|
|
Post by partickpotter on Nov 28, 2018 7:52:45 GMT
That headline is a little misleading - sort of sloppy shoulders by the WTO. Nevertheless, the article contains one interesting piece of realpolitik: more than half of RoI beef exports goes to the UK. It's indicative of how dependent the republic is on the UK for trade; of course, it's also dependent on the EU for subsidies which leads to the conflict highlighted earlier in this chain for Ireland; the politicians need the EU but their industrialists need the UK. This beef example is interesting - because it shows how the EU could theoretically be harmed if a tarrif free deal with Brazil ended up with that beef making its way into the EU through NI. This btw is an "issue" regardless of soft or hard Brexit. I don't find it misleading. It's the WTO reminding everyone that they're not policemen. They facilitate a platform for global trade. That's all. Anyone quoting the WTO as a problem with Brexit is plain wrong. I agree with your last point. The headline though is misleading because they (the WTO) are saying some border controls may be necessary if tarrif asymmetries exist between nations with a land border if one of those nations has a concern. For the purposes of this discussion RoI and NI are separate nations. Which leads to a vital point made much earlier - who is going to raise the concern; the UK won't, The RoI won't. It can only be the EU. What the EU have done, very cleverly, is push this problem, which is their problem, onto the UK. The U.K. on the other hand, most uncleverly, has allowed this to happen. On the border issue they should tell the EU to sling their hook: Brexit proceeds with the RoI / NI border unchanged. |
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Nov 28, 2018 8:24:26 GMT
[quote timestamp="1543322831" author=" sheikhmomo" source="/post/6252176/thread Note to self: Pay more attention to news sites before posting in future.It's a pity more don't take up this mantra 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Nov 28, 2018 8:27:30 GMT
I don't find it misleading. It's the WTO reminding everyone that they're not policemen. They facilitate a platform for global trade. That's all. Anyone quoting the WTO as a problem with Brexit is plain wrong. Which leads to a vital point made much earlier - who is going to raise the concern; the UK won't, The RoI won't. It can only be the EU. What the EU have done, very cleverly, is push this problem, which is their problem, onto the UK. The U.K. on the other hand, most uncleverly, has allowed this to happen. & there it is... |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Nov 28, 2018 8:56:27 GMT
That headline is a little misleading - sort of sloppy shoulders by the WTO. Nevertheless, the article contains one interesting piece of realpolitik: more than half of RoI beef exports goes to the UK. It's indicative of how dependent the republic is on the UK for trade; of course, it's also dependent on the EU for subsidies which leads to the conflict highlighted earlier in this chain for Ireland; the politicians need the EU but their industrialists need the UK. This beef example is interesting - because it shows how the EU could theoretically be harmed if a tarrif free deal with Brazil ended up with that beef making its way into the EU through NI. This btw is an "issue" regardless of soft or hard Brexit. Cheap Brazilian beef where do I sign up for a van load of that sod the Irish |
|
|
|
Post by Timmypotter on Nov 28, 2018 9:10:32 GMT
I don't find it misleading. It's the WTO reminding everyone that they're not policemen. They facilitate a platform for global trade. That's all. Anyone quoting the WTO as a problem with Brexit is plain wrong. I agree with your last point. The headline though is misleading because they (the WTO) are saying some border controls may be necessary if tarrif asymmetries exist between nations with a land border if one of those nations has a concern. For the purposes of this discussion RoI and NI are separate nations. Which leads to a vital point made much earlier - who is going to raise the concern; the UK won't, The RoI won't. It can only be the EU. What the EU have done, very cleverly, is push this problem, which is their problem, onto the UK. The U.K. on the other hand, most uncleverly, has allowed this to happen. On the border issue they should tell the EU to sling their hook: Brexit proceeds with the RoI / NI border unchanged. I've never understood the Irish border 'problem' either. As you say, it's only the EU who have said there would need to be a hard border. It's their problem, and the way it's been weedled into the debate, using the troubles as a pretext, aided and abetted by Blair and his mates, is just wrong. If the EU feel the need to protect their single market and customs union with barbed wire then it's on them. |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Nov 28, 2018 9:16:19 GMT
