The Brexit Arms

[BrexitArmsLandlady]

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

Go BoJo!
Go BoJo!
Go BoJo!
Go BoJo!

So near & yet so far..............

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

Yes. Which is why all leavers and all remainers should back either a deal that includes the backstop, or revoke.

There is no alternative. 186 children died in the Troubles. The peace is fragile and none of us want more lives to be lost.

should back either a deal that includes the backstop, or revoke

Revoke can only be achieved by vote. As both a further referendum and a general election have been ruled out there is no mechanism to vote. Even if there was a vote there is no certainty that people have changed their minds.

Backstop is not trusted due to Theresa Mays attempt to hide the legal advice.

So back to square one again.

But the government is confident that technological solutions exist, so the backstop may never need to be used.

The backstop isn't political: it's function is to protect the fragile peace that was brokered by the GFA. If English people understood what was at risk, I am certain they would support the backstop.

Maureen Rafferty [mother of Phillip, the 14 year old whose story I posted earlier] is in her 80s; her other children now live in England. “I encouraged them to go away, because I knew they would be safe.”

When she goes into Belfast city centre to shop, she marvels at how well the city is doing. “Isn’t it wonderful? There are so many businesses coming on now, and there are so many nationalities of people – you hear the different accents, the different tongues.

“So many people come here now and they’re going on those Troubles tours, and it’s given them a wee taste of what went on here.”

She pauses, and looks towards Philip’s picture. “The world needs to know.”

bellinisurge
Your link was from 2017.

Irish Government August 2019;

"Cross border health services (like the cardiology and cancer treatments in Altnagelvin, Derry and paediatric cardiology and maternity services in Dublin) are managed by service level agreements. Even in a no deal Brexit scenario, services like these can be expected to continue."

"Both the Irish and UK Governments are fully committed to continuing existing cross border arrangements."

www.gov.ie/en/policy-information/b42e94-health-and-brexit/

Youngest Victim of ‘the Troubles’^
Andrew Maguire, aged 6 weeks, was killed on 10 August 1976. He was hit by a car which went out of control and mounted the pavement, after the driver, a member of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) had been shot by a British Army (BA) patrol,^

cain.ulster.ac.uk/issues/violence/majinc.htm

It is possible to Brexit without a hard border (a Norway+ deal, or any deal with the backstop). Perhaps we can all agree that the priority must be peace and not putting border communities at risk.

Deal still possible at European Council summit, says Varadkar
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49949001

How does checks away from the border not work?

Because they create a border where there wasn't one. Which was the magic trick of GFA.
And, as you will have read from @Mistigri 's posts, much of the terribleness of the Troubles was also "away from the border ".
And before you start bleating about not giving in to threats of violence- Faridge's trick during the referendum campaign to stop discussion of the one thing that he had no answer for- apparently we are all supposed to fear public disorder on mainland UK if we don't respect the "will of the people". But that is decent honest violence by decent honest people. Who aren't the same .

DUP view is that backstop goes against the GFA in that it changes the status of NI from UK.

No it doesn’t

The backstop in the WA applies to the whole of the UK

And before you start bleating about not giving in to threats of violence-

The British government is saying that Brexit must be done or there is a risk of violence in England, so it's pretty much impossible for anyone to take that line now.

So do Brexit if you must. But do it in a way that does not put communities in Ireland at risk.

I don't think that revoking Article 50 does require a vote Mystery.

DUP view is that backstop goes against the GFA

The GFA which the DUP opposed from the outset...

@MysteryTripAgain

The DUP only hold 36% of the most recent vote share in Northern Ireland so please stop talking about them as though they represent all of us in NI. They absolutely don’t.

They don’t approve of GFA and they want Brexit which is opposite of what the majority want.

Yes they have the strongest voice of unionism ...and unionism and the right to British self determination is also secured in the GFA. Which is why they object to borders in the sea. The reason they have this mandate is due to politics of fear they play out at every election: they make voters afraid that Sinn Fein will get a majority and people still see Sinn Fein as a front for the IRA. So they get votes to “keep Sinn Fein out” of having the most seats. Sinn Fein do the exact same thing. So we end up with 2 extremes who would rather do nothing whilst arguing about crap instead of doing the job they are paid to do.

This is why Boris solution last week won’t work.. because the 2 of them can’t agree to even meet on a Monday least of all decide on a border every 4 years.

NI groups are having a rally in Belfast next Sunday AGAIN to try and get them back to work after 1000 days

everyone else apart from the duper’s was happy to accept the backstop. We would prefer to remain considering that NI never had a fair vote in the Brexit referendum. We always were going to be outnumbered by Great Britain even though it affects us most. We consider that the referendum was never thought through before it was presented to the people. It was completely half assed so people didn’t actually know how the borders would work before they voted for it.

