23 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

"Project Fear" may have been overstated but, like many things, the "Sunlit Uplands" were a figment of Johnson's imagination.

 

"project fear" was remainer propaganda.

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

If you objected to the Belfast Agreement at the time of its' signature, then you were in a very small minority: It was lauded by almost everyone, no matter what nationality or political persuasion.

 

The UK was not forced to leave the EU; it chose to do so of its' own volition.

 

Wrt N.Ireland and RoI, the onus was therefore on the UK to propose solutions that were acceptable to both Brussels and Dublin. 

 

Requiring 27 other EU member states to amend the rules of the Single Market and/or Customs Union to facilitate the UK's exit was quite obviously - and quite correctly - unacceptable to Brussels. 

 

Likewise, requiring the RoI to change its' relationship with the rest of the EU was  quite obviously - and quite correctly - unacceptable to Dublin.

 

That London could not find any acceptable solution(s) to the problem has nothing to do with intransigence on the part of Brussels or Dublin and everything to do with the fact that no solution exists: You cannot have a border and no-border simultaneously. It is as simple as that.

 

This problem created by Brexit is insoluble, a fact that Brexiters either refuse to admit and/or fraudulently try to blame on the EU*

 

Like many other issues, it displays a lack of accountability and responsibility on the part of Brexiters.

 

* Imo the 'Windsor Framework' is a decent work-around, but many loyalists in Northern Ireland don't share my view. A fact that should - and does - concern London, Brussels and Dublin.

Nooooooooooo, someone has brought some intellect, logic and - shock - facts to the discussion. Are they allowed here?

33 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

"project fear" was remainer propaganda.

 

'Project Fear' may have overstated the effects but the downsides of Brexit are clear for all to see.

 

On the other side of the coin to 'Project Fear', how about David Davis' 'no downside to Brexit'? 

 

https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/regular-features/the-davis-downside-dossier/

 

And to think that he was Brexit Secretary🤦

Post removed- paywall links.

 

@JonnyF

 

18. Social media content is acceptable in most forums. However, in factual areas such as, but not limited to news, current affairs and health topics, social media cannot be used unless it is from a credible news media source or a government agency and must include a link to the original source. In some circumstances, a moderator may relax this rule and this will be determined on a case-by-case basis. If this rule is relaxed, a moderator will post a public notice explaining the limit and scope of the relaxation.

18 hours ago, RayC said:

 

'Project Fear' may have overstated the effects but the downsides of Brexit are clear for all to see.

 

On the other side of the coin to 'Project Fear', how about David Davis' 'no downside to Brexit'? 

 

https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/regular-features/the-davis-downside-dossier/

 

And to think that he was Brexit Secretary🤦

 

Project Fear Mark II. Trying to scare us into remaining with the ECHR just like Mark I tried to scare us into staying in the EU. It will fail AGAIN. 

 

Jack Straw (who helped draft the HRA) confirmed leaving the ECHR will have no effect on the GFA.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/36515517/uk-echr-good-friday-northern-ireland/

 

 

 

55 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Project Fear Mark II. Trying to scare us into remaining with the ECHR just like Mark I tried to scare us into staying in the EU. It will fail AGAIN. 

 

Jack Straw (who helped draft the HRA) confirmed leaving the ECHR will have no effect on the GFA.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/36515517/uk-echr-good-friday-northern-ireland/

 

 

 

 

Yes, the similarities with Brexit are plain to see. Brexiters had little idea of the consequences of leaving the EU - which can hardly be called a success - and equally little idea of implications of leaving the ECHR on the Good Friday Agreement.

 

The fact that Farage admits this gives an indication of what his premiership might mean for the country.

 

I know that you don't do nuance, but here's a more nuanced view of what leaving the ECHR might mean

 

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/leaving-the-echr-and-the-refugee-convention/

 

7 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Yes, the similarities with Brexit are plain to see. Brexiters had little idea of the consequences of leaving the EU - which can hardly be called a success - and equally little idea of implications of leaving the ECHR on the Good Friday Agreement.

 

The fact that Farage admits this gives an indication of what his premiership might mean for the country.

 

I know that you don't do nuance, but here's a more nuanced view of what leaving the ECHR might mean

 

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/leaving-the-echr-and-the-refugee-convention/

 

 

All the same waffle we heard Pre Brexit. 10% GDP drop etc. blah blah. Meanwhile we are experiencing many benefits like better terms than the EU with the US and Japan. 

