No deal off the table now?

[TestMangler]

???

Compare the deaths from terrorism in the UK in the 20 years pre-1998, to the deaths in the 20 years after. And them come back on and say that it hasn't solved any problems.

People don't count to the likes of OPM unless they're wearing Union Jack boxers, have a bulldog called Winston and still sing God Save the Queen when they switch the telly off.

A few hundred dead outside earshot of his own garden are hardly likely to be a sticking point.

[Old Greg]

Not saying we should walk away from it - but it does not seem we have 'solved' any problems we have just kicked them down the road.

But from what I gather - no one wants a hard border, and the GFA says we cannot have a hard border

But it seems that we need a hard border?

or do we?

The GFA says there must not be a hard border.
Lack of hard border is facilitated by the CTA for people and by the SM and CU for goods.
The UK is planning to leave the SM and CU so needs to agree an alternative way of facilitating no hard border for goods. The British government negotiated the WA with backstop with the EU. If the UK now wants to walk away from this, it must propose a credible alternative, if it intends to honour its GFA commitments.

[original PM]

???

Compare the deaths from terrorism in the UK in the 20 years pre-1998, to the deaths in the 20 years after. And them come back on and say that it hasn't solved any problems.

So we gave them what they wanted to stop them killing people?

I thought we did not negotiate with terrorists?

We were at war with a number of countries in Europe 70 years ago - we do not seem to have to worry about terrorist attacks from them.

Again not saying the GFA is bad and it has done a lot of good - but it is now 20 years old and needs to be reviewed to see if it is still relevant in today's political climate.

[Lance]

Again not saying the GFA is bad and it has done a lot of good - but it is now 20 years old and needs to be reviewed to see if it is still relevant in today's political climate.

Treaties are built on treaties that are built on treaties. If we get rid of the GFA then we need to review the 1922 treaty. And then we need to review why NI is part of the UK in the first place. And then the guns start firing again.
That's why we need to keep treaties.

It's not like your fooking electricity supplier. You know that don't you?

And you think Breixt is messy now. Wait and see what happens when we try to pick apart the treaties that we signed up to for that and that are embedded in our legal system.
Whatever you might think Brexit doesn't finish on 29th March (or whenever).

[AtW]

Brexit will finish when England rejoins EU

[meridian]

So we gave them what they wanted to stop them killing people?

No, our governments came to a negotiated agreement that tenuously satisfied all sides. One side got what it wanted (NI to remain in the UK) and the other side got an illusion of what it wanted (an island free of borders so that we can all pretend that it is united in some way).

I thought we did not negotiate with terrorists?

We didn't, officially. We negotiated with governments and political representatives. Your milage may vary on whether they had previously been terrorists or not.

We were at war with a number of countries in Europe 70 years ago - we do not seem to have to worry about terrorist attacks from them.

We negotiated a settlement with them. As our allies (eg USA) negotiated a settlement with us. In the previous war (the Great War) we didn't negotiate a very good settlement, which resulted in WW2.

Again not saying the GFA is bad and it has done a lot of good - but it is now 20 years old and needs to be reviewed to see if it is still relevant in today's political climate.

In my personal opinion it is still relevant. If there is a political will on all sides to revisit it then no doubt it will be revisited. For the moment though, the GFA is what we have as an international treaty.

You still haven't provided any explanation of WHY you would like to revisit it. Presumably because it is throwing a spanner in your Brexit works, which seems to be a very selfish reason for revisiting and not related to whether it is actually needed in the place that it applies to?

[original PM]

Treaties are built on treaties that are built on treaties. If we get rid of the GFA then we need to review the 1922 treaty. And then we need to review why NI is part of the UK in the first place. And then the guns start firing again.
That's why we need to keep treaties.

It's not like your fooking electricity supplier. You know that don't you?

And you think Breixt is messy now. Wait and see what happens when we try to pick apart the treaties that we signed up to for that and that are embedded in our legal system.
Whatever you might think Brexit doesn't finish on 29th March (or whenever).

Is the political and social climate which led to the 1922 treaty still relevant today?

Ditto for GFA

Not saying we need to get rid of these treaties but things are changing - we are leaving the EU and so this means all these things need to be looked at.

If at the end of the day you are saying we can do nothing about the Ireland situation lest they start to commit acts of terrorism against women and children then I say the treaty is not worth the paper it is written on.

But you are telling me its fine to be held over a barrel with a gun stuck in your temple

[meridian]

Is the political and social climate which led to the 1922 treaty still relevant today?

Ditto for GFA

Not saying we need to get rid of these treaties but things are changing - we are leaving the EU and so this means all these things need to be looked at.

If at the end of the day you are saying we can do nothing about the Ireland situation lest they start to commit acts of terrorism against women and children then I say the treaty is not worth the paper it is written on.

But you are telling me its fine to be held over a barrel with a gun stuck in your temple

How exactly do you think the partition of Ireland took place? Do you think it was all friendly japes with brandy and cigars?

[Old Greg]

So we gave them what they wanted to stop them killing people?

I thought we did not negotiate with terrorists?

We were at war with a number of countries in Europe 70 years ago - we do not seem to have to worry about terrorist attacks from them.

Again not saying the GFA is bad and it has done a lot of good - but it is now 20 years old and needs to be reviewed to see if it is still relevant in today's political climate.

The GFA is a huge compromise by all parties. RoI gave up claim to NI. British and Irish identity both recognised as valid for NI citizens. RUC abolished and replaced by PSNI. Power sharing (not perfect obviously). Etc. It's not just about terrorism. It's about managing the partition.

To unpick this is a big piece of work that all parties would need to engage in. But from 30 March onwards the border must remain fully open as now, and now that openness is facilitated by UK and Ireland being in SM and CU.

[original PM]

The GFA is a huge compromise by all parties. RoI gave up claim to NI. British and Irish identity both recognised as valid for NI citizens. RUC abolished and replaced by PSNI. Power sharing (not perfect obviously). Etc. It's not just about terrorism. It's about managing the partition.

To unpick this is a big piece of work that all parties would need to engage in. But from 30 March onwards the border must remain fully open as now, and now that openness is facilitated by UK and Ireland being in SM and CU.

Thank you for the clarification - although when you say it is not about terrorism it seems some people believe terrorism will return if we are to look at/change the GFA

Anyway the question comes back to whether we need a hard border between Eire and NI - everybody says no

So sorted then?