BREXIT
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25
The way technology is involved in all sorts of things in our everyday modern life would have been pure science fiction only a few decades ago. (The story of this paralysed man is part of this science fiction rapidly becoming science fact.)
Anyone trying to block progress on any deal concerning the Irish border because they don't believe technology can be developed to deal with it is living in those past decades and is a 'technology dinosaur'.
Some positive attitudes are needed. We are tired of too many Eeyores.
Anyone trying to block progress on any deal concerning the Irish border because they don't believe technology can be developed to deal with it is living in those past decades and is a 'technology dinosaur'.
Some positive attitudes are needed. We are tired of too many Eeyores.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Coasting South
Age: 65
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by NoelEvans
BBC News today:
Yet we have far too many who say that using technology to keep the Irish border open is "too complicated".
Dinosaurs! Eeyores!!
Paralysed man moves in mind-reading exoskeleton
One of the marvels of modern technology.Yet we have far too many who say that using technology to keep the Irish border open is "too complicated".
Dinosaurs! Eeyores!!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Global Vagabond
Posts: 625
Originally Posted by NoelEvans
The way technology is involved in all sorts of things in our everyday modern life would have been pure science fiction only a few decades ago. (The story of this paralysed man is part of this science fiction rapidly becoming science fact.)
Anyone trying to block progress on any deal concerning the Irish border because they don't believe technology can be developed to deal with it is living in those past decades and is a 'technology dinosaur'.
Some positive attitudes are needed. We are tired of too many Eeyores.
Anyone trying to block progress on any deal concerning the Irish border because they don't believe technology can be developed to deal with it is living in those past decades and is a 'technology dinosaur'.
Some positive attitudes are needed. We are tired of too many Eeyores.
What may be coming down the tubes in the future is irrelevant to current discussions. Positive attitudes are fine, but this issue will only be resolved by current reality.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,195
https://www.conservativehome.com/pla...-backstop.html
Lord Trimble is a former First Minister of Northern Ireland and Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in securing the Belfast Agreement. Roderick Crawford is a former editor of Parliamentary Brief, and works in conflict resolution.
Michel Barnier insists on “legally operative solutions that meet all the objectives of the backstop” as the key tests the UK’s proposals must pass. The European Commission currently views the backstop as the only proposal that meets the core criteria for Ireland/Northern Ireland. But there is a problem with its view of this: it is not true.
As has been argued on ConservativeHome and elsewhere, the backstop fails the test of the EU’s original negotiating mandate and the backstop’s stated raison d’etre — set out in its Article 1(3) — because it fails to protect the Belfast Agreement and undermines the foundation of North-South co-operation. That means that the backstop is not a “legally operative solution”.
It looks like the EU has taken some of these arguments about the impact of the backstop on the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement on board. The necessity of “protecting the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts” looks as though it has been downgraded from being a primary objective to being a justification for supporting the requirement of avoiding a hard border, protecting the all-island economy & North-South co-operation (by which it means alignment with EU laws) and securing the integrity of the Single Market.
So not only are UK proposals now required to achieve “all the objectives of the backstop” when the backstop fails to do so, but the objectives themselves are being altered by the EU again.
It is not the first time this has happened. The hierarchy of EU objectives has changed from the original negotiating guidelines and directives of April/May 2017; then, it was upholding the Good Friday Agreement in full and using imaginative and flexible solutions that aim to avoid a hard border whilst upholding the integrity of the Union’s legal order; after pressure from the Irish Government, these guidelines raised avoiding a hard border to a primary priority alongside upholding the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, North-South co-operation and the Single Market. Under the current backstop, avoiding a hard border is one priority amongst others.
The conflicts between realising all of these priorities have become increasingly apparent in the last few months. Instead of engaging with the problems inherent in the current backstop, the EU seems to have begun to change the priorities once again.
