USA Trade Deal Under Threat

1finny

Well-known member
#1
Johnson has had a letter saying if he does break international law the Senate won't pass the a trade deal because of the negative impact on Good Friday Agreement.

The good news is Raab is popping over to sort it all out.
 
#5
From the 4 congressmen who signed the letter 2 are, or were, IRA sympathisers with a dubious record in the area and one was a close friend of Martin McGuinness.

One said he wouldn't "morally blame" the IRA for killing civilians, and pledged to support the armed struggle (this same man then attempted to be a major voice against terror after 9/11).

One pressured Reagan to give asylum to someone fleeing a trial for killing a soldier.

One organised a ceremony for Martin McGuinness.

It would seem there may be ulterior motives at play here, not that you would know from the reporting of the letter.

The backstop has been politicised by both sides of the table in this "trade deal" and it was deeply irresponsible to do so, BOTH sides are playing with people's lives. It is a disgrace. There should have been an agreement up front that any discussion on the situation there should be behind closed doors, away from the glaring eye of the disgusting media. This was too serious even for the Brexit negotiations, which to be frank are a farce, on both sides.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
#6
Baggins you seem to be apportioning blame equally there. Not sure that is quite right. The UK and the EU had a signed international treaty that preserved the ireland protocol and now Boris wants to renege on it. It does seem very black and white to me. If you also add in the fact that the proposed bill Internal Market bill does not stop the EU imposing a hard border. It's a load of old nonsense.
 

FartingGnome

Well-known member
#7
I think what's more important than past history is that there are a great many like them. The point is they were onside, now they're not. Bringing up the past isn't going to change that or make it any easier.
 
#8
Baggins you seem to be apportioning blame equally there. Not sure that is quite right. The UK and the EU had a signed international treaty that preserved the ireland protocol and now Boris wants to renege on it. It does seem very black and white to me. If you also add in the fact that the proposed bill Internal Market bill does not stop the EU imposing a hard border. It's a load of old nonsense.
I'm not talking about the rights or wrongs of the WA, I see the argument to both sides and I reserve judgement on that, since the whole situation is a mess, which I believe nobody fully understands because neither side of the "trade deal talks" are acting fully in good faith, in my opinion.

I am talking about the reporting of a letter written by 4 people with potential ulterior motives like it is some kind of authority of the whole situation, I would imagine it is not.

I have friends and families on both sides of the debate, and it seems the narrative at the minute is written from the "Republican" side of things, the likes of the BBC would do well to remember that there is a balance to be struck here and a large part of the community over there are more concerned with a border between NI and Mainland Britain, instead of a border between NI and the Republic.
 
#12
It's been taken from a Spectator article and being friends with the Deputy First Minister of Norther Ireland isn't allowed apparently.
Nobody is saying that, my point is that there may be ulterior motives at play, yet the BBC use this letter as an "authority" on the subject.

My main issue is trust, or lack thereof, in the press and what I consider irresponsible reporting on the whole situation, which has arisen from deeply irresponsible political point scoring in my opinion.

Edit. I saw the summary in a social media discussion, I will see if I have enough free articles left on the Spectator this month to read the full thing.
 

NYboro

Well-known member
#14
Nobody is saying that, my point is that there may be ulterior motives at play, yet the BBC use this letter as an "authority" on the subject.
How do you define "authority"? It is authoritative insofar as Congress made the statement months ago that there will be no UK - US trade agreement if the Good Friday agreement is threatened by Brexit.
 

Lefty

Well-known member
#15
How do you define "authority"? It is authoritative insofar as Congress made the statement months ago that there will be no UK - US trade agreement if the Good Friday agreement is threatened by Brexit.
Three of the signatories appear to be Chairmen of relevant and important committees.
 

bear66

Well-known member
#16
Nobody is saying that, my point is that there may be ulterior motives at play, yet the BBC use this letter as an "authority" on the subject.

My main issue is trust, or lack thereof, in the press and what I consider irresponsible reporting on the whole situation, which has arisen from deeply irresponsible political point scoring in my opinion.

Edit. I saw the summary in a social media discussion, I will see if I have enough free articles left on the Spectator this month to read the full thing.
The Peace Agreement isn't an ulterior political motive. Destroying it is.
 
#17
2 issues for me -

1) Until the full outcome of all the negotiations are finalised, the relevant agreements/treaties updated then it means nothing
2) Various people pop up at various times in the USA to make comment. Has these been put to a vote in congress, and do they speak for all? Does the opinion of 4 people who may or may not have an ulterior motive (at least 3 appear to represent the Republican side of the discussion) represent the opinion of the whole of congress?
 
#19
The Peace Agreement isn't an ulterior political motive. Destroying it is.
Did you read my earlier post?

There are 2 sides to this issue - republican and unionist. Do you think the Unionists would be happy if the EU and UK do not come up with a new alternative should "no deal" happen, since it appears to be a no deal scenario that creates the issue with the WA. The fear seems to be that a border on the island would set off trouble from the Republicans, what about the risk of setting off trouble from the Unionist side?
 
Top
X