Brexit is Brilliant (or is it?)

[Banshee Bones]

Perhaps if you actually answered the question instead of spreading fake news and being a full time victim....

Was the question, Do I believe every national news outlet and international political figures or you?

I'm not choosing you

If you cannot find an EU Regulation triggering Art 16, have a serious think about why that might be. And, while you are having that serious think, remain silent on the subject. That will stop you looking as gullible as you currently do.

As always

It's all a bit like declaring war and then claiming that because no shots were fired that war wasnt really declared. Everyone still knows what you did

[CelticRambler]

Was the question, Do I believe every national news outlet and international political figures or you?

No, the question was "if you believe Art. 16 was triggered (by the EU) can you point to the tangible processes that followed, because Art. 16 sets in motion a whole series of tangible processes, starting with signatures on the regulation kicks it off."

On the one hand, you're citing people who - like yourself - say it was triggered, but provide no evidence to show that it was; and on the other, myself and Peregrinus have provided links to formal statements by the parties concerned stating in no uncertain terms that they were not triggering Art. 16.

If you say those parties were misleading us when they said, on the record, in public, that they were not triggering Art. 16, then you should be able to find proof of the joint working group meetings held and regulations published as a result of Art. 16 being triggered. Quite simple really.

[6456739]

Was the question, Do I believe every national news outlet and international political figures or you?

I'm not choosing you



As always

Likewise, especially given your attempt to disseminate fake news here along with your other drivel elsewhere.

[Peregrinus]

Was the question, Do I believe every national news outlet and international political figures or you?

No, that was not the question.

The question was, why believe what other people tell you the EU did, when you can see yourself what the EU actually did? When people tell you that the EU did X and you can see yourself from first-hand evidence that the EU did not do X, why persist in believing people who are telling you things that are clearly untrue?

Or, the shorter version, why be gullible?

I have linked you to the actual Regulation issued by the EU, which does not trigger Art 16. I have invited you, if you wish to persist in your position, to link to the EU Regulation - or, indeed, to any EU documentation at all - that does trigger Art. 16. You have ignored the invitation, and simply stated that you will continue to believe anyone who tells you can persuade yourself is telling you what you want to hear.

[Banshee Bones]

Oh I'm sorry, I didnt realise the entire european media and politicians were just "other people" while you and the other fanbois from boards were somehow more reliable sources.

Your thinking, because the EU reversed their position within a day and didnt follow through on their stated aim that somehow the article 16 was not "really" triggered is a nonsensical position. Again, it's like declaring war and then trying to roll it back because you never crossed a border, the genie doesnt go back into the bottle. I recall some fanbois even declaring that this was just a junior administrative error.

Lets recall the day in question:
EC declares that its triggering Article 16 without consulting Irish Government.
Press reports it
Shit hits fan
EC shit the bed and climb down before end of day.
Brits laugh their arse off given the previous high horsing from the EU on not imposing a border on NI. Moral high ground lost. Irish government made to look like the branch managers that they are
Dismayed Boards fanbois decide that as the instrument was never issued therefore none of this matters and do their best to commit it to the memory hole. Become visibly agitated whenever this fiasco interferes with their crowing about Brits making a mess of things

Why did the EU not correct every single news source on this if they got it wrong? Why did they not demand retractions? Because the news sources reported the facts and could back them up

Indeed, why don't you demand they retract now? I'msure Tony C and all the boys would love to hear you out. Let me know when they acknowledge that they got it wrong, otherwise zip it.

[6456739]

Indeed, why don't you demand they retract now? I'msure Tony C and all the boys would love to hear you out. Let me know when they acknowledge that they got it wrong, otherwise zip it.

Or you could go peddle your fake news somewhere else.

[Peregrinus]

Oh I'm sorry, I didnt realise the entire european media and politicians were just "other people" while you and the other fanbois from boards were somehow more reliable sources.

Your thinking, because the EU reversed their position within a day and didnt follow through on their stated aim that somehow the article 16 was not "really" triggered is a nonsensical position. Again, it's like declaring war and then trying to roll it back because you never crossed a border, the genie doesnt go back into the bottle. I recall some fanbois even declaring that this was just a junior administrative error.

Lets recall the day in question:
EC declares that its triggering Article 16 without consulting Irish Government.
Press reports it
Shit hits fan
EC shit the bed and climb down before end of day.
Brits laugh their arse off given the previous high horsing from the EU on not imposing a border on NI. Moral high ground lost. Irish government made to look like the branch managers that they are
Dismayed Boards fanbois decide that as the instrument was never issued therefore none of this matters and do their best to commit it to the memory hole. Become visibly agitated whenever this fiasco interferes with their crowing about Brits making a mess of things

Why did the EU not correct every single news source on this if they got it wrong? Why did they not demand retractions? Because the news sources reported the facts and could back them up

Indeed, why don't you demand they retract now? I'msure Tony C and all the boys would love to hear you out. Let me know when they acknowledge that they got it wrong, otherwise zip it.

Banshee, before we take this any further, can you confirm for us that you have actually read Art 16? Because the defence of your position you offer here suggests that you have no idea what it says. You seem to think that Art 16 can be triggered by a press release. That's not something you would think if you had read it.

