The SDLP is 1 of the 2 main Irish Nationalist Parties, whose political position is for a unified Ireland under Dublin rule. In the shorter term, they seek to reduce UK power, and increase Ireland's power, over NI. They make no secret of that. That is their official Party line.
This is the fundamental problem within NI. What pleases 1 side will almost inevitably displease the other.
The "compromise" between the UK and Ireland involves transfer of various powers and influence from Belfast/London to Dublin.
I'm not saying that is wrong. What I am saying is that every "solution" will enrage a portion of the residents of NI.
What do you think she means when she says "reconcile our geography"?
I took it as a statement of fact. The situation is surely the result of the only compromise available, when you consider the geography, economy, and the Brexit that Britain chose. I took the geography bit, merely meant that they share an island with EU members.
The SDLP is 1 of the 2 main Irish Nationalist Parties, whose political position is for a unified Ireland under Dublin rule. In the shorter term, they seek to reduce UK power, and increase Ireland's power, over NI. They make no secret of that. That is their official Party line.
This is the fundamental problem within NI. What pleases 1 side will almost inevitably displease the other.
The "compromise" between the UK and Ireland involves transfer of various powers and influence from Belfast/London to Dublin.
I'm not saying that is wrong. What I am saying is that every "solution" will enrage a portion of the residents of NI.
What do you think she means when she says "reconcile our geography"?
I took it as a statement of fact. The situation is surely the result of the only compromise available, when you consider the geography, economy, and the Brexit that Britain chose. I took the geography bit, merely meant that they share an island with EU members.
Nothing said by pretty much everyone, on all sides of the debate in NI, is a statement of fact. As an example, she deliberately chose the word "Britain" rather than the UK. Because NI is not part of Great Britain. We are a United Kingdom. Which means that the majority of the United Kingdom got to vote and form a Majority as to whether we got to leave.
Some Regions voted to Remain. Scotland, Northern Ireland, London. But, in a United Kingdom, no 1 vote counts more than any other. Because it would not be a United Kingdom. The use of the word "Britain" is designed to cause offence. Because Loyalists largely voted to Leave. And Nationalists to Remain.
I have family members on both sides of that particular debate. You may well think everything is simple. It's a battle that has been going on for well over 150 years. And Brexit is just 1 of many, many opportunities for that to continue.
The SDLP is 1 of the 2 main Irish Nationalist Parties, whose political position is for a unified Ireland under Dublin rule. In the shorter term, they seek to reduce UK power, and increase Ireland's power, over NI. They make no secret of that. That is their official Party line.
This is the fundamental problem within NI. What pleases 1 side will almost inevitably displease the other.
The "compromise" between the UK and Ireland involves transfer of various powers and influence from Belfast/London to Dublin.
I'm not saying that is wrong. What I am saying is that every "solution" will enrage a portion of the residents of NI.
What do you think she means when she says "reconcile our geography"?
I took it as a statement of fact. The situation is surely the result of the only compromise available, when you consider the geography, economy, and the Brexit that Britain chose. I took the geography bit, merely meant that they share an island with EU members.
Nothing said by pretty much everyone, on all sides of the debate in NI, is a statement of fact. As an example, she deliberately chose the word "Britain" rather than the UK. Because NI is not part of Great Britain. We are a United Kingdom. Which means that the majority of the United Kingdom got to vote and form a Majority as to whether we got to leave.
Some Regions voted to Remain. Scotland, Northern Ireland, London. But, in a United Kingdom, no 1 vote counts more than any other. Because it would not be a United Kingdom. The use of the word "Britain" is designed to cause offence. Because Loyalists largely voted to Leave. And Nationalists to Remain.
I have family members on both sides of that particular debate. You may well think everything is simple. It's a battle that has been going on for well over 150 years. And Brexit is just 1 of many, many opportunities for that to continue.
I really dont think that everything is simple. Although in this case I dont think that were any feasible alternatives, to what we currently have. I believe this view is borne out by the fact that we are where we are today.
I dont wish to go around in circles, but there are some facts that we can relate to. Leaving the EU meant a border between us and them. This border could not be on the island of Ireland. It what has ended up in the only alternative place. Therefore the geography has left NI on the EU side. So no alternative other than for them to remain in the SM/CU.
If the UK had remained in the SM/CU, we wouldnt have required a border, but we didnt.
I cant claim to know what she was thinking when she wrote the above. Maybe she used "Britain" rather than "UK" merely because that is where the border is. It is around Britain, rather than the UK. So maybe she didnt deliberately mean to cause offence. I agree that we are where we are today due to geography, the economy, and the Brexit we chose.
I can understand why the Unionists would object to a border between NI, and the rest of the UK, but I do wonder what effect it has on the average persons day to day life. I have not heard any suggestions from anyone, of what the alternative might be.
The SDLP is 1 of the 2 main Irish Nationalist Parties, whose political position is for a unified Ireland under Dublin rule. In the shorter term, they seek to reduce UK power, and increase Ireland's power, over NI. They make no secret of that. That is their official Party line.
This is the fundamental problem within NI. What pleases 1 side will almost inevitably displease the other.
The "compromise" between the UK and Ireland involves transfer of various powers and influence from Belfast/London to Dublin.
I'm not saying that is wrong. What I am saying is that every "solution" will enrage a portion of the residents of NI.
What do you think she means when she says "reconcile our geography"?
I took it as a statement of fact. The situation is surely the result of the only compromise available, when you consider the geography, economy, and the Brexit that Britain chose. I took the geography bit, merely meant that they share an island with EU members.
Nothing said by pretty much everyone, on all sides of the debate in NI, is a statement of fact. As an example, she deliberately chose the word "Britain" rather than the UK. Because NI is not part of Great Britain. We are a United Kingdom. Which means that the majority of the United Kingdom got to vote and form a Majority as to whether we got to leave.
Some Regions voted to Remain. Scotland, Northern Ireland, London. But, in a United Kingdom, no 1 vote counts more than any other. Because it would not be a United Kingdom. The use of the word "Britain" is designed to cause offence. Because Loyalists largely voted to Leave. And Nationalists to Remain.
I have family members on both sides of that particular debate. You may well think everything is simple. It's a battle that has been going on for well over 150 years. And Brexit is just 1 of many, many opportunities for that to continue.
More progress needed before any deal to unlock Stormont deadlock – DUP leader Jeffrey Donaldson
The DUP leader said he hoped for an update in the coming days over what progress has been made on the trade border impasse.
Sir Jeffrey said he wanted a deal which would restore Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market while also maintaining “privileged” access to the EU single market.
The Stormont institutions have been suspended for almost two years because of a DUP boycott in protest at post-Brexit trading arrangements.
