Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
    Actually they can. That requires kicking out Juncker and allowing only such new EU Commission be formed (since it needs to be approved by the EU Parliament) which gives the boot to the Selmayr. But then again i think it would be rather bad precedent.
    Ha I think the bad precedent has been established by a public official becoming one of the most powerful people in the European Union not only not through democratic means but directly against the wishes of the EU Parliament.

    "Martin Selmayr’s power grab, elevating him to the post of Secretary-General and putting him in charge of 33,000 staff, was a brilliantly-executed Brussels coup. <> the double promotion of Juncker's chief of staff was over in nine minutes flat, and was described by one of those present as an 'impeccably prepared and audacious power-grab'"
    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/0...made-his-move/



    About GATT article 24, and how it is not unilateral and how just any one of the WTO member states (like say, Russia) would be able to block it even in the remote case that both the UK and the EU wanted it. And how it doesn't even apply in the case of Brexit due to the requirements of the article 24.
    I have little doubt that article 24 will not be applied - the EU being more interested in the 'Project' than the people - but other states can not block the arrangment if:

    "The provision, set out in Article 24 of the WTO's General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, can only be challenged by other countries if the temporary continuation of existing tariffs is not applied to all trade."

    The EU can easily find some area and/or some mug nation which will prevent 'business as usual'. 0 Links

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
      I have little doubt that article 24 will not be applied - the EU being more interested in the 'Project' than the people - but other states can not block the arrangment if:

      "The provision, set out in Article 24 of the WTO's General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, can only be challenged by other countries if the temporary continuation of existing tariffs is not applied to all trade."

      The EU can easily find some area and/or some mug nation which will prevent 'business as usual'. 0 Links
      We already know you think it's a conspiracy.

      But how do you interpret "the temporary continuation of existing tariffs" here? What are those? Which baseline is it that could be challenged?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gooner View Post

        The Unionists certainly threatened to fight, probably would have fought and stopped several Home Rule bills, but in the event it was the Nationalists/Republicans that began the violence that led to the Irish Republic.

        Quite probably a 'soft' exit of the whole of Ireland was impossible,
        Yes, just as the Nationalists/Republicans started the violence which let to the American Republic. People can be funny about wanting their freedom, can't they?
        Last edited by E.D. Morel; 06 Feb 19, 11:02.
        "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
        validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
        "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
          "The provision, set out in Article 24 of the WTO's General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, can only be challenged by other countries if the temporary continuation of existing tariffs is not applied to all trade."
          In other words if the if the temporary continuation of existing tariffs between the EU and UK, which in this case is no tariffs, is not applied to all trade then any other country can challenge them. Therefore if the UK is trading tariff free with the EU it must trade tariff free with everyone.

          "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
          validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
          "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gooner View Post

            The Unionists certainly threatened to fight, probably would have fought and stopped several Home Rule bills, but in the event it was the Nationalists/Republicans that began the violence that led to the Irish Republic.

            Quite probably a 'soft' exit of the whole of Ireland was impossible,
            It can be argued -- convincingly -- that the threat of violence on Unionists' part whenever a home rule measure had an honest chance of passage set a precedent, that threats of violence are acceptable whenever a political development arises that one may dislike, for whatever reason. "If you pass Home Rule, then we'll fight." Clearly the Unionists were willing to fight for their interests, so were not the nationalists logically justified in employing the Unionists' tactics? Put it this way: had not the nationalists resorted to violence after multiple home rule bills had been withdrawn in response to Unionists' threats of violence, then what chance would they have had to effect change to Ireland through strictly political means? Logic would seem to indicate that the answer to that question is "none."

            Here's an American take on when a people is left without effective political means of redress:

            When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

            We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . . . .


            My personal sympathies are more Unionist than Republican, but it can't be denied that Union for a great many Irish meant second-class status for a long time, that their rights as citizens of a great nation were all too often ignored. Reasonable men sought a middle ground -- but a relative handful of quite unreasonable men succeeded in preventing British governments from arriving at that middle ground. That is a source of shame, and it shouldn't be swept under the rug.
            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

            Comment


            • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

              It can be argued -- convincingly -- that the threat of violence on Unionists' part whenever a home rule measure had an honest chance of passage set a precedent, that threats of violence are acceptable whenever a political development arises that one may dislike, for whatever reason. "If you pass Home Rule, then we'll fight." Clearly the Unionists were willing to fight for their interests, so were not the nationalists logically justified in employing the Unionists' tactics? Put it this way: had not the nationalists resorted to violence after multiple home rule bills had been withdrawn in response to Unionists' threats of violence, then what chance would they have had to effect change to Ireland through strictly political means? Logic would seem to indicate that the answer to that question is "none."

              Here's an American take on when a people is left without effective political means of redress:

              When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

              We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . . . .


              My personal sympathies are more Unionist than Republican, but it can't be denied that Union for a great many Irish meant second-class status for a long time, that their rights as citizens of a great nation were all too often ignored. Reasonable men sought a middle ground -- but a relative handful of quite unreasonable men succeeded in preventing British governments from arriving at that middle ground. That is a source of shame, and it shouldn't be swept under the rug.
              A Home Rule Bill was passed by Parliament just before WW1. It’s implementaion was delayed and ultimately stopped by the war and events. It would be interesting to speculate what would have happened if it had been implemented in 1914.
              "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Surrey View Post

                A Home Rule Bill was passed by Parliament just before WW1. It’s implementaion was delayed and ultimately stopped by the war and events. It would be interesting to speculate what would have happened if it had been implemented in 1914.
                Its implementation was not originally delayed by WW1 but by the raising of an armed volunteer Unionist militia in opposition and the refusal of British officers in the regular British Army to commit to moving against them (The Curragh Mutiny). This wax before the outbreak of WW1
                Last edited by MarkV; 06 Feb 19, 12:23.
                Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Surrey View Post

                  A Home Rule Bill was passed by Parliament just before WW1. It’s implementaion was delayed and ultimately stopped by the war and events. It would be interesting to speculate what would have happened if it had been implemented in 1914.
                  To which "war" are you referring? Do you mean the hot war that raged all over Europe starting in August 1914 -- or the one threatened in Ireland just before?

                  Unionists in Ulster were opposed to a home-rule Ireland governed from Dublin. A growing hostility to the Home Rule Bill, even to the point of violence, could be seen in the counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, and Londonderry.[4] Early in 1912, they began forming small local militias. By April 1912, the Irish Unionist leader, Sir Edward Carson, could review 100,000 marching Ulster Volunteers. On 28 September 1912, over 500,000 Unionists signed the Ulster Covenant pledging to defy Home Rule by all means possible. The Covenant was drawn up by Carson and organised by Sir James Craig.[5] This Covenant specifically pledged not to acknowledge any Parliament out of Dublin, nor to obey its laws, nor pay any taxes placed under its government. This would be problematic especially since Ulster was the wealthiest and most prosperous part of Ireland.[6] In January 1913, the Unionist Council reorganised their volunteers into a paramilitary Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), whose members threatened to resist by physical force the implementation of the Act and the authority of any restored Dublin Parliament by force of arms.[7] On 28 November 1913, Irish Nationalists responded by setting up the Irish Volunteers "to secure the rights and liberties common to all the people of Ireland"[8] The government's ability to face down the Unionist threat was thrown into question by the "Curragh Incident" of 20 March 1914, when British Army officers threatened to resign or accept dismissal rather than deploy against the Ulster Volunteers, forcing the government to cancel planned troop movements.

                  "Government of Ireland Act 1914, Ulster Crisis," Wikipedia,
                  The Curragh incident of 20 March 1914, also known as the Curragh mutiny, occurred in the Curragh, County Kildare, Ireland. The Curragh Camp was then the main base for the British Army in Ireland, which at the time still formed part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Ireland was about to receive a measure of devolved government, which included Ulster.

                  With Irish Home Rule due to become law in 1914, the British Cabinet contemplated some kind of military action against the Ulster Volunteers who threatened to rebel against it. Many officers, especially those with Irish Protestant connections, of whom the most prominent was Hubert Gough, threatened to resign or accept dismissal rather than obey, privately encouraged from London by senior officers including Henry Wilson. Although the Cabinet issued a document claiming that the issue had been a misunderstanding, the Secretary of State for War J. E. B. Seely and the Chief of the General Staff (CIGS, professional head of the Army) Field Marshall Sir John French were forced to resign after amending it to promise that the British Army would not be used against the Ulster loyalists.