Saying that you are going to take actions that Art 16 would allow you to take is not triggering Art 16. You haven't triggered Art 16 until you actually take the actions that it allows you to take. It's a bit like the UK saying that it's going to do a trade deal with the US. That's not the same thing as actually doing a trade deal with the US.

[Banshee Bones]

Any joy with having the entire media retract all those articles lads? No? Then, as the Brits like to say, jog on.

[6456739]

Any joy with having the entire media retract all those articles lads? No? Then, as the Brits like to say, jog on.

So, no evidence then. Quel surprise as the French might say.

[490808]

Here's another good Brexit one. My wife has been waiting for about 2 weeks for a thank you card from a niece in the UK.

It arrived today (yes Saturday and An Post) in a padded envelope with a customs sticker on it. The note inside the envelope said sorry about the large envelope for such a small card but the (UK) post office insisted on a customs declaration and this was the smallest envelope she could find that a customs declaration would fit on. A customs declaration for a card/letter?

I don't know about article 16 being triggered but some there's definitely been a serious outbreak of Brexit stupidity triggered in the UK.

[Peregrinus]

Any joy with having the entire media retract all those articles lads? No? Then, as the Brits like to say, jog on.

I realise that, as a Brexit supporter, you're unable to think for yourself. You've never read Art 16 and have no idea what it says or how it works, and when presented with the text of the EU instrument that supposedly triggered Art 16 but conspicuously doesn't you're unable to read it; you need an authority figure to tell you what to think. And, for you, the authority figure is the media.

Evidently you place implicit trust in the world's media. If I link you to a news media article that says that the EU did not trigger Art 16, would that persuade you? Or would your head just explode at an authority figure telling you something that you don't want to hear?

[CelticRambler]

An unexpected side-effect of Brexit - there was an unprecedented shift in the quality of UK ecstasy following Brexit and the lockdowns

Seems like there's a good chance that your favourite party drug might not be what you think it is, if you're dosing yourself up at any of the big festivals or heaving nightclubs in GB this year. After the Dutch manufacturers took time off during Covid, supplies are now not coming back into Britain because the post-Brexit lack of free movement is making it more difficult to find suitable hideyholes in legitimate freight.

Funny that this Brexit benefit appears in the Guardian rather than the Daily Mail ... but then again, I don't read the Daily Mail, so maybe I missed it!

[Hairy-Joe]

I find that kinda funny. Brexit means poor ecstasy tabs. What will the brexiteers make of that!

[Hairy-Joe]

Well, turns out the UK gov were more stupid than I thought band actually decided to announce and publish the bill that ignores what they signed up to a few months ago.

I can see this getting very messy and two possible solutions. If Boris and his ultra orthodox brexiteers stay in power, it'll be a border on the island and a strict application of WTO trade rules along with paperwork, visas for a visit to Belfast, etc. If there's an outbreak of common sense, Boris will get the heave and if more reasonable people get in, they'll come back to Europe saying "can we talk"? That should mean a proper solution in place.

I feel it all depends on the Tory backbenchers. Will they vote against this latest bill?

[CelticRambler]

There'll be no border on the island. From before the vote was held, the Serious People in the (Irish) Dept. of Foreign Affairs got their act together and made sure that the Irish position would be integral to any agreement. For all the bad mouthing of the Irish political class that takes place in certain quarters, Ireland has always exercised an unbelievable amount of "soft power" on the global stage, and will continue to reap the benefit of that all the while Britain acts the eejit.

Over on The Other Forum, I see that the same-old-same-old discussion has flickered back into life, with at least some posters thinking that the EU is (yet again ) going to throw Ireland under the bus and out of the Single Market. It's always been impressive how ... insular has been the perspective on Brexit from people who live in Ireland, when in fact ye've hardly been affected at all. Similarly, there appears to be an assumption that the Plain People of England will, sooner or later, give a damn about what happens to the Irish and do something about it.

They won't, but they will care a lot about how the current half-baked Brexit messes up their relationship with the rest of Europe, and they'll care even more if the EU decides that the TCA is fatally undermined by Johnson's dishonesty. It's only now, in this first post-pandemic holiday season, that the Plain People of England are coming face-to-face with the practical implications of being outside the EU. These are practical implications that are far more serious than the loss of ParcelMotel or Amazon VAT changes for folks living in Ireland.

Give it three months, for the common voter to experience the reality of Brexit and then wait for the EU to say: "You think things are bad now? Wait till these concessions expire ..."

FWIW, I think the Tory Rebels will kill this Bill as soon as they can. It'll be an "easy win" for them, as it doesn't affect any part of their constituents' lives, and it'll serve to remind Johnson of the Last Days of Theresa May.

[6456739]

There'll be no border on the island. From before the vote was held, the Serious People in the (Irish) Dept. of Foreign Affairs got their act together and made sure that the Irish position would be integral to any agreement. For all the bad mouthing of the Irish political class that takes place in certain quarters, Ireland has always exercised an unbelievable amount of "soft power" on the global stage, and will continue to reap the benefit of that all the while Britain acts the eejit.