The DUP has insisted it will not end its blockade until it secures legislative assurances from the government on Northern Ireland’s trading position within the UK.
Secretary of State Chris Heaton-Harris has insisted that talks with the DUP over its concerns have now concluded.
However, DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson has claimed the engagement is continuing, making clear he is not yet in a position to back the legislative proposals the government has offered the party.
“We are very clear – our priority is to restore Northern Ireland’s ability to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom, to restore our place in the UK internal market, to remove unnecessary barriers, to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and, at the same time, we aspire to maintain privileged access to the EU single market.”
“You can’t be both in the EU single market and the UK internal market; what you can be is in the UK internal market and have privileged access to the EU single market.
“We can continue to trade with the EU on a privileged basis, as we do at the moment for goods, but we can have our ability to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom properly restored.”
Post-Brexit 'not for EU' food labels spark confusion as Britons fear food is 'inferior quality'
This has caused confusion among some Britons who do not know what the "not for EU" labels mean.
Posting on X, one wrote: "I was in London at the weekend and 'not for EU' labelling is already in all the supermarkets I notice, including sausages."
Another claimed: “[Presume we're] not meeting EU food safety standards. Good enough for little Englanders who thrive on second-rate everything though.”
Been very interesting to read about the latest from the EU and how they feel regarding Turing over Erasmus and that odious toad Guy Verhofstadt and Ursula the sea witch calling on the young of the UK to help change things. Yeah like giving the young real decisions (big on ideology, lacking in real world experience) ever worked out well.
It will be even more interesting to watch the internal rows as a potential Nexit and Swexit loom, France's Le Penn and his Eurosceptic policies gain popularity, Belgium is in a state of political flux moving to the right and Germany sinks deeper into financial trouble.
Brussels it would appear want Member states to be pretty much self financing whilst obviously the poorer Northern and Eastern Nations want the status quo. Why would that be.
It wont take much for the whole edifice to start to shake, then it's going to get really interesting.
Schengen, the Euro, the single market, all mainstays of the EU and standing on less than solid ground it would seem.
Well I'm off to Iceland on the 19th for a 4 night stay. Not an EU member but a member of the EEA. Wonder how long I will have to queue at the border.
The tighter EU border controls come in this year, I believe they are along the lines of the American system. The recent delays have been caused by our inability to organise anything very much properly, and flooded railway tracks etc. Instead of taking the p1ss put of the EU over this, you would have thought that we may wish to follow suit. There have been a number of cases of Albanian criminals re-entering this country, a number of times, after being deported, by using different passports. I read an article some years ago which suggested that we had around one and a half million illegals living here. I have also watched a documentary about illegals. Cutting a long story short, this is what happens. They ask a friend to hang on to their passport, so it is not found when their address is searched. They decline to inform the authorities who they are, or where they are from. We cant deport them without this information. In the programme I saw, they caught an illegal that followed the above procedure. He was bailed, and disappeared. The caught him again 3 weeks later working elsewhere. He followed the same procedure, and was again bailed. And on it goes. Yet unlike the EU, we dont need tighter border controls.
Been very interesting to read about the latest from the EU and how they feel regarding Turing over Erasmus and that odious toad Guy Verhofstadt and Ursula the sea witch calling on the young of the UK to help change things. Yeah like giving the young real decisions (big on ideology, lacking in real world experience) ever worked out well.
It will be even more interesting to watch the internal rows as a potential Nexit and Swexit loom, France's Le Penn and his Eurosceptic policies gain popularity, Belgium is in a state of political flux moving to the right and Germany sinks deeper into financial trouble.
Brussels it would appear want Member states to be pretty much self financing whilst obviously the poorer Northern and Eastern Nations want the status quo. Why would that be.
It wont take much for the whole edifice to start to shake, then it's going to get really interesting.
Schengen, the Euro, the single market, all mainstays of the EU and standing on less than solid ground it would seem.
Well I'm off to Iceland on the 19th for a 4 night stay. Not an EU member but a member of the EEA. Wonder how long I will have to queue at the border.
I recently referred to the stuff that we criticise the EU for, and that we dont restrict this to stuff they are thinking about, we include stuff they might be thinking about. We seem to find it impossible not to argue that another member country is just about to leave, yet they dont. I have posted an article below, that refers to the European Army. This has been mentioned on this thread a couple of times. Now just to be clear, I am not arguing about whether or not a European Army is a good idea. Nor am I arguing about whether or not there will be a European Army at some point. The article was written by Michael Heaver, a raving Brexiteer. He seems to be arguing that as the European Army was recently mentioned by the Italian Foreign Minister, that we can all expect our call up papers by Monday. So on the basis of one Foreign Minister out of 27, mentioning it, it is going to happen. He backs up his story, by pointing out that Angela Merkel also mentioned it, before she retired. Macron also mentioned it, albeit 5 years ago. He also points to two other prominent EU figures that have mentioned the idea. The debate between Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg in 2014 is also covered. This points to Nigel Farages concerns about a European Army 10 years ago, with Nick Clegg writing this off as a dangerous fantasy. My point is that the fact that Nigel Farage was warning over this 10 years ago, and very little has happened since, is surely counterproductive to his argument. I have posted the article that Nick Clegg wrote in response. I dont know if his response is accurate or not, I am not clever enough to know. That is not the point. Maybe the point is that a European Army has been discussed since 1950. Nearly 75 years ago, and we still dont have one. I think you can safely say that people in this country, and sections of the press, will be discussing a European Army long after I am dead. Maybe there will be one, at some point. Maybe not. It seems that we think this is a bad idea in this country. Of course that might change if we were in charge of it. It just seems ridiculous to me that we pick holes in the EU over something that has been discussed for almost 75 years.
Italy calls for EU Army - proving Brexiteers absolutely right, says Michael Heaver
So once again, Brexiteer predictions have proven to be spot on.
Nick Clegg famously declared the push for an EU Army as "a dangerous fantasythat is simply not true" during a debate with Nigel Farage in 2014. That was after Farage slammed the European Union's expansionist ambitions.
It is those who argue otherwise now proven to be living in a fantasy, not Brexiteers.
Nigel Farage’s claims about an EU army are as fictional as that vanishing £350 million
So here it is. Merry Christmas! When we’re not thinking about Brexit, everybody is having fun. Except, it seems, for Nigel Farage, who was in typically splenetic form when he took to the airwaves to get my attention last month. “Are you listening, Mr Clegg?” he barked into his microphone during one of his radio phone-in shows.
‘Every nation fiercely guards their right to send their own soldiers into battle’
The reason for his spleen? Mr Farage wants me to accept that it was wrong to claim, as I did in my televised debate with him in 2014, that the prospect of an EU army, airforce and navy was “total fantasy”. He is supported by an army of angry folk on Twitter and the Brexit-obsessed tabloids who jump at every alleged plot being hatched in Brussels.