                  The event contributed both to unionist confidence, and to the growing Irish separatist movement, convincing Irish nationalists that they could not expect support from the British army in Ireland. In turn, this increased renewed nationalist support for paramilitary forces. The Home Rule Bill was passed but postponed, and the growing fear of civil war in Ireland led on to the British government considering some form of partition of Ireland instead, which eventually took place.

                  The event is also notable in being one of the few incidents since the English Civil War in which elements of the British military openly intervened in politics.

                  "Curragh Incident," Wikipedia
                  - emphasis mine[/i]

                  By March 1914, British government ministers appear to have been considering taking strong action to crush unionist resistance. Sir Arthur Paget, Commander-in-Chief of troops in Ireland, was summoned to London and instructed to move 800 men into the province to reinforce depots and arms stores there. Preparations for a possible rebellion in Ulster were also discussed. It was rumoured that unionist leaders would be arrested. On his return to the Curragh on 20th March, Paget summoned his brigadiers and informed them that active operations against Ulster were imminent. He indicated that officers with homes in Ulster would be permitted to be absent from duty without compromising their careers. Unwisely, he added that any others who were not prepared to carry out their duty were to say so and these would immediately be dismissed from the service. The brigadiers were to put these alternatives to their men and report back; 57 of the 70 officers consulted elected for dismissal. They were led by Brigadier General Herbert Gough who, like many of them, had Irish family connections.

                  "The Curragh Mutiny," BBC
                  https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/c...xt=studentwork

                  Did British officers take this oath back in 1914?

                  I [state name] swear by [or affirm] Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me.

                  If so, then might not have King George V's . . . . reticence about Home Rule generated a constitutional conflict among the officer corps, in that disobeying Parliament would have been consistent with one's oath to the monarch? That's assuming, of course, that the monarch's disagreement with his prime minister was known outside of Westminster.
                  Last edited by slick_miester; 06 Feb 19, 12:37.
                  I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                  Comment


                  • So, for those who wonder why Irish people are sceptical about the knowledge and/or integrity of some Brexiteer politicians here's a few comments from those who should know better;

                    Well I haven't read the Good Friday Agreement. It is 35 pages after all (Dominic Rabb)

                    There was never a hard border in Ireland (Arlene Foster)

                    I didn't know that Nationalists and Unionists didn't vote for each other. (Karen Bradley (NORTHERN IRELAND SECRETARY)

                    English people are entitled to an Irish Passport and Irish people are entitled to an British passport (Andrew Bridgen Tory MP)

                    Rabb is a clown, clearly.
                    Arlene Foster is just telling lies.
                    Karen Bradley is a well meaning idiot.
                    I don't know anything about ANdrew Bridgen but, according to Wikipedia "On 14 October 2018, on the Stephen Nolan Show on BBC 5 Live radio, Bridgen, whilst discussing Brexit, incorrectly claimed that he and any British citizen was entitled to an Irish passport as part of a special arrangement with the Republic of Ireland. According to Stephen Nolan, Bridgen then hung up the phone during the break for the news bulletin and then could not be contacted to clarify his confused remarks"

                    Is there some IQ test you have to fail to get into their club?

                    Jacob Rees Mogg, in the words of one journalist, looks like a character from the nightmare of a Victorian child.
                    Last edited by E.D. Morel; 07 Feb 19, 09:06.
                    "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
                    validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
                    "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
                      So, for those who wonder why Irish people are sceptical about the knowledge and/or integrity of some Brexiteer politicians here's a few comments from those who should know better;

                      Well I haven't read the Good Friday Agreement. It is 35 pages after all (Dominic Rabb)

                      There was never a hard border in Ireland (Arlene Foster)

                      I didn't know that Nationalists and Unionists didn't vote for each other. (Karen Brady (NORTHERN IRELAND SECRETARY)

