Jump to content

Risk of no-deal Brexit is now significant, says Northern Ireland's DUP


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Loiner said:

Deadlines were extended by a Remainer PM. This one won’t.

Do you really think EU gives two monkeys about the GFA? I doubt even Dublin is honestly that interested in it.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Strange of you to reply to but not to quote my post, no problem, I spotted it anyway. 

 

Your first point, assumption. 

 

Your second, A) yes B) you’re wrong. 

  • Confused 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Wrong. 

What does the Good Friday Agreement say about a hard border?

A lot less than you might think. The only place in which it alludes to infrastructure at the border is in the section on security.

During the Troubles there were heavily fortified army barracks, police stations and watchtowers along the border. They were frequently attacked by Republican paramilitaries.

Part of the peace deal involved the UK government agreeing to a process of removing those installations in what became known as "demilitarisation".

The agreement states that "the development of a peaceful environment... can and should mean a normalisation of security arrangements and practices."

The government committed to "as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland, consistent with the level of threat".

That included "the removal of security installations". That is as far as the text goes.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, thirdleg said:

What does the Good Friday Agreement say about a hard border?

A lot less than you might think. The only place in which it alludes to infrastructure at the border is in the section on security.

During the Troubles there were heavily fortified army barracks, police stations and watchtowers along the border. They were frequently attacked by Republican paramilitaries.

Part of the peace deal involved the UK government agreeing to a process of removing those installations in what became known as "demilitarisation".

The agreement states that "the development of a peaceful environment... can and should mean a normalisation of security arrangements and practices."

The government committed to "as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland, consistent with the level of threat".

That included "the removal of security installations". That is as far as the text goes.

The Good Friday Agreement is far more complex than brexiteers, such as yourself, would have us believe. 

 

Oh, and don’t lecture me about the situation in NI during the troubles. 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, thirdleg said:

I've read it and extracted the part about borders. Nothing more, nothing less

What more is there to understand in this context regarding Brexit?

You are making an issue for the sake of it. 

The Good Friday Agreement is about much more than borders. 

 

Oh and it was the govt of Eire that moved to protect it from the effects of brexit and raised the issue with every govt of the EU, not me. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Posted
Just now, thirdleg said:

Of course it is but not in context of Brexit.

Getting nowhere with this, goodbye

Brexit threatens the whole agreement. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Brexit threatens the whole agreement. 

Utter BS, stop with this ridiculous scaremongering, it's pathetic and extremely tedious trolling

  • Like 2
  • Confused 2
  • Sad 2
Posted
19 minutes ago, thirdleg said:

Utter BS, stop with this ridiculous scaremongering, it's pathetic and extremely tedious trolling

It’s the reason Eire raised the issue with every govt in the EU to ensure it formed part of the negotiations with the uk. 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Posted

They have just agreed to spend £2.1 billion on plans for Boris's "one million to one" long shot...

That's about £100 for every household in the UK, more ferry contracts for friends of friends who would not know Port from Starboard.????

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, nahkit said:

The UK parliament didn't agree to the deal that included the backstop either but you conveniently ignore that,

Nope, the poster I quoted was happy to accept parliament rejecting mays deal but doesn’t seem to accept it rejecting a no deal.. I was exploring this apparent contradiction. 

Posted
9 minutes ago, HHTel said:

People think that as parliament rejected a no deal scenario that it can't happen.  If there is no extension and an agreement hasn't been reached by Oct 31st, then the UK will crash out without a deal by default and parliament can do nothing about it.

Can't the EU postpone the date? Or does it need positive UK acquiescence?

Posted
59 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Nope, the poster I quoted was happy to accept parliament rejecting mays deal but doesn’t seem to accept it rejecting a no deal.. I was exploring this apparent contradiction. 

Parliament enacted (with a huge majority) article 50 which stipulates leaving Deal or No deal.

 

Parliament rejected May's deal 3 times by record margins.

 

Hope that clears it up.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Posted
28 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Can't the EU postpone the date? Or does it need positive UK acquiescence?

Yes Boris ask to ask ….(humble ...by preference ...lol)

  • Haha 1
Posted
8 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

The uk parliament has not agreed to that. 

brexiters suffer from short memory loss syndrome

  • Confused 1
Posted
18 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

who I believe are key to this issue of addressing UK concerns about the backstop,

They will not learn.... Behavior like little foolish children..... 

Only EU is the key for your issue, you damned idiot. 

But your Boris is not brave enough to stand for his demands and meet EU. 

How pathetic 

  • Like 1
Posted
18 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Yeah, pesky Eire, how dare they do all they can to protect the Good Friday Agreement. 

 

It's not just about the GFA. No one apart from the extreme Brexiters, wants a hard border between the UK and Eire in the North of Ireland.

 

Again, those political leaders pushing for a no-deal probably have plans to financially benefit by creating one.

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...