 

Jack Straw knows more than this EU shill Catherine Barnard since he actually helped draft the HRA. He believes it is perfectly possible and I agree with him. It is a tool to control the UK via leftist judges. It is being used in a way never intended. Abused.

 

Carry on with your fear mongering though. Worked great last time. 😆

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

All the same waffle we heard Pre Brexit. 10% GDP drop etc. blah blah. Meanwhile we are experiencing many benefits like better terms than the EU with the US and Japan. 

 

Jack Straw knows more than this EU shill Catherine Barnard since he actually helped draft the HRA. He believes it is perfectly possible and I agree with him. It is a tool to control the UK via leftist judges. It is being used in a way never intended. Abused.

 

Carry on with your fear mongering though. Worked great last time. 😆

 

Do you really think that politicians actually physically draft legislation? It's a rhetorical question: The answer is 'No'. Legislation is drafted by civil servants who are subject matter and legal experts. Politicians sign off the end product: The "EU shill, Catherine Barnard" - actually Professor of European Law at Cambridge - almost certainly knows more about the legal minutiae of the ECHR and HRA than Jack Straw. 

 

The accusation of fear mongering coming from you would be laughable if it wasn't so misplaced and sad. The uninformed reading many of your posts would be forgiven for thinking that the UK was a tinderbox on the brink of anarchy and civil war: It's not.

 

Anyway, thanks for - once again - proving my point: You don't do nuance. 

On 8/31/2025 at 5:31 PM, RayC said:

deleted  and reply to  Ray posted  again.

 

 

 

 

On 8/31/2025 at 5:31 PM, RayC said:

 

If you objected to the Belfast Agreement at the time of its' signature, then you were in a very small minority: It was lauded by almost everyone, no matter what nationality or political persuasion.

 

The UK was not forced to leave the EU; it chose to do so of its' own volition.

 

Wrt N.Ireland and RoI, the onus was therefore on the UK to propose solutions that were acceptable to both Brussels and Dublin. 

 

Requiring 27 other EU member states to amend the rules of the Single Market and/or Customs Union to facilitate the UK's exit was quite obviously - and quite correctly - unacceptable to Brussels. 

 

Likewise, requiring the RoI to change its' relationship with the rest of the EU was  quite obviously - and quite correctly - unacceptable to Dublin.

 

That London could not find any acceptable solution(s) to the problem has nothing to do with intransigence on the part of Brussels or Dublin and everything to do with the fact that no solution exists: You cannot have a border and no-border simultaneously. It is as simple as that.

 

This problem created by Brexit is insoluble, a fact that Brexiters either refuse to admit and/or fraudulently try to blame on the EU*

 

Like many other issues, it displays a lack of accountability and responsibility on the part of Brexiters.

 

* Imo the 'Windsor Framework' is a decent work-around, but many loyalists in Northern Ireland don't share my view. A fact that should - and does - concern London, Brussels and Dublin.

Yes, the Belfast Agreement was lauded by almost everyone - no problems foreseen at the time.

 

I did not say that the UK was forced to leave the EU.

 

Blair neither cared nor envisaged that "solutions" would be needed in the future. He oversaw the inclusion of the ECHR into British (NI) Law. He did a lot of damage, really. Most everything seems to be "unacceptable" to Brussels, unless they are firmly on the back foot, of course. 

 

The Belfast Agreement could be rewritten to suit the problems, which only exist because of EU border rules. The EU should value  peace over and above their precious rules. I would say that any lack of accountability and responsibility should be borne by Blair and the EU.

3 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Do you really think that politicians actually physically draft legislation? It's a rhetorical question: The answer is 'No'. Legislation is drafted by civil servants who are subject matter and legal experts. Politicians sign off the end product: The "EU shill, Catherine Barnard" - actually Professor of European Law at Cambridge - almost certainly knows more about the legal minutiae of the ECHR and HRA than Jack Straw. 

 

The accusation of fear mongering coming from you would be laughable if it wasn't so misplaced and sad. The uninformed reading many of your posts would be forgiven for thinking that the UK was a tinderbox on the brink of anarchy and civil war: It's not.

 

Anyway, thanks for - once again - proving my point: You don't do nuance. 

 

 

You're right, the civil servants are the problem, like that Olly Robbins, who undermined Davis's role, under direction from that May creature. 

 

As far as fear mongering in the run-up to Brexit goes, I think both sides were equally active.

 

 

On 9/1/2025 at 1:42 PM, nauseus said:

Yes, the Belfast Agreement was lauded by almost everyone - no problems foreseen at the time.