In the week before the UK proposals were issued, avoiding a hard border, protecting the all-island economy and North-South co-operation whilst upholding the Single Market were emphasised as the key objectives — without any mention of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement as a primary priority.
The danger is that the EU has allowed a negotiating position to develop that is unlikely to produce the result that Article 50 was designed to deliver — an orderly withdrawal for a Member State leaving the EU.
The proposals being put forward by the UK Government need to be given a fair hearing in both the EU and the UK. They seek to replace a backstop that has failed to meet the objectives set out in both the original negotiating guidelines and in the Northen Ireland Protocol itself.
It is necessary to look at these new UK proposals by paying proper attention to the reality of this, and to avoid the temptation to assess them against criteria that no proposal has yet met. There is little doubt that these new UK proposals do meet, in full, the original objectives set by the EU, and that they make a better job of negotiating the trade-offs required where the EU’s objectives conflict with one another than the current backstop.
The Government’s new proposals meet the EU’s original aims better than the backstop
By Lord Trimble and Roderick CrawfordLord Trimble is a former First Minister of Northern Ireland and Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in securing the Belfast Agreement. Roderick Crawford is a former editor of Parliamentary Brief, and works in conflict resolution.
Michel Barnier insists on “legally operative solutions that meet all the objectives of the backstop” as the key tests the UK’s proposals must pass. The European Commission currently views the backstop as the only proposal that meets the core criteria for Ireland/Northern Ireland. But there is a problem with its view of this: it is not true.
As has been argued on ConservativeHome and elsewhere, the backstop fails the test of the EU’s original negotiating mandate and the backstop’s stated raison d’etre — set out in its Article 1(3) — because it fails to protect the Belfast Agreement and undermines the foundation of North-South co-operation. That means that the backstop is not a “legally operative solution”.
It looks like the EU has taken some of these arguments about the impact of the backstop on the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement on board. The necessity of “protecting the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts” looks as though it has been downgraded from being a primary objective to being a justification for supporting the requirement of avoiding a hard border, protecting the all-island economy & North-South co-operation (by which it means alignment with EU laws) and securing the integrity of the Single Market.
So not only are UK proposals now required to achieve “all the objectives of the backstop” when the backstop fails to do so, but the objectives themselves are being altered by the EU again.
It is not the first time this has happened. The hierarchy of EU objectives has changed from the original negotiating guidelines and directives of April/May 2017; then, it was upholding the Good Friday Agreement in full and using imaginative and flexible solutions that aim to avoid a hard border whilst upholding the integrity of the Union’s legal order; after pressure from the Irish Government, these guidelines raised avoiding a hard border to a primary priority alongside upholding the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, North-South co-operation and the Single Market. Under the current backstop, avoiding a hard border is one priority amongst others.
The conflicts between realising all of these priorities have become increasingly apparent in the last few months. Instead of engaging with the problems inherent in the current backstop, the EU seems to have begun to change the priorities once again.
In the week before the UK proposals were issued, avoiding a hard border, protecting the all-island economy and North-South co-operation whilst upholding the Single Market were emphasised as the key objectives — without any mention of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement as a primary priority.
The danger is that the EU has allowed a negotiating position to develop that is unlikely to produce the result that Article 50 was designed to deliver — an orderly withdrawal for a Member State leaving the EU.
The proposals being put forward by the UK Government need to be given a fair hearing in both the EU and the UK. They seek to replace a backstop that has failed to meet the objectives set out in both the original negotiating guidelines and in the Northen Ireland Protocol itself.
It is necessary to look at these new UK proposals by paying proper attention to the reality of this, and to avoid the temptation to assess them against criteria that no proposal has yet met. There is little doubt that these new UK proposals do meet, in full, the original objectives set by the EU, and that they make a better job of negotiating the trade-offs required where the EU’s objectives conflict with one another than the current backstop.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,195
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...ings-vx3tqmsg2
.....Mr Johnson insisted last night that he would not delay Brexit despite an admission by government lawyers that he would have to send a letter asking for an extension if a deal could not be reached. The prime minister has repeatedly said he would maintain his “do or die” pledge to leave the EU with or without a deal on October 31.