A Brexit bus-level fiction There is a whiff of desperation – and a crude attempt at distraction – in Nigel Farage’s claim: he used his radio rant to insist that the possible creation of an EU Army was a far bigger deal than “some numbers on the side of a bus that may have been slightly over-inflated”.
Tell that to the millions of voters who were lied to by the Brexit campaign. Farage’s claims about the impending arrival of an EU army is about as fictional as that vanishing £350 million.
That hasn’t stopped the concept of a pan-European military force being a particular obsession of hard-line eurosceptics for decades. The latest bout of outrage was triggered after Federica Mogherini, the EU’s foreign policy high representative, recently welcomed a document in which 23 of the EU member states – two more have signed up since – set out a series of commitments on further defence and security cooperation.
The 13 page paper expands on an initiative known as Permanent Structured Military Cooperation (PESCO). While this would see participating countries agree to increase their totals of defence spending and cooperate more deeply on projects such as an EU medical command, maritime surveillance, and cyber security, decisions on deployment would, crucially, remain in the hands of national governments.
‘The EU is already playing an important peacekeeping role in the Balkans’
It is inconceivable that member states would sign away that power to the EU – every nation fiercely guards their right to send their own soldiers into battle.
EU troops in starred fatigue? Not so much However, when Mogherini declared that a “European Union of Security and Defence” was ”not a dream anymore, it is reality coming true”, her words clearly provoked in Farage’s excitable imagination visions of crack EU troops, clad in blue and yellow-starred fatigues and marching to the strains of “Ode to Joy” across the parade grounds of Europe’s capitals.
The rather less dramatic reality, however, is that the proposals merely build on the present arrangements, with the EU already playing an important peacekeeping role in the Balkans, previously sending troops to the Central African Republic and running an anti-piracy operation off the coast of Somalia.
‘With a little imagination and generosity, Theresa May could use this post-Brexit focus on defence to Britain’s advantage’
Of course, it is hardly surprising that Ms Mogherini was enthused by an increased willingness to integrate EU-wide defence policy: she realises, as do the majority of European leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron, that such moves are essential if Europe is to respond to the geopolitical challenges of the 21st century.
‘Without the UK, the rest of the EU will continue to work together’
Just in case Mr Farage’s blood pressure rises too fast, I am absolutely not calling for Mrs May to conscript British soldiers into an EU army. I am simply arguing that a greater sharing of military research, increased policy coordination between Berlin, London and Paris, and British support for the emerging foreign-policy machinery of the EU is a clear example of how pooling our sovereignty can help increase our power and security.
Without the UK, the rest of the EU will continue to work together. This is the other blindingly obvious flaw in Mr Farage’s argument. Brexit will diminish this country’s influence in shaping the future of Europe’s defence arrangements; it will also take away the veto which Britain could have – and would have – wielded should the pace of integration and cooperation alarm us.
So he, and all those who cry panic at the non-existent prospect of a European army should really be asked a simple question. If the price of taking back control is to make the United Kingdom a more vulnerable and less secure nation, then is it a price worth paying? Are you listening, Mr Farage?
The European army or EU army are terms for a hypothetical army of the European Union which would supersede the Common Security and Defence Policy and would go beyond the proposed European Defence Union. Currently, there is no such army, and defence is a matter for the member states.
Background The idea of a European army was first discussed in 1950. It was proposed by France and would have consisted of the "Inner Six" countries (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany), in order to strengthen defence against the Soviet threat without directly rearming Germany in the wake of World War II.[1][2] In 1952 the Treaty establishing the European Defence Community was signed but not ratified by the signatories.[3]
As is so often the case, the 2 sides of the Brexit battle do their 2016 Groundhog Day impression. Whereas the reality is not quite as either side is claiming (leaving to 1 side the outrageous claim that the figures on the bus might have been "Slightly over-inflated" as opposed to total nonsense).
On the 1 hand, the primary object of the European Army is not to replace any nation's Army.
On the other hand the ambit of co-operation is much wider than before. It's more than just a peace-keeping force. European Union clearly involves considerable pooling of military intelligence and strategic capability. Which is something that an Island Nation is a whole lot less comfortable with than Continental Europe.
It would not remove the capability of our Armed Services. However, if we needed to go to War with Europe (or, more likely, a small part of it) for any reason (as has been the case for most Wars in our history) giving them a whole load of military information, together with a portion of our troops and equipment would severely impact our ability to do so.
Italy calls for EU Army - proving Brexiteers absolutely right, says Michael Heaver
So once again, Brexiteer predictions have proven to be spot on.
Nick Clegg famously declared the push for an EU Army as "a dangerous fantasy that is simply not true" during a debate with Nigel Farage in 2014. That was after Farage slammed the European Union's expansionist ambitions.
It is those who argue otherwise now proven to be living in a fantasy, not Brexiteers.
Nigel Farage’s claims about an EU army are as fictional as that vanishing £350 million
So here it is. Merry Christmas! When we’re not thinking about Brexit, everybody is having fun. Except, it seems, for Nigel Farage, who was in typically splenetic form when he took to the airwaves to get my attention last month. “Are you listening, Mr Clegg?” he barked into his microphone during one of his radio phone-in shows.
‘Every nation fiercely guards their right to send their own soldiers into battle’
The reason for his spleen? Mr Farage wants me to accept that it was wrong to claim, as I did in my televised debate with him in 2014, that the prospect of an EU army, airforce and navy was “total fantasy”. He is supported by an army of angry folk on Twitter and the Brexit-obsessed tabloids who jump at every alleged plot being hatched in Brussels.
A Brexit bus-level fiction There is a whiff of desperation – and a crude attempt at distraction – in Nigel Farage’s claim: he used his radio rant to insist that the possible creation of an EU Army was a far bigger deal than “some numbers on the side of a bus that may have been slightly over-inflated”.
Tell that to the millions of voters who were lied to by the Brexit campaign. Farage’s claims about the impending arrival of an EU army is about as fictional as that vanishing £350 million.
That hasn’t stopped the concept of a pan-European military force being a particular obsession of hard-line eurosceptics for decades. The latest bout of outrage was triggered after Federica Mogherini, the EU’s foreign policy high representative, recently welcomed a document in which 23 of the EU member states – two more have signed up since – set out a series of commitments on further defence and security cooperation.
The 13 page paper expands on an initiative known as Permanent Structured Military Cooperation (PESCO). While this would see participating countries agree to increase their totals of defence spending and cooperate more deeply on projects such as an EU medical command, maritime surveillance, and cyber security, decisions on deployment would, crucially, remain in the hands of national governments.