The referendum stated
should the UK leave or remain

It is pretty clear now that that question was never achievable.
Only Great Britain can realistically leave the EU
Not the UK

Solution:
revoke article 50.
Remain for now.
Work out a proper border solution.
Present it to the people.
Then vote again

@blubberyboo - I have a friend born and brought up in Derry during the troubles. She went to Uni in England, met her DH and their DC’s were born in England. Six years ago they moved back to be nearer her family. She is now scared that due to Brexit her DC’s are going to have to live through the same violence which destroyed her childhood. Boris is ignoring that protecting peace has to come first.

@parker231

I have to say that L/Derry will be most vulnerable given its proximity to and basically on the border.

Boris has no respect for his own queen so we are under no illusions that he actually gives a rats ass about us. At the minute he is just going through the motions to make him look less like the man in history who broke a peace treaty. And Nigel Farage the coward just wants everyone else to sort it out for him.

"illegitimate, squatting Prime Minister"...?!

Jo Maugham's superciliousness knows no bounds!!

Mentioned on previous thread I think - about how the precedent of courts interfering in our democracy will ultimately allow those with the deepest pockets to run things.
Manoeuvring such as this by Maugham lays bare the slippery slope we are now on

Parliament has the tools to remove BJ - yet they continue to CHOOSE not to use them.
Twice BJ offered GE & he also made clear that VONC could be tabled by any of the opposition parties, not just Labour.

Yet Maugham the clown, drunk on his delusions of grandeur & cheered on by anti-democrats, has decided that 'people like him' should decide who is (or is not) in power in this country rather than the electorate.

Dusty have you read the article in today's times?

I think that is what Jo Maugham is referring too.

If the PM behaves undemocratically then of course the courts need to step in if noone else does.

It is Boris JOHNSON Short Cummings that do not believe in democracy.

I am just so relieved that there is so many good people fighting this man.

Opposition parties are sensibly waiting to remove Boris at an election by first ensuring that the extension is in place and no deal off the table.

The courts should not be involved in politics.
They should be separate.

BJ is neither a squatter nor illegitimate.

If parliament wanted to remove him they could. Immediately. They have the tools to do so & he is not prohibiting this in any way - in fact he is doing precisely the opposite.

If the PM behaves undemocratically then of course the courts need to step in if noone else does.

"if" being the operative word here.
It is Parliament's job to 'do something' yet they choose not to, and have chosen not to.

It is Parliament's job to 'do something' yet they choose not to, and have chosen not to.

Parliament is sovereign. Parliament decides what parliament does.

@DustyDiamond

I’m about as far from as expert as I could possibly be, but I’ve always been taught that the rule of law is a vital part of democracy, in ensuring that laws apply equally to absolutely everyone (including the representatives of the electorate).

They’re supposed the be the last ditch guardians of the laws which define the procedures of our representative democracy, aren’t they?

As far as I can see (limited knowledge, I could be totally wrong) they haven’t just set a general precedent that they can intervene in politics - they set a very specific precedent that the extremely out of ordinary proroguing of parliament for weeks on end in order to prevent scrutiny by parliament was justicable (and illegal as it prevented the parliament from performing its purpose within our constitution).

As far as I can see, that’s a highly specific circumstance that’s almost certainly never going to happen again in or lifetimes.

Again, I admit I could be wrong - I’m more than open to the idea that I’ve completely misinterpreted it

Well that's my point Mistigri - Parliament has the tools & authority to do as it pleases

Maugham seems to think it's down to the courts to decide

I could understand it if govt & PM were refusing a GE or refusing to allow a VONC for example, but they are not.
In fact, they are asking repeatedly for democracy to be enacted as it should be - that is, via the electorate.

Lady Hale has been showing off her bias, so much for the judges being impartial. Can she be sacked?

gonna - you haven't misinterpreted it at all, it was supposed to be a very specific & very rare occurrence.

But see my attached pic of Jo Maugham's latest manoeuvring whereby 'they' are formulating a case to "enable an illegitimate, squatting Prime Minister to be removed from Number 10"

Parliament have the means & opportunity to do this, but they are choosing not to do so, despite BJ repeatedly asking for it.

Maugham & his ilk, and the courts, have no place in democracy unless the sitting govt/PM are blocking Parliament from utilising the tools at their disposal.

Maugham seems to think it's down to the courts to decide

Parliament makes law.

Courts interpret and enforce law.

That is called the separation of powers.

What is it specifically that you have a problem with?