My eyes will pop out if anyone disagrees with that! And IMO, this should bring home the abject failure and stupidity of what our Tory masters did when convincing people to vote for it.
 

PNEESSEX

Forum Patron
Patron
Everything else in history remains the same. The only difference is that we never joined.
What happens when Eire does?
The GFA could never have happened without the EU and the customs union. Prior to 1992 there were customs posts at all the border crossing points. Over time the number and nature of checks reduced as more bilateral agreements were signed, but checks were still taking place.

You cannot hypothesise that everything remained the same except for the RoI joining and the UK not joining back in the day because things were in a constant state of flux from 1922 onwards
 
Last edited:

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
The GFA could never have happened without the EU and the customs union. Prior to 1992 there were customs posts at all the border crossing points. Over time the number and nature of checks reduced as more bilateral agreements were signed, but checks were still taking place.

You cannot hypothesise that everything remained the same except for the RoI joining and the UK not joining back in the day because things were in a constant state of flux from 1922 onwards

Of course you can hypothesise. If you play by your rules - you’d kill almost all hypothetical discussions - discussions that can be hugely helpful in exploring and understanding complex issues.

The points you make can be made in a valid way, within the context of a hypothetical discussion.
 

Liberation

Forum Patron
Patron
Of course you can hypothesise. If you play by your rules - you’d kill almost all hypothetical discussions - discussions that can be hugely helpful in exploring and understanding complex issues.

The points you make can be made in a valid way, within the context of a hypothetical discussion.

Reg......... Your verbal diarrhea knows no bounds. What on earth are you banging on about? :D
 

PNEESSEX

Forum Patron
Patron
Of course you can hypothesise. If you play by your rules - you’d kill almost all hypothetical discussions - discussions that can be hugely helpful in exploring and understanding complex issues.

The points you make can be made in a valid way, within the context of a hypothetical discussion.
Did you even read what I wrote? Thought not.

I do understand the concept of hypotheses tyvm. If you're going to try and patronise me at least try to be vaguely intelligent
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
Did you even read what wrote? Thought not.

I do understand the concept of hypotheses tyvm. If you're going to try and patronise me at least try to be vaguely intelligent


For a man of such superior intelligence, you do so often reach for the belittling sharp reply to people. It's not often been me - but having seen you do it often to others, I will treat it with the disdain it deserves.
 

Liberation

Forum Patron
Patron
For a man of such superior intelligence, you do so often reach for the belittling sharp reply to people. It's not often been me - but having seen you do it often to others, I will treat it with the disdain it deserves.


You certainly can't accuse me of that.... You okay mate?
 

PNEESSEX

Forum Patron
Patron
For a man of such superior intelligence, you do so often reach for the belittling sharp reply to people. It's not often been me - but having seen you do it often to others, I will treat it with the disdain it deserves.
I really couldn't give a flying toss what you think tbh, so your can save your disdain for someone who cares. I really have completely run out of fucks to give on here of late.
 
Top