‘The EU is already playing an important peacekeeping role in the Balkans’
It is inconceivable that member states would sign away that power to the EU – every nation fiercely guards their right to send their own soldiers into battle.
EU troops in starred fatigue? Not so much However, when Mogherini declared that a “European Union of Security and Defence” was ”not a dream anymore, it is reality coming true”, her words clearly provoked in Farage’s excitable imagination visions of crack EU troops, clad in blue and yellow-starred fatigues and marching to the strains of “Ode to Joy” across the parade grounds of Europe’s capitals.
The rather less dramatic reality, however, is that the proposals merely build on the present arrangements, with the EU already playing an important peacekeeping role in the Balkans, previously sending troops to the Central African Republic and running an anti-piracy operation off the coast of Somalia.
‘With a little imagination and generosity, Theresa May could use this post-Brexit focus on defence to Britain’s advantage’
Of course, it is hardly surprising that Ms Mogherini was enthused by an increased willingness to integrate EU-wide defence policy: she realises, as do the majority of European leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron, that such moves are essential if Europe is to respond to the geopolitical challenges of the 21st century.
‘Without the UK, the rest of the EU will continue to work together’
Just in case Mr Farage’s blood pressure rises too fast, I am absolutely not calling for Mrs May to conscript British soldiers into an EU army. I am simply arguing that a greater sharing of military research, increased policy coordination between Berlin, London and Paris, and British support for the emerging foreign-policy machinery of the EU is a clear example of how pooling our sovereignty can help increase our power and security.
Without the UK, the rest of the EU will continue to work together. This is the other blindingly obvious flaw in Mr Farage’s argument. Brexit will diminish this country’s influence in shaping the future of Europe’s defence arrangements; it will also take away the veto which Britain could have – and would have – wielded should the pace of integration and cooperation alarm us.
So he, and all those who cry panic at the non-existent prospect of a European army should really be asked a simple question. If the price of taking back control is to make the United Kingdom a more vulnerable and less secure nation, then is it a price worth paying? Are you listening, Mr Farage?
As is so often the case, the 2 sides of the Brexit battle do their 2016 Groundhog Day impression. Whereas the reality is not quite as either side is claiming (leaving to 1 side the outrageous claim that the figures on the bus might have been "Slightly over-inflated" as opposed to total nonsense).
On the 1 hand, the primary object of the European Army is not to replace any nation's Army.
On the other hand the ambit of co-operation is much wider than before. It's more than just a peace-keeping force. European Union clearly involves considerable pooling of military intelligence and strategic capability. Which is something that an Island Nation is a whole lot less comfortable with than Continental Europe.
It would not remove the capability of our Armed Services. However, if we needed to go to War with Europe (or, more likely, a small part of it) for any reason (as has been the case for most Wars in our history) giving them a whole load of military information, together with a portion of our troops and equipment would severely impact our ability to do so.
My point was just that we seem to see it in this country as a threat, or at least a reason why we shouldnt re-join the EU, it hasnt happened yet, despite it having been discussed for almost 75 years.
Moving on from that. I am sure that some people in this country still believe they are living in the British Empire. There must also be an economic argument, based on the current financial state of our country, and the money available for defence spending. It was only the other day that the Royal Navy was decommissioning ships, due to a lack of sailors. Although that is a different debate.
This goes back to the change in ethos if what was the EEC.
The Maastricht Treaty in 1992, and then the Lisbon Treaty in 2007 changed the aims of the EU.
It ceased being just an Economic Union. The express aims were to move towards common foreign and security policies. The only remaining doubt was to be when-not if.
This goes back to the change in ethos if what was the EEC.
The Maastricht Treaty in 1992, and then the Lisbon Treaty in 2007 changed the aims of the EU.
It ceased being just an Economic Union. The express aims were to move towards common foreign and security policies. The only remaining doubt was to be when-not if.
I wont dispute that.
Nick Clegg was quite clear, and Farage jumping the gun, what a surprise.
The 13 page paper expands on an initiative known as Permanent Structured Military Cooperation (PESCO). While this would see participating countries agree to increase their totals of defence spending and cooperate more deeply on projects such as an EU medical command, maritime surveillance, and cyber security, decisions on deployment would, crucially, remain in the hands of national governments.
‘The EU is already playing an important peacekeeping role in the Balkans’
It is inconceivable that member states would sign away that power to the EU – every nation fiercely guards their right to send their own soldiers into battle.
EU troops in starred fatigue? Not so much However, when Mogherini declared that a “European Union of Security and Defence” was ”not a dream anymore, it is reality coming true”, her words clearly provoked in Farage’s excitable imagination visions of crack EU troops, clad in blue and yellow-starred fatigues and marching to the strains of “Ode to Joy” across the parade grounds of Europe’s capitals.
The rather less dramatic reality, however, is that the proposals merely build on the present arrangements, with the EU already playing an important peacekeeping role in the Balkans, previously sending troops to the Central African Republic and running an anti-piracy operation off the coast of Somalia.
‘With a little imagination and generosity, Theresa May could use this post-Brexit focus on defence to Britain’s advantage’
Of course, it is hardly surprising that Ms Mogherini was enthused by an increased willingness to integrate EU-wide defence policy: she realises, as do the majority of European leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron, that such moves are essential if Europe is to respond to the geopolitical challenges of the 21st century.
When you consider the rule changes brought about by the Windsor Framework, you surely have to wonder how on earth we could possibly agree to them in the first place?
Brexit: What does Windsor Framework mean for business?
DUP rules out imminent deal to restore Northern Ireland power sharing
Most of the party’s assembly members are believed to favour reviving Stormont. A fiscal crisis, crumbling public services and strikes have intensified calls for a restoration of power-sharing. But DUP hardliners, including MPs such as Ian Paisley, want all traces of an Irish Sea border eliminated.
The problems that Brexit has created would be a whole lot easier to resolve if the various parties stopped being morons and actually moved forward instead of widening every small crack into a chasm to highlight and suit their own agendas.
But of course Remoaners will do everything to make it fail so that they can wave their silly blue and yellow flags and denounce anything British as 2nd class and unsuitable whilst championing the often lamentable European ideal as the benchmark.
The Irish problem is never going away, anybody who believes that there is any long term workable solution is misguided. Both sides are unfortunately irrevocably divided. Both Unionist and Loyalist parties now have different ends of the same stick to beat the Government with.
The EU itself is absolutely mortified that we have left and whilst they would give their eye teeth for Britain to rejoin, act like a petulant child and hurl insults whilst spitefully looking to undermine everything. They've basically scratched all our records before handing them back
As for those charged with making Brexit work, if they actually stopped being pompous and arrogant and acknowledged that they now have an imperfect situation which requires real work, effort and compromise then things might start to improve.