 

I did not say that the UK was forced to leave the EU.

 

Blair neither cared nor envisaged that "solutions" would be needed in the future. He oversaw the inclusion of the ECHR into British (NI) Law. He did a lot of damage, really.

 

I'd also be very critical of Blair for many things e.g. the Iraq war, but it is overly harsh to criticise him for not foreseeing problems caused by Brexit and illegal migration in 1998. Neither problem was a distinct possibility back then.

 

On 9/1/2025 at 1:42 PM, nauseus said:

 

Most everything seems to be "unacceptable" to Brussels, unless they are firmly on the back foot, of course. 

 

The frustration in Brussels during the Brexit negotiations was that the UK was unable - or unwilling - to state what it wanted. 

 

On 9/1/2025 at 1:42 PM, nauseus said:

The Belfast Agreement could be rewritten to suit the problems, which only exist because of EU border rules. The EU should value  peace over and above their precious rules. I would say that any lack of accountability and responsibility should be borne by Blair and the EU.

 

Once again, you try to lay the blame at the feet of the EU (plus Tony Blair on this occasion) when the truth is, once again, that it is (proposed) UK action which is the root cause of any potential problems.

 

The EU is not placing its' rules above peace. If the existing legislation in both the EU and UK remains unchanged, then there is no threat to the Belfast Agreement.

 

Perhaps, UK withdrawal from the ECHR would have no effect on the Belfast Agreement but, if it does, the onus is on the UK to find a solution which satisfies the RoI and the EU.

 

The question remains the same: Why should the EU and any of the individual member states have to make potentially major changes to EU or national legislation to facilitate the smooth transition of domestic UK law? 

 

On 9/1/2025 at 1:52 PM, nauseus said:

 

 

You're right, the civil servants are the problem, like that Olly Robbins, who undermined Davis's role, under direction from that May creature. 

 

Davis was clueless. The infamous picture of him and Barnier posing before the first negotiating session said it all

 

It was no secret that Olly Robbins was pro-EU, so he should probably have been removed from the direct negotiations; another mistake by the UK government of the day. However, Robbins' early removal probably wouldn't have made much difference; the anti-EU Lord Frost fared no better in the negotiations. 

 

The truth of the matter is that the UK had a bad hand and played it badly.

 

On 9/1/2025 at 1:52 PM, nauseus said:

As far as fear mongering in the run-up to Brexit goes, I think both sides were equally active.

 

 

 

Agreed.

2 hours ago, RayC said:

 

I'd also be very critical of Blair for many things e.g. the Iraq war, but it is overly harsh to criticise him for not foreseeing problems caused by Brexit and illegal migration in 1998. Neither problem was a distinct possibility back then.

 

 

The frustration in Brussels during the Brexit negotiations was that the UK was unable - or unwilling - to state what it wanted. 

 

 

Once again, you try to lay the blame at the feet of the EU (plus Tony Blair on this occasion) when the truth is, once again, that it is (proposed) UK action which is the root cause of any potential problems.

 

The EU is not placing its' rules above peace. If the existing legislation in both the EU and UK remains unchanged, then there is no threat to the Belfast Agreement.

 

Perhaps, UK withdrawal from the ECHR would have no effect on the Belfast Agreement but, if it does, the onus is on the UK to find a solution which satisfies the RoI and the EU.

 

The question remains the same: Why should the EU and any of the individual member states have to make potentially major changes to EU or national legislation to facilitate the smooth transition of domestic UK law? 

 

 

It takes two to tango.

2 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Davis was clueless. The infamous picture of him and Barnier posing before the first negotiating session said it all

 

It was no secret that Olly Robbins was pro-EU, so he should probably have been removed from the direct negotiations; another mistake by the UK government of the day. However, Robbins' early removal probably wouldn't have made much difference; the anti-EU Lord Frost fared no better in the negotiations. 

 

The truth of the matter is that the UK had a bad hand and played it badly.

 

 

Agreed.

 

Davis was set up.  If you want to label someone as "clueless" from one just image then, to me, that demonstrates single-mindedness.

 

Agree with your last line.

20 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Davis was set up.  If you want to label someone as "clueless" from one just image then, to me, that demonstrates single-mindedness.

 

Then he was a fool for allowing himself to be put in that position.

 

There's a host of other evidence to support my view that Davis was clueless, not least, his statement that, there were no downsides to Brexit.

 

20 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Agree with your last line.

 

👍

29 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

It takes two to tango.

 

It does indeed but neither partner is obliged to dance