In a submission to the Court of Session in Edinburgh, however, the government conceded that Mr Johnson would have to ask for an extension if no deal were agreed by October 19. He responded on Twitter: “New deal or no deal — but no delay.” No 10 said Britain would still leave the EU on October 31, arguing that the Benn act imposes only a “very narrow duty” on the prime minister to request a delay. A source said: “The government is not prevented by the act from doing other things that cause no delay, including other communications.”
Mr Johnson has indicated that he could ask a European nation to veto the government’s request to delay Brexit if he were forced to send a letter. Every member state must approve any Brexit delay. The EU fears that Mr Johnson will appeal to Viktor Orban, Hungary’s prime minister, to reject the request, The Daily Telegraph reported last night........
The court will announce its decision on Monday. Mr Maugham disclosed that the court has been asked to stop Mr Johnson “encouraging” EU leaders to veto a Brexit extension.
Cabinet ministers are increasingly convinced that the prime minister will have to delay Brexit. They have raised concerns that other EU leaders will not veto an extension. One minister said: “I can’t imagine Viktor Orban will want to use so much political capital with Merkel on our behalf.”
Ministers expect Mr Johnson to go all the way to the Supreme Court in an attempt to leave on October 31. One said: “The important thing is that Boris shows he is fighting this with every sinew. If we extend he will be very clear that he didn’t want it.”
.....Mr Johnson insisted last night that he would not delay Brexit despite an admission by government lawyers that he would have to send a letter asking for an extension if a deal could not be reached. The prime minister has repeatedly said he would maintain his “do or die” pledge to leave the EU with or without a deal on October 31.
In a submission to the Court of Session in Edinburgh, however, the government conceded that Mr Johnson would have to ask for an extension if no deal were agreed by October 19. He responded on Twitter: “New deal or no deal — but no delay.” No 10 said Britain would still leave the EU on October 31, arguing that the Benn act imposes only a “very narrow duty” on the prime minister to request a delay. A source said: “The government is not prevented by the act from doing other things that cause no delay, including other communications.”
Mr Johnson has indicated that he could ask a European nation to veto the government’s request to delay Brexit if he were forced to send a letter. Every member state must approve any Brexit delay. The EU fears that Mr Johnson will appeal to Viktor Orban, Hungary’s prime minister, to reject the request, The Daily Telegraph reported last night........
The court will announce its decision on Monday. Mr Maugham disclosed that the court has been asked to stop Mr Johnson “encouraging” EU leaders to veto a Brexit extension.
Cabinet ministers are increasingly convinced that the prime minister will have to delay Brexit. They have raised concerns that other EU leaders will not veto an extension. One minister said: “I can’t imagine Viktor Orban will want to use so much political capital with Merkel on our behalf.”
Ministers expect Mr Johnson to go all the way to the Supreme Court in an attempt to leave on October 31. One said: “The important thing is that Boris shows he is fighting this with every sinew. If we extend he will be very clear that he didn’t want it.”
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 3
Ministers expect Mr Johnson to go all the way to the Supreme Court in an attempt to leave on October 31. One said: “The important thing is that Boris shows he is fighting this with every sinew. If we extend he will be very clear that he didn’t want it.”
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 377
Originally Posted by NoelEvans
BBC News today:Paralysed man moves in mind-reading exoskeleton
One of the marvels of modern technology.
Yet we have far too many who say that using technology to keep the Irish border open is "too complicated".
Dinosaurs! Eeyores!!
One of the marvels of modern technology.
Yet we have far too many who say that using technology to keep the Irish border open is "too complicated".
Dinosaurs! Eeyores!!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,646
Originally Posted by bulldog89
Why do you always think to have the best stuff around?