One thing that does strike me as ironic is that many of the younger population rail at the history of Britain and it's empirical past and yet seem only too happy to push toward building another empire albeit under a different flag.
The problems that Brexit has created would be a whole lot easier to resolve if the various parties stopped being morons and actually moved forward instead of widening every small crack into a chasm to highlight and suit their own agendas.
The problems that Brexit has created are exactly that. They are problems that Brexit has created. For instance, I cant remember that the Irish border was even mentioned during the referendum. The lack of growth in our economy is causing huge problems. The IFS quoted a 4% hit to our GDP, as a result of Brexit. This was a handicap that we didnt need.
But of course Remoaners will do everything to make it fail so that they can wave their silly blue and yellow flags and denounce anything British as 2nd class and unsuitable whilst championing the often lamentable European ideal as the benchmark.
I suppose the use of the term Remoaners demonstrates the high regard in which you hold remain voters. I think that many remain voters did so, as a result of what they thought was the best for the UK. I am bewildered about what you may think that remain voters could actually do to make Brexit fail? I was a remain voter, what could I possibly do? Brexit is what it is. Although there were a number of flavours available. We happened to choose the one we have got. There were other choices on offer. For instance we could have opted for the whole of the UK to remain in the SM/CU. This would have meant no border in the Irish Sea, but in the eyes of some leave voters this wouldnt have been a proper Brexit. They preferred that our economy would take a hit, and a border within the UK. We were supposed to be taking control of our borders. How is that working out? What did remain voters contribute to this debacle?
The Irish problem is never going away, anybody who believes that there is any long term workable solution is misguided. Both sides are unfortunately irrevocably divided. Both Unionist and Loyalist parties now have different ends of the same stick to beat the Government with.
I am not sure which Irish problem you are referring to? Although Brexit has created additional problems in NI.
The EU itself is absolutely mortified that we have left and whilst they would give their eye teeth for Britain to rejoin, act like a petulant child and hurl insults whilst spitefully looking to undermine everything. They've basically scratched all our records before handing them back
The EU have made no secret of the fact that they are disappointed that we have left. According to the polls there is a very clear majority that believe that leaving was a mistake, and are in favour of re-joining. As we are a democracy, it is impossible to see that we wont re-join at some point. I rarely see insults being reported from the EU, but there seem to be plenty from our side.
As for those charged with making Brexit work, if they actually stopped being pompous and arrogant and acknowledged that they now have an imperfect situation which requires real work, effort and compromise then things might start to improve.
What specifically do you think that could be done to make Brexit work?
One thing that does strike me as ironic is that many of the younger population rail at the history of Britain and it's empirical past and yet seem only too happy to push toward building another empire albeit under a different flag.
The younger generation was hugely in favour of remaining. Probably because they havent got the preconceived ideas of the older generations. This will account for the direction of the polls. More younger people qualifying to vote, and the oldies dying off. I am certain that because of this we will re-join at some point, although I am not sure if this will happen in my lifetime.
The problems that Brexit has created would be a whole lot easier to resolve if the various parties stopped being morons and actually moved forward instead of widening every small crack into a chasm to highlight and suit their own agendas.
But of course Remoaners will do everything to make it fail so that they can wave their silly blue and yellow flags and denounce anything British as 2nd class and unsuitable whilst championing the often lamentable European ideal as the benchmark.
The Irish problem is never going away, anybody who believes that there is any long term workable solution is misguided. Both sides are unfortunately irrevocably divided. Both Unionist and Loyalist parties now have different ends of the same stick to beat the Government with.
The EU itself is absolutely mortified that we have left and whilst they would give their eye teeth for Britain to rejoin, act like a petulant child and hurl insults whilst spitefully looking to undermine everything. They've basically scratched all our records before handing them back
As for those charged with making Brexit work, if they actually stopped being pompous and arrogant and acknowledged that they now have an imperfect situation which requires real work, effort and compromise then things might start to improve.
One thing that does strike me as ironic is that many of the younger population rail at the history of Britain and it's empirical past and yet seem only too happy to push toward building another empire albeit under a different flag.
Agree with most of that. But it is all equally true from the Brexiteer perspective.
Let's use the "pints of wine" as an example of this.
Where will these "pints" come from? Most of our wine comes from the EU. In the UK, it is rare for wine to be sold at any quantity between single glass size and 750ml. The only exception being dessert wine, which only represents a tiny fraction of the wine market. So-375ml isn't selling. So why not try a pint (568ml)
We have managed to sell/drink beer by the truckload in pints. Before we were in, while we were in, and after we left. No-one in the EU could care less while we were in the EU. Never mind now. Just a question of whether big businesses can increase their profits.
It's like "bendy bananas". Just a never-ending story with no basis in fact.
The problems that Brexit has created would be a whole lot easier to resolve if the various parties stopped being morons and actually moved forward instead of widening every small crack into a chasm to highlight and suit their own agendas.
But of course Remoaners will do everything to make it fail so that they can wave their silly blue and yellow flags and denounce anything British as 2nd class and unsuitable whilst championing the often lamentable European ideal as the benchmark.
The Irish problem is never going away, anybody who believes that there is any long term workable solution is misguided. Both sides are unfortunately irrevocably divided. Both Unionist and Loyalist parties now have different ends of the same stick to beat the Government with.
The EU itself is absolutely mortified that we have left and whilst they would give their eye teeth for Britain to rejoin, act like a petulant child and hurl insults whilst spitefully looking to undermine everything. They've basically scratched all our records before handing them back
As for those charged with making Brexit work, if they actually stopped being pompous and arrogant and acknowledged that they now have an imperfect situation which requires real work, effort and compromise then things might start to improve.
One thing that does strike me as ironic is that many of the younger population rail at the history of Britain and it's empirical past and yet seem only too happy to push toward building another empire albeit under a different flag.
Agree with most of that. But it is all equally true from the Brexiteer perspective.
Let's use the "pints of wine" as an example of this.
Where will these "pints" come from? Most of our wine comes from the EU. In the UK, it is rare for wine to be sold at any quantity between single glass size and 750ml. The only exception being dessert wine, which only represents a tiny fraction of the wine market. So-375ml isn't selling. So why not try a pint (568ml)
We have managed to sell/drink beer by the truckload in pints. Before we were in, while we were in, and after we left. No-one in the EU could care less while we were in the EU. Never mind now. Just a question of whether big businesses can increase their profits.
It's like "bendy bananas". Just a never-ending story with no basis in fact.