Over on The Other Forum, I see that the same-old-same-old discussion has flickered back into life, with at least some posters thinking that the EU is (yet again ) going to throw Ireland under the bus and out of the Single Market. It's always been impressive how ... insular has been the perspective on Brexit from people who live in Ireland, when in fact ye've hardly been affected at all. Similarly, there appears to be an assumption that the Plain People of England will, sooner or later, give a damn about what happens to the Irish and do something about it.

They won't, but they will care a lot about how the current half-baked Brexit messes up their relationship with the rest of Europe, and they'll care even more if the EU decides that the TCA is fatally undermined by Johnson's dishonesty. It's only now, in this first post-pandemic holiday season, that the Plain People of England are coming face-to-face with the practical implications of being outside the EU. These are practical implications that are far more serious than the loss of ParcelMotel or Amazon VAT changes for folks living in Ireland.

Give it three months, for the common voter to experience the reality of Brexit and then wait for the EU to say: "You think things are bad now? Wait till these concessions expire ..."

FWIW, I think the Tory Rebels will kill this Bill as soon as they can. It'll be an "easy win" for them, as it doesn't affect any part of their constituents' lives, and it'll serve to remind Johnson of the Last Days of Theresa May.

Are we seriously not allowed to use the other site's name?

I agree though. I'm still stuck in London and, yeah. It's beginning to creep into the English collective psyche that Brexit was a f*cking moronic idea. They were fine when it was other people suffering but now that the middle classes are queuing longer than others for their flights to their French and Spanish villas, attitudes will slowly begin to change.

[Guburnor]

Are we seriously not allowed to use the other site's name?

Of course you are allowed to refer to boards.ie by name. References to the "other place" etc started as tongue in cheek response by some posters when the other place censored the word gubu to become ****

[6456739]

Of course you are allowed to refer to boards.ie by name. References to the "other place" etc started as tongue in cheek response by some posters when the other place censored the word gubu to become ****

Thanks, G.

Boards used to prevent users saying "Gubu" for some reason. Daft for an Irish site.

[isha]

Of course we can refer to planks.ie. It's just that every time you write planks.ie it is programmed to change automatically to planks.ie. So you have to put a space between the letters and then you can write it, see - p l a n k s .ie - DOH!!!

[CelticRambler]

It's all the fault of the French, innit. Nothing to do with the Brits voluntarily deciding to exclude themselves from the EU's freedom of movement, requiring their passports and travel history to be properly checked ...

Dover port declares ‘critical incident’ as travellers face four-hour queues

The Port of Dover has declared a “critical incident”, blaming “woefully inadequate” French border control staffing for queues of up to four hours as the busiest summer getaway in at least eight years kicks off.
...
Its chief executive, Doug Bannister, declared a critical incident, telling the BBC the port had been “badly let down” by French border controls that were “insufficiently resourced” and working slower than normal, causing traffic to queue for miles.

The Port of Dover said in a statement: “We are deeply frustrated that the resource at the French border overnight and early this morning has been woefully inadequate to meet our predicted demand and even more deeply regret the consequences that will now be felt by so many.

“We know that resource is finite, but the popularity of Dover is not a surprise. Regrettably, the Police Aux Frontières (PAF) resource has been insufficient and has fallen far short of what is required to ensure a smooth first weekend of the peak summer getaway period.”

Obviously the French ought to have followed the British example of just not employing enough staff and not insisting on comprehensive border checks by the few who are still available?

[Del.Monte]

The French could do with employing some more staff to stop all the migrants crossing the channel - how hard can it be to patrol beaches and harbours?

https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-53734793

[quodec]

Yeh, the Brits wanted to leave the EU, a lot of them couldn't wait to see the back of the European experiment, yet they love their holidays in the sun and buying up chateaux and villas and what not, but God help them if they have to suffer a bit of Brussels red tape. I hope the queues get twice as long!!! (there, rant over!)

[marhay70]

The French could do with employing some more staff to stop all the migrants crossing the channel - how hard can it be to patrol beaches and harbours?

https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-53734793

The French don't see it as their problem, they really don't give a fcuk. They thought the UK joining the EEC was bad news from the very start, De Gaulle said they would never be good Europeans and he has been proven right. The French attitude now is to let them stew in their own mess, and who can blame them?

[6456739]

The French could do with employing some more staff to stop all the migrants crossing the channel - how hard can it be to patrol beaches and harbours?

https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-53734793

Why?

The Tommy Robinsons of the UK can get off their backsides and pay for it themselves if it's that important to them.

[CelticRambler]

The French could do with employing some more staff to stop all the migrants crossing the channel - how hard can it be to patrol beaches and harbours?

Are you seriously suggesting that a country forcibly detain citizens of another country who don't want to be there?

In any case, the French did suggest to the British government that it would be entirely feasible to set up a "Rwanda" type arrangement whereby said migrants could be processed in France before they crossed the Channel, instead of them embarking on their dinghy adventure and then (maybe) being caught and shipped off to Africa for "processing". Apparently the British government weren't too keen on the idea.