I honestly don't have any experience with your NHS but I've also NEVER heard of a single Italian or anyone from any other EU country asking to go in the UK to receive top class treatment...on the other end two of your families begged your government to let them fly to an Italian hospital to continue life support for their children (paid by OUR taxes, not YOURS, and to be clear NOBODY in Italy ever said no to such requests)...but that's another story and not strictly related to the quality of the system.
Page 18, WHO ranking.
Page18
I honestly don't have any experience with your NHS but I've also NEVER heard of a single Italian or anyone from any other EU country asking to go in the UK to receive top class treatment...on the other end two of your families begged your government to let them fly to an Italian hospital to continue life support for their children (paid by OUR taxes, not YOURS, and to be clear NOBODY in Italy ever said no to such requests)...but that's another story and not strictly related to the quality of the system.
Page 18, WHO ranking.
Page18
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 335
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: heathrow
Posts: 52
Originally Posted by WingNut60
Now do you believe how easily people can adopt an attitude of being hurt and offended?
At the drop of a hat.
At the drop of a hat.
I was just wondering why Sallyann capitalised the word "Swedes" if they were referring to a vegetable and not to the citizens of Sweden?
Last edited by 747 jock; 5th Oct 2019 at 16:42. Reason: Spelling/typo
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 307
Originally Posted by Sallyann1234
Edited to add. Thats problem with a lot of the reporting of Brexit - rarely are both sides of the coin inspected. In the story you referred to above, C4 interview a milk processor and jointly bump their gums over the difficulties they may face in sending their milk to Eire but don’t go to the other side of the border and ask the recipients where are you going to secure your milk supply in the event of a no-deal? Open minded reporting? Even handed reporting?
Last edited by yellowtriumph; 5th Oct 2019 at 16:24.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 72
Posts: 756
This Brexit nonsense is not working out too well in the case of Ireland (North and South). Due to our leaving the EU, regulations on moving of pets all change. The BBC has an item today pointing out that, should you need to take your guide dog from say Londonderry to Donegal, a road trip of around 45 miles, post Brexit you would need to get to Belfast, take a ferry to say Liverpool, drive down to Fishguard. From Fishguard a ferry trip to Rosslare and a long drive from there to Donegal. (I don't know why the regulators should see guide dogs as pets?)
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 307
Originally Posted by 747 jock
I'm in no way hurt or offended. It takes quite a lot to offent de.
I was just wondering why Sallyann capitalised the word "Swedes" if they were referring to a vegetable and not to the citizens of Sweden?
I was just wondering why Sallyann capitalised the word "Swedes" if they were referring to a vegetable and not to the citizens of Sweden?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: heathrow
Posts: 52
Originally Posted by yellowtriumph
It was a joke, you’re just making yourself look foolish in public. I’d stop if I were you.
I may look foolish but not half as foolish as some of the people on here who keep referring to "Brexshit" and who can't have a sensible debate without trying to insult other posters who simply have a difference of opinion.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,254
The important thing is that Boris shows he is fighting this with every sinew
Oh Lord!! - whatever else one can say about the Tory Brexiteers, they do love a soundbite! Johnson back to 'straining his sinews' again, although his Foreign Secretary classed it as "striving his sinews"
'Strong and stable' was, unfortunately, rather short-lived but 'Friends and Neighbours' has been adopted for placatory reference to the EU. DOES one 'surrender' to 'Friends and Neighbours'?? I assume that in today's world where so many people watch, listen to and accept the 'honest and truthful' output of the Ad Agencies, the No 10 utterings are considered normal. Given the totally unpredictable nature of politics (especially now) I find myself ruminating on the various classic annual assessments made on those of us who served in the Armed Forces.:-
"He is like a lighthouse in the desert - extremely bright but utterly useless in his present position."
or - "His men will follow him anywhere ... just to see what his next foul-up will be!"
Question - Do politicians have annual assessments?, should they? Anyone suitable for the above examples?