Or blaming the EU for the decline of our coal industry. Ignoring Margaret Thatcher, Arthur Scargill, strikes, subsidies, central heating, the fact that it had been in decline for almost 100 years, and Poland werent members.
The problems that Brexit has created would be a whole lot easier to resolve if the various parties stopped being morons and actually moved forward instead of widening every small crack into a chasm to highlight and suit their own agendas.
The problems that Brexit has created are exactly that. They are problems that Brexit has created. For instance, I cant remember that the Irish border was even mentioned during the referendum. The lack of growth in our economy is causing huge problems. The IFS quoted a 4% hit to our GDP, as a result of Brexit. This was a handicap that we didnt need.
But of course Remoaners will do everything to make it fail so that they can wave their silly blue and yellow flags and denounce anything British as 2nd class and unsuitable whilst championing the often lamentable European ideal as the benchmark.
I suppose the use of the term Remoaners demonstrates the high regard in which you hold remain voters. I think that many remain voters did so, as a result of what they thought was the best for the UK. I am bewildered about what you may think that remain voters could actually do to make Brexit fail? I was a remain voter, what could I possibly do? Brexit is what it is. Although there were a number of flavours available. We happened to choose the one we have got. There were other choices on offer. For instance we could have opted for the whole of the UK to remain in the SM/CU. This would have meant no border in the Irish Sea, but in the eyes of some leave voters this wouldnt have been a proper Brexit. They preferred that our economy would take a hit, and a border within the UK. We were supposed to be taking control of our borders. How is that working out? What did remain voters contribute to this debacle?
YOU KNOW THAT OPTIONS WERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE ON THE BALLOT, IT WAS A SIMPLE IN OR OUT. PERHAPS REMAIN COCKED UP THERE
The Irish problem is never going away, anybody who believes that there is any long term workable solution is misguided. Both sides are unfortunately irrevocably divided. Both Unionist and Loyalist parties now have different ends of the same stick to beat the Government with.
I am not sure which Irish problem you are referring to? Although Brexit has created additional problems in NI.
NO OF COURSE YOU DONT. BOTH SIDES CONTINUALLY LOOK FOR A REASON TO TAKE THEIR BALL HOME AND CURRENTLY THE HARD BORDER IS THE EXCUSE BUT WE BOTH KNOW THAT THE TWO SIDES WILL NEVER ACCEPT GOVERNANCE FROM THE OTHER.
The EU itself is absolutely mortified that we have left and whilst they would give their eye teeth for Britain to rejoin, act like a petulant child and hurl insults whilst spitefully looking to undermine everything. They've basically scratched all our records before handing them back
The EU have made no secret of the fact that they are disappointed that we have left. According to the polls there is a very clear majority that believe that leaving was a mistake, and are in favour of re-joining. As we are a democracy, it is impossible to see that we wont re-join at some point. I rarely see insults being reported from the EU, but there seem to be plenty from our side.
THATS PERHAPS BECAUSE WE DONT NEED FEEL THE TO INSULT THEM, WE'VE WLKED AWAY AND THEY ARE A LITTLE PEEVED AT US
As for those charged with making Brexit work, if they actually stopped being pompous and arrogant and acknowledged that they now have an imperfect situation which requires real work, effort and compromise then things might start to improve.
What specifically do you think that could be done to make Brexit work?
I DON'T KNOW THAT'S NOT MY JOB, YOU TELL ME. WHEN I DECIDE TO TAKE MY CAR IN FOR REPAIR I DON'T EXPECT TO HAVE TO TELL THE MECHANIC WHAT TO DO TO MAKE THE FAULT BETTER. I TELL HIM THE PROBLEM AND LEAVE IT TO HIM TO FIX, THAT'S HIS JOB
One thing that does strike me as ironic is that many of the younger population rail at the history of Britain and it's empirical past and yet seem only too happy to push toward building another empire albeit under a different flag.
The younger generation was hugely in favour of remaining. Probably because they havent got the preconceived ideas of the older generations. This will account for the direction of the polls. More younger people qualifying to vote, and the oldies dying off. I am certain that because of this we will re-join at some point, although I am not sure if this will happen in my lifetime.
WELL, THE YOUNG NEVER MAKE A BAD DECISION DO THEY. SO THATS ALRIGHT THEN.
THAT THERE is exactly my point, you just ask questions, point out facts and repost newspaper headlines, you ask everybody what should we do, how should we fix this, how should that work etc.
Just probing little cracks and making huge fissures because it suits your purpose.
All Remain supporters do is highlight how awful Britain is since Brexit. Nobody says "Well I'm totally peed off that we left but let's make the best of it"
For many of us it was awful pre Brexit so as I have said many times, it doesn't bother me. Nothings changed, nothing will change. I live in an area of poverty and deprivation, it was like that before Brexit, it's like that after Brexit and I imagine it will remain so until Armageddon, although you might be hard pressed to tell the difference.
Ok Tony, I'm giving you an unlimited budget and every resource at your disposal. Short of rejoining, how would you go about repairing things?
Yes of course the younger generation will be in favour.
As I described them earlier, full of ideology, lacking in real world experience and understanding and wanting to cancel anything that offends their delicate sensibilities, whilst dictating how others should think, feel and act.
Thank God that I will be off the mortal coil before the Gen Z's get to run things.
Comments
The situation is surely the result of the only compromise available, when you consider the geography, economy, and the Brexit that Britain chose.
I took the geography bit, merely meant that they share an island with EU members.
Some Regions voted to Remain. Scotland, Northern Ireland, London. But, in a United Kingdom, no 1 vote counts more than any other. Because it would not be a United Kingdom. The use of the word "Britain" is designed to cause offence. Because Loyalists largely voted to Leave. And Nationalists to Remain.
I have family members on both sides of that particular debate. You may well think everything is simple. It's a battle that has been going on for well over 150 years. And Brexit is just 1 of many, many opportunities for that to continue.
Although in this case I dont think that were any feasible alternatives, to what we currently have.
I believe this view is borne out by the fact that we are where we are today.
I dont wish to go around in circles, but there are some facts that we can relate to.
Leaving the EU meant a border between us and them.
This border could not be on the island of Ireland.
It what has ended up in the only alternative place.
Therefore the geography has left NI on the EU side.
So no alternative other than for them to remain in the SM/CU.
If the UK had remained in the SM/CU, we wouldnt have required a border, but we didnt.
I cant claim to know what she was thinking when she wrote the above.
Maybe she used "Britain" rather than "UK" merely because that is where the border is.
It is around Britain, rather than the UK.
So maybe she didnt deliberately mean to cause offence.
I agree that we are where we are today due to geography, the economy, and the Brexit we chose.
