UK Politics Mega-thread - Page 359

On June 14 2017 15:47 Simberto wrote:
And regarding "No deal is better than a bad deal", afaik that isn't on the table with the DUP. I am pretty sure that they are absolutely not fine with anything not involving an open border in ireland. That is the problem when you gamble away your majority in an bullshit attempt to get a bigger one, you have to compromise.

And all this time that you waste on constant internal bickering leaves you with less time to negotiate. At this rate, it is gonna be 2019 and you haven't got anything done.

On June 14 2017 20:33 Artisreal wrote:
Out of curiosity, can you pinpoint me to a source that explains that Ireland can factually negotiate a bilateral open border?
I have not been able to find one but that might as well be due to my limited search term vocabulary.

On June 14 2017 21:08 bardtown wrote:
They can't. It's definitely illegal within the EU, but many countries have broken EU rules recently with regards to their borders. I'm just saying I can't see the EU protesting too strongly if Ireland and the UK come to some understanding given the cost of there not being one. There's some irony in the EU's stance that it is inappropriate for the UK to talk about security as part of the Brexit process, when they are effectively threatening war in NI by requiring talks about money to be held at the same time as talks about the Irish situation. I agree with Ireland and EU/UK citizens rights being the first issues to be discussed - why on earth are they forcing money into that category? No money, no peace in Ireland. No money, no security for British citizens.

Charming.

By the way, in practical terms it's basically irrelevant to the EU how that border works. Nobody is using the UK as an entry point to the EU because the UK has stricter immigration policy in general.

Residents at the block were so concerned about fire safety after the recent refurbishment works in March that they requested an independent fire safety assessor to come in to review the safety of the building, but their request was rejected, the Labour councillor responsible for the block said.

She said tenants were concerned about the fire risk during and after recent refurbishment works and repeatedly raised their concerns with her.

Judith Blackman, Labour housing spokeswoman and who is on the board of the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO), which runs the council’s homes, said:

We were constantly being fobbed off. All our concerns were being ignored. Our request for an independent safety adjudicator was turned down. We were told it was unnecessary.

Blackman said she raised the concerns of the residents with colleagues on the board so frequently that the board tried to have her removed from her position. The board said there was no need to employ an independent assessor, told her that their own checks were adequate, and said it “was not necessary to fund or instruct an independent adjudicator at this time”.

Blackman said:

I was treated like I was a nuisance. I raised 19 complaints on behalf of individual residents. Every single time we were told that the board had satisfied itself that the fire safety was fine. We were told that the go inside and wait policy was absolutely right.

In a letter to KCTMO, Blackman shared the residents’ concerns with the group. “I can’t think in all my 34 years on the council of anything that has gone on for so long in such an irresponsible manner and caused such concern to residents,” she wrote.

On June 14 2017 21:08 bardtown wrote:
They can't. It's definitely illegal within the EU, but many countries have broken EU rules recently with regards to their borders. I'm just saying I can't see the EU protesting too strongly if Ireland and the UK come to some understanding given the cost of there not being one. There's some irony in the EU's stance that it is inappropriate for the UK to talk about security as part of the Brexit process, when they are effectively threatening war in NI by requiring talks about money to be held at the same time as talks about the Irish situation. I agree with Ireland and EU/UK citizens rights being the first issues to be discussed - why on earth are they forcing money into that category? No money, no peace in Ireland. No money, no security for British citizens.

Charming.

By the way, in practical terms it's basically irrelevant to the EU how that border works. Nobody is using the UK as an entry point to the EU because the UK has stricter immigration policy in general.

On June 15 2017 01:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:


Explain to me the logic about how the EU is basically threatening war in NI? I have a really hard time seeing how NI is in any way, shape or form the fault of the rest of Europe. I don't see how Brexit is Europes fault either. And finally I don't see how holding simultaneous talks on the Irish border, EU citizens (from Poland) and money owed before trade negotiations is even remotely similar as threatening to cancel security cooperation with allies is.

I know UK would like to pick and choose what to talk about at any time. But the EU has not said "money first, Irish border later". They have said that those three issues should be solved or at least have significant progress before the trade talks start. It's entirely possible that the Irish border situation gets solved along with the rights of citizens already living in the UK/EU but that disagreement about money prevents negotiations on trade. Likely the UK would then leave with "no deal" except in the areas that they had agreement in.

The EU is using trade talks as a stick and a carrot to get Britain to talk about money (and citizens, and the Irish border) they are not using the Irish border as a stick to talk about money at all.

On June 15 2017 01:53 bardtown wrote:

There is no money owed, so the demand for 'money owed' is a nonsense. The trick is to pretend there is money owed so people like you accept that it's okay to threaten no deal on citizens' rights/Ireland until that money is paid. If there was actually money owed they wouldn't need to do that, because they could just recover it through the courts if the UK didn't agree to pay it. And the UK has already agreed to pay anything that it is legally obliged to pay, so that wouldn't even be necessary.

If they agree to a solution on Ireland/citizen's rights without reaching an agreement on money then I will take that back. In that situation I would want the UK to leave with no further arrangements, though.

Tim Farron has stepped down as leader of the Liberal Democrats after the general election.
In a statement, he said he was "torn between living as a faithful Christian and serving as a political leader".
He said he should have dealt "more wisely" with questions relating to his faith during the election campaign, including his views on gay sex.
He insisted he had taken the decision voluntarily and he retained the support of his party.

On June 15 2017 02:29 bardtown wrote:
Really, you're making no sense. The negotiations are going ahead as scheduled. The UK wanted an agreement on citizen's rights before even triggering A50, so I don't know where you've got this idea that the EU is eager to get it done. They could have sorted that last year - but no, they want to talk about it alongside money. As for 'the four freedoms', it was established months and months ago that this is not even a part of the discussion. We are leaving the single market, so it's not at all relevant.