I must declare my interest- slightly unusual. Theoretically, these reports should be made to the subject , in person, once a year. I can only recall this happening 3 or 4 times in 35 years! One, in particular, was completed by my 'Boss'. 6 months late and passed as a write-up to his replacement. He called me in and explained that the 'numbers' should have been discussed with me personally because they were so bad! The highest was a 3, the rest 2s and 1s! His classic question, delivered, bless him, with a (just) straight face, was "Did you and XXXX have a difficult relationship?"
He pointed out that, while he was unable to modify the report, when he did complete the next year's version, the numbers WOULD be all 9s, equally nonsensical, and future readers would note and assess. He did -and they did ... I was given maximum accelerated promotion a couple of years later.
Any suggestions for the next repetitious 'bon mot' from the heart of Democracy?
Oh Lord!! - whatever else one can say about the Tory Brexiteers, they do love a soundbite! Johnson back to 'straining his sinews' again, although his Foreign Secretary classed it as "striving his sinews"
'Strong and stable' was, unfortunately, rather short-lived but 'Friends and Neighbours' has been adopted for placatory reference to the EU. DOES one 'surrender' to 'Friends and Neighbours'?? I assume that in today's world where so many people watch, listen to and accept the 'honest and truthful' output of the Ad Agencies, the No 10 utterings are considered normal. Given the totally unpredictable nature of politics (especially now) I find myself ruminating on the various classic annual assessments made on those of us who served in the Armed Forces.:-"He is like a lighthouse in the desert - extremely bright but utterly useless in his present position."
or - "His men will follow him anywhere ... just to see what his next foul-up will be!"
Question - Do politicians have annual assessments?, should they? Anyone suitable for the above examples?
I must declare my interest- slightly unusual. Theoretically, these reports should be made to the subject , in person, once a year. I can only recall this happening 3 or 4 times in 35 years! One, in particular, was completed by my 'Boss'. 6 months late and passed as a write-up to his replacement. He called me in and explained that the 'numbers' should have been discussed with me personally because they were so bad! The highest was a 3, the rest 2s and 1s! His classic question, delivered, bless him, with a (just) straight face, was "Did you and XXXX have a difficult relationship?"
He pointed out that, while he was unable to modify the report, when he did complete the next year's version, the numbers WOULD be all 9s, equally nonsensical, and future readers would note and assess. He did -and they did ... I was given maximum accelerated promotion a couple of years later.Any suggestions for the next repetitious 'bon mot' from the heart of Democracy?
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 307
Originally Posted by 747 jock
I always thought jokes were meant to be funny.
I may look foolish but not half as foolish as some of the people on here who keep referring to "Brexshit" and who can't have a sensible debate without trying to insult other posters who simply have a difference of opinion.
I may look foolish but not half as foolish as some of the people on here who keep referring to "Brexshit" and who can't have a sensible debate without trying to insult other posters who simply have a difference of opinion.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: uk
Age: 62
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by yellowtriumph
By precipitating a no-deal Brexit it would seem Varadkar is going to cause milk shortages in his own country then. Perhaps this could be a business opportunity to reintroduce free milk to schools in the UK. As a UK taxpayer I’d be happy to see the government fund that.
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Zurich
Posts: 0
[QUOTE=Cornish Jack;10587355]The important thing is that Boris shows he is fighting this with every sinew
Oh Lord!! - whatever else one can say about the Tory Brexiteers, they do love a soundbite! Johnson back to 'straining his sinews' again, although his Foreign Secretary classed it as "striving his sinews" 'Strong and stable' was, unfortunately, rather short-lived but 'Friends and Neighbours' has been adopted for placatory reference to the EU. DOES one 'surrender' to 'Friends and Neighbours'?? I assume that in today's world where so many people watch, listen to and accept the 'honest and truthful' output of the Ad Agencies, the No 10 utterings are considered normal. Given the totally unpredictable nature of politics (especially now) I find myself ruminating on the various classic annual assessments made on those of us who served in the Armed Forces.:-
"He is like a lighthouse in the desert - extremely bright but utterly useless in his present position."
or - "His men will follow him anywhere ... just to see what his next foul-up will be!"