I can understand why the Unionists would object to a border between NI, and the rest of the UK, but I do wonder what effect it has on the average persons day to day life.
I have not heard any suggestions from anyone, of what the alternative might be.
More progress needed before any deal to unlock Stormont deadlock – DUP leader Jeffrey Donaldson
The DUP leader said he hoped for an update in the coming days over what progress has been made on the trade border impasse.
Sir Jeffrey said he wanted a deal which would restore Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market while also maintaining “privileged” access to the EU single market.
The Stormont institutions have been suspended for almost two years because of a DUP boycott in protest at post-Brexit trading arrangements.
The DUP has insisted it will not end its blockade until it secures legislative assurances from the government on Northern Ireland’s trading position within the UK.
Secretary of State Chris Heaton-Harris has insisted that talks with the DUP over its concerns have now concluded.
However, DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson has claimed the engagement is continuing, making clear he is not yet in a position to back the legislative proposals the government has offered the party.
“We are very clear – our priority is to restore Northern Ireland’s ability to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom, to restore our place in the UK internal market, to remove unnecessary barriers, to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and, at the same time, we aspire to maintain privileged access to the EU single market.”
“You can’t be both in the EU single market and the UK internal market; what you can be is in the UK internal market and have privileged access to the EU single market.
“We can continue to trade with the EU on a privileged basis, as we do at the moment for goods, but we can have our ability to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom properly restored.”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/more-progress-needed-before-any-deal-to-unlock-stormont-deadlock-dup-leader-jeffrey-donaldson/ar-AA1mCGpk?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=63831ad0b828490b8387d12b900fcab3&ei=29
This has caused confusion among some Britons who do not know what the "not for EU" labels mean.
Posting on X, one wrote: "I was in London at the weekend and 'not for EU' labelling is already in all the supermarkets I notice, including sausages."
Another claimed: “[Presume we're] not meeting EU food safety standards. Good enough for little Englanders who thrive on second-rate everything though.”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/foodanddrink/other/post-brexit-not-for-eu-food-labels-spark-confusion-as-britons-fear-food-is-inferior-quality/ar-AA1mCsGj?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=75585604792e43d9addcb0e12a6bb27e&ei=66
I believe they are along the lines of the American system.
The recent delays have been caused by our inability to organise anything very much properly, and flooded railway tracks etc.
Instead of taking the p1ss put of the EU over this, you would have thought that we may wish to follow suit.
There have been a number of cases of Albanian criminals re-entering this country, a number of times, after being deported, by using different passports.
I read an article some years ago which suggested that we had around one and a half million illegals living here.
I have also watched a documentary about illegals.
Cutting a long story short, this is what happens.
They ask a friend to hang on to their passport, so it is not found when their address is searched.
They decline to inform the authorities who they are, or where they are from.
We cant deport them without this information.
In the programme I saw, they caught an illegal that followed the above procedure.
He was bailed, and disappeared.
The caught him again 3 weeks later working elsewhere.
He followed the same procedure, and was again bailed.
And on it goes.
Yet unlike the EU, we dont need tighter border controls.
On the 1 hand, the primary object of the European Army is not to replace any nation's Army.
On the other hand the ambit of co-operation is much wider than before. It's more than just a peace-keeping force. European Union clearly involves considerable pooling of military intelligence and strategic capability. Which is something that an Island Nation is a whole lot less comfortable with than Continental Europe.
It would not remove the capability of our Armed Services. However, if we needed to go to War with Europe (or, more likely, a small part of it) for any reason (as has been the case for most Wars in our history) giving them a whole load of military information, together with a portion of our troops and equipment would severely impact our ability to do so.
Italy calls for EU Army - proving Brexiteers absolutely right, says Michael Heaver
So once again, Brexiteer predictions have proven to be spot on.
Nick Clegg famously declared the push for an EU Army as "a dangerous fantasy that is simply not true" during a debate with Nigel Farage in 2014. That was after Farage slammed the European Union's expansionist ambitions.
It is those who argue otherwise now proven to be living in a fantasy, not Brexiteers.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/italy-calls-for-eu-army-proving-brexiteers-absolutely-right-says-michael-heaver/ar-AA1mDLzm?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fa1a5c2243d240ba9530f2865ff005b0&ei=95
Nigel Farage’s claims about an EU army are as fictional as that vanishing £350 million
So here it is. Merry Christmas! When we’re not thinking about Brexit, everybody is having fun. Except, it seems, for Nigel Farage, who was in typically splenetic form when he took to the airwaves to get my attention last month. “Are you listening, Mr Clegg?” he barked into his microphone during one of his radio phone-in shows.
‘Every nation fiercely guards their right to send their own soldiers into battle’
The reason for his spleen? Mr Farage wants me to accept that it was wrong to claim, as I did in my televised debate with him in 2014, that the prospect of an EU army, airforce and navy was “total fantasy”. He is supported by an army of angry folk on Twitter and the Brexit-obsessed tabloids who jump at every alleged plot being hatched in Brussels.
A Brexit bus-level fiction
There is a whiff of desperation – and a crude attempt at distraction – in Nigel Farage’s claim: he used his radio rant to insist that the possible creation of an EU Army was a far bigger deal than “some numbers on the side of a bus that may have been slightly over-inflated”.
Tell that to the millions of voters who were lied to by the Brexit campaign. Farage’s claims about the impending arrival of an EU army is about as fictional as that vanishing £350 million.
That hasn’t stopped the concept of a pan-European military force being a particular obsession of hard-line eurosceptics for decades. The latest bout of outrage was triggered after Federica Mogherini, the EU’s foreign policy high representative, recently welcomed a document in which 23 of the EU member states – two more have signed up since – set out a series of commitments on further defence and security cooperation.
The 13 page paper expands on an initiative known as Permanent Structured Military Cooperation (PESCO). While this would see participating countries agree to increase their totals of defence spending and cooperate more deeply on projects such as an EU medical command, maritime surveillance, and cyber security, decisions on deployment would, crucially, remain in the hands of national governments.
‘The EU is already playing an important peacekeeping role in the Balkans’
It is inconceivable that member states would sign away that power to the EU – every nation fiercely guards their right to send their own soldiers into battle.
EU troops in starred fatigue? Not so much
However, when Mogherini declared that a “European Union of Security and Defence” was ”not a dream anymore, it is reality coming true”, her words clearly provoked in Farage’s excitable imagination visions of crack EU troops, clad in blue and yellow-starred fatigues and marching to the strains of “Ode to Joy” across the parade grounds of Europe’s capitals.
The rather less dramatic reality, however, is that the proposals merely build on the present arrangements, with the EU already playing an important peacekeeping role in the Balkans, previously sending troops to the Central African Republic and running an anti-piracy operation off the coast of Somalia.