                      English people are entitled to an Irish Passport and Irish people are entitled to an British passport (Andrew Bridgen Tory MP) . . . .
                      Please tell me that you made those up. It's inconceivable that people in responsible positions should believe -- let alone utter -- such mind-numbing nonsense. If elected leaders are to be such fools, then why not vote for any old schmo on the street, a vagrant, a drug addict, a village idiot? What would be the difference? Pray tell that you made those lines up, lest you shake my faith in human politics.
                      I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                        Please tell me that you made those up. It's inconceivable that people in responsible positions should believe -- let alone utter -- such mind-numbing nonsense. If elected leaders are to be such fools, then why not vote for any old schmo on the street, a vagrant, a drug addict, a village idiot? What would be the difference? Pray tell that you made those lines up, lest you shake my faith in human politics.
                        Nope, it's all true. They aren't outliers either. That's the level the debate is at.
                        Much and all that I disagree with him the level of discussion on this thread from Gooner is far superior to anything from the Brexiteer politicians.
                        "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
                        validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
                        "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                          Please tell me that you made those up. It's inconceivable that people in responsible positions should believe -- let alone utter -- such mind-numbing nonsense. If elected leaders are to be such fools, then why not vote for any old schmo on the street, a vagrant, a drug addict, a village idiot? What would be the difference? Pray tell that you made those lines up, lest you shake my faith in human politics.
                          He didn't.

                          Last edited by Johan Banér; 07 Feb 19, 09:13.

                          Comment


                          • To be fair Bradley has always been known as being a bit thick. Put into her position because of her loyalty to TM.
                            Pretty sure most countries have some similar ministers.
                            "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
                              Nope, it's all true. They aren't outliers either. That's the level the debate is at.
                              Much and all that I disagree with him the level of discussion on this thread from Gooner is far superior to anything from the Brexiteer politicians.


                              So those leading the public debate in favor of Brexit are actually the most asinine of the lot. The guys who speak before large audiences, who appear on television, those who present arguments on the floor of the parliament, whose job is to sway opinion and formulate policy -- they're the dumbest of the Bexiteers. Yet those MPs and Northern Ireland Secretaries and some of the others, they're ELECTED officials. Thousands of Regular Joe's -- people exactly like me and you -- made the volitional choice to vote for these a$$holes. Wouldn't it stand to reason that if you're voting for someone to represent your interests in the halls of power, to represent your stance on a given issue, then you'd vote for someone who is eloquent, who is persuasive, someone who presents at least an image of intelligence and competence, someone who doesn't come across as a "blithering idiot"? What am I not understanding here?

                              No, it's not an Irish or British thing: we've seen plenty of that kind of action here in the US, as well. Why are people choosing to elect obvious mouth-breathers to responsible offices? I don't get it, not at all.
                              Last edited by slick_miester; 07 Feb 19, 09:50. Reason: I can't spell. "D'oh!"
                              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                                Please tell me that you made those up. It's inconceivable that people in responsible positions should believe -- let alone utter -- such mind-numbing nonsense. If elected leaders are to be such fools, then why not vote for any old schmo on the street, a vagrant, a drug addict, a village idiot? What would be the difference? Pray tell that you made those lines up, lest you shake my faith in human politics.
                                That is only showing their beliefs towards the Ireland. There are tons of similar examples of their beliefs towards the EU as well.

                                One of my personal favorites was David Davies, at the time of event the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (aka Brexit Minister), who had the bright idea to negotiate individual trading agreements with various EU member states thus cleverly bypassing the EU. And when both the French and the Germans said that instead of making trade agreements with EU member states he would need to make trade agreement with the EU he then promptly blamed France and Germany for blocking the negotiations. I mean WTF. He was utterly clueless of the EU and how it works, make pompous claims, and when finally his delusions collided with reality he promptly blamed every one else for ruining his dreams.

                                You probably shouldn't wonder why the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, finally stated (yesterday) that he had been "wondering what that special place in hell looks like, for those who promoted Brexit, without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it out safely." Which of course triggered some of the more ardent Brexiteers to tear up their shirts but apparently forgetting that they themselves have repeatedly compared the EU both to USSR and Nazi Germany - which given the lack of outrage from our UK posters here is apparently perfectly courteous method of discussion in the UK. But making comments like Tusk did is apparently a grievous insult.
                                Last edited by Vaeltaja; 07 Feb 19, 10:59.
                                It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X