Question - Do politicians have annual assessments?, should they? Anyone suitable for the above examples?
I must declare my interest- slightly unusual. Theoretically, these reports should be made to the subject , in person, once a year. I can only recall this happening 3 or 4 times in 35 years! One, in particular, was completed by my 'Boss'. 6 months late and passed as a write-up to his replacement. He called me in and explained that the 'numbers' should have been discussed with me personally because they were so bad! The highest was a 3, the rest 2s and 1s! His classic question, delivered, bless him, with a (just) straight face, was "Did you and XXXX have a difficult relationship?" He pointed out that, while he was unable to modify the report, when he did complete the next year's version, the numbers WOULD be all 9s, equally nonsensical, and future readers would note and assess. He did -and they did ... I was given maximum accelerated promotion a couple of years later.
Any suggestions for the next repetitious 'bon mot' from the heart of Democracy? :bored
Dear Cornhole Jack
Note to self.
Limit cider intake before posting !
Oh Lord!! - whatever else one can say about the Tory Brexiteers, they do love a soundbite! Johnson back to 'straining his sinews' again, although his Foreign Secretary classed it as "striving his sinews"
'Strong and stable' was, unfortunately, rather short-lived but 'Friends and Neighbours' has been adopted for placatory reference to the EU. DOES one 'surrender' to 'Friends and Neighbours'?? I assume that in today's world where so many people watch, listen to and accept the 'honest and truthful' output of the Ad Agencies, the No 10 utterings are considered normal. Given the totally unpredictable nature of politics (especially now) I find myself ruminating on the various classic annual assessments made on those of us who served in the Armed Forces.:-"He is like a lighthouse in the desert - extremely bright but utterly useless in his present position."
or - "His men will follow him anywhere ... just to see what his next foul-up will be!"
Question - Do politicians have annual assessments?, should they? Anyone suitable for the above examples?
I must declare my interest- slightly unusual. Theoretically, these reports should be made to the subject , in person, once a year. I can only recall this happening 3 or 4 times in 35 years! One, in particular, was completed by my 'Boss'. 6 months late and passed as a write-up to his replacement. He called me in and explained that the 'numbers' should have been discussed with me personally because they were so bad! The highest was a 3, the rest 2s and 1s! His classic question, delivered, bless him, with a (just) straight face, was "Did you and XXXX have a difficult relationship?"
He pointed out that, while he was unable to modify the report, when he did complete the next year's version, the numbers WOULD be all 9s, equally nonsensical, and future readers would note and assess. He did -and they did ... I was given maximum accelerated promotion a couple of years later.Any suggestions for the next repetitious 'bon mot' from the heart of Democracy? :bored
Dear Cornhole Jack
Note to self.
Limit cider intake before posting !
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 938
"When a picture paints a thousand words ".......well ok, in this case several million words.....
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...brexit-cartoon
As the annual numbers charade has been mentioned, one of the more memorable was the question " I understand you read the Guardian ? "....quite what the relevance was to me maintaining aircraft was not immediately obvious, other than to confirm the OASC selection process continued to select those unemployable as civilians .....hence one replied "that's correct.....suitably long pause and inflection....." sir " ".
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...brexit-cartoon
As the annual numbers charade has been mentioned, one of the more memorable was the question " I understand you read the Guardian ? "....quite what the relevance was to me maintaining aircraft was not immediately obvious, other than to confirm the OASC selection process continued to select those unemployable as civilians .....hence one replied "that's correct.....suitably long pause and inflection....." sir " ".
Last edited by Krystal n chips; 6th Oct 2019 at 06:35.