‘With a little imagination and generosity, Theresa May could use this post-Brexit focus on defence to Britain’s advantage’
Of course, it is hardly surprising that Ms Mogherini was enthused by an increased willingness to integrate EU-wide defence policy: she realises, as do the majority of European leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron, that such moves are essential if Europe is to respond to the geopolitical challenges of the 21st century.
‘Without the UK, the rest of the EU will continue to work together’
Just in case Mr Farage’s blood pressure rises too fast, I am absolutely not calling for Mrs May to conscript British soldiers into an EU army. I am simply arguing that a greater sharing of military research, increased policy coordination between Berlin, London and Paris, and British support for the emerging foreign-policy machinery of the EU is a clear example of how pooling our sovereignty can help increase our power and security.
Without the UK, the rest of the EU will continue to work together. This is the other blindingly obvious flaw in Mr Farage’s argument. Brexit will diminish this country’s influence in shaping the future of Europe’s defence arrangements; it will also take away the veto which Britain could have – and would have – wielded should the pace of integration and cooperation alarm us.
So he, and all those who cry panic at the non-existent prospect of a European army should really be asked a simple question. If the price of taking back control is to make the United Kingdom a more vulnerable and less secure nation, then is it a price worth paying? Are you listening, Mr Farage?
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/nigel-farages-warnings-european-army-real-promises-350m-nhs-110473 My point was just that we seem to see it in this country as a threat, or at least a reason why we shouldnt re-join the EU, it hasnt happened yet, despite it having been discussed for almost 75 years.
Moving on from that.
I am sure that some people in this country still believe they are living in the British Empire.
There must also be an economic argument, based on the current financial state of our country, and the money available for defence spending.
It was only the other day that the Royal Navy was decommissioning ships, due to a lack of sailors.
Although that is a different debate.
The Maastricht Treaty in 1992, and then the Lisbon Treaty in 2007 changed the aims of the EU.
It ceased being just an Economic Union. The express aims were to move towards common foreign and security policies. The only remaining doubt was to be when-not if.
Nick Clegg was quite clear, and Farage jumping the gun, what a surprise.
The 13 page paper expands on an initiative known as Permanent Structured Military Cooperation (PESCO). While this would see participating countries agree to increase their totals of defence spending and cooperate more deeply on projects such as an EU medical command, maritime surveillance, and cyber security, decisions on deployment would, crucially, remain in the hands of national governments.
‘The EU is already playing an important peacekeeping role in the Balkans’
It is inconceivable that member states would sign away that power to the EU – every nation fiercely guards their right to send their own soldiers into battle.
EU troops in starred fatigue? Not so much
However, when Mogherini declared that a “European Union of Security and Defence” was ”not a dream anymore, it is reality coming true”, her words clearly provoked in Farage’s excitable imagination visions of crack EU troops, clad in blue and yellow-starred fatigues and marching to the strains of “Ode to Joy” across the parade grounds of Europe’s capitals.
The rather less dramatic reality, however, is that the proposals merely build on the present arrangements, with the EU already playing an important peacekeeping role in the Balkans, previously sending troops to the Central African Republic and running an anti-piracy operation off the coast of Somalia.
‘With a little imagination and generosity, Theresa May could use this post-Brexit focus on defence to Britain’s advantage’
Of course, it is hardly surprising that Ms Mogherini was enthused by an increased willingness to integrate EU-wide defence policy: she realises, as do the majority of European leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron, that such moves are essential if Europe is to respond to the geopolitical challenges of the 21st century.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/gibraltar-threatens-to-walk-away-from-brexit-talks-with-spain-no-concessions/ar-AA1mGypG?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=60a350adb2b54def927eaf254f6d1562&ei=60
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-64798959
Brexit: What does Windsor Framework mean for business?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-64793597
Most of the party’s assembly members are believed to favour reviving Stormont. A fiscal crisis, crumbling public services and strikes have intensified calls for a restoration of power-sharing. But DUP hardliners, including MPs such as Ian Paisley, want all traces of an Irish Sea border eliminated.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/18/dup-rules-out-imminent-deal-to-restore-northern-ireland-power-sharing
But of course Remoaners will do everything to make it fail so that they can wave their silly blue and yellow flags and denounce anything British as 2nd class and unsuitable whilst championing the often lamentable European ideal as the benchmark.
The Irish problem is never going away, anybody who believes that there is any long term workable solution is misguided. Both sides are unfortunately irrevocably divided. Both Unionist and Loyalist parties now have different ends of the same stick to beat the Government with.
The EU itself is absolutely mortified that we have left and whilst they would give their eye teeth for Britain to rejoin, act like a petulant child and hurl insults whilst spitefully looking to undermine everything. They've basically scratched all our records before handing them back
As for those charged with making Brexit work, if they actually stopped being pompous and arrogant and acknowledged that they now have an imperfect situation which requires real work, effort and compromise then things might start to improve.
One thing that does strike me as ironic is that many of the younger population rail at the history of Britain and it's empirical past and yet seem only too happy to push toward building another empire albeit under a different flag.
Let's use the "pints of wine" as an example of this.
Where will these "pints" come from? Most of our wine comes from the EU. In the UK, it is rare for wine to be sold at any quantity between single glass size and 750ml. The only exception being dessert wine, which only represents a tiny fraction of the wine market. So-375ml isn't selling. So why not try a pint (568ml)
We have managed to sell/drink beer by the truckload in pints. Before we were in, while we were in, and after we left. No-one in the EU could care less while we were in the EU. Never mind now. Just a question of whether big businesses can increase their profits.
It's like "bendy bananas". Just a never-ending story with no basis in fact.
Ignoring Margaret Thatcher, Arthur Scargill, strikes, subsidies, central heating, the fact that it had been in decline for almost 100 years, and Poland werent members.
Just probing little cracks and making huge fissures because it suits your purpose.
All Remain supporters do is highlight how awful Britain is since Brexit. Nobody says "Well I'm totally peed off that we left but let's make the best of it"
For many of us it was awful pre Brexit so as I have said many times, it doesn't bother me. Nothings changed, nothing will change. I live in an area of poverty and deprivation, it was like that before Brexit, it's like that after Brexit and I imagine it will remain so until Armageddon, although you might be hard pressed to tell the difference.
Ok Tony, I'm giving you an unlimited budget and every resource at your disposal. Short of rejoining, how would you go about repairing things?
Yes of course the younger generation will be in favour.
As I described them earlier, full of ideology, lacking in real world experience and understanding and wanting to cancel anything that offends their delicate sensibilities, whilst dictating how others should think, feel and act.
Thank God that I will be off the mortal coil before the Gen Z's get to run things.