I don't find it misleading. It's the WTO reminding everyone that they're not policemen. They facilitate a platform for global trade. That's all. Anyone quoting the WTO as a problem with Brexit is plain wrong. I agree with your last point. The headline though is misleading because they (the WTO) are saying some border controls may be necessary if tarrif asymmetries exist between nations with a land border if one of those nations has a concern. For the purposes of this discussion RoI and NI are separate nations. Which leads to a vital point made much earlier - who is going to raise the concern; the UK won't, The RoI won't. It can only be the EU. What the EU have done, very cleverly, is push this problem, which is their problem, onto the UK. The U.K. on the other hand, most uncleverly, has allowed this to happen. On the border issue they should tell the EU to sling their hook: Brexit proceeds with the RoI / NI border unchanged. Well, not just for the purpose of this discussion but in reality NI and RoI are separate Nations. They are separate now for currency, VAT, education, tax, anthems, flags etc etc. I've spent many hours twittering with trade experts, many of work or have worked for the WTO. By political will, which is a 2 minute phone call, the UK and the RoI agree to continue trading, as is, over the NI border. And that's it. In reality nothing changes. In theory any WTO member can make a point that traditional border controls are not being followed between the UK and RoI over what would be a WTO border. And that's it. Every 6 weeks or so the WTO meet and this observation would be noted. At the next meeting this point is raised again and duly noted again. At a third meeting the State complaining could raise their observation to a complaint. So you have to ask, who this State would be? Because when I've written RoI in reality that's the EU. Let's say it's Bulgaria. Would any EU member really lodge a complaint with the WTO criticising the EU (and the UK). No they wouldn't. They can as an individual member of WTO and a collective member of the EU but they won't. So let's say it's Japan or Argentina or China. Once the observation has been elevated to a complaint the parties in question have about 9 months to respond and explain why they're trading as they are. If the complainant isn't satisfied with this explanation they can return wanting to elevate the complaint further. Throughout this process those involved could offer the complainant a deal. If they turn a blind eye to the beef trade or widgets being sold over the NI border and drop their complaint we'll reduce import tariffs on your leather shoes (or some such). If these offers are still not accepted the complainant elevates their claim to compensation. Hard cash. Many more months go by whilst they calculate their compo and many more months go by after that whilst a counter offer is calculated and so on. And here's the kicker. The amount of compensation is calculated on the estimated amount the complainant is losing due to the unfair trading conditions between the UK and the EU. So Bulgaria or Japan or China actually have to be trading beef or widgets over the NI border in the first place. So who is going to annoy the UK and the EU by lodging a complaint? Who would then resist behind the scenes political pressure from both the UK and EU to back down? Who would than continue their cause for minimum 2-3 years? Who would then not dissolve their complaint into adjustments in other trade? Who would then continue to push for cash compo? Who is this State and what is that they're selling that is so precious? The answer of course is no State. Nobody. Even during this hypothetical, non-existent trade dispute, existing trade doesn't stop pending the decision. The NI border is a smoke screen that the EU have clung onto unchallenged by May and seemingly encouraged by her 'negotiators'. The reason it has gained traction is because the term 'political will' and the EU has offered none. |
|
|
|
Post by LL Cool Dave on Nov 28, 2018 9:44:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Nov 28, 2018 9:50:33 GMT
I agree with your last point. The headline though is misleading because they (the WTO) are saying some border controls may be necessary if tarrif asymmetries exist between nations with a land border if one of those nations has a concern. For the purposes of this discussion RoI and NI are separate nations. Which leads to a vital point made much earlier - who is going to raise the concern; the UK won't, The RoI won't. It can only be the EU. What the EU have done, very cleverly, is push this problem, which is their problem, onto the UK. The U.K. on the other hand, most uncleverly, has allowed this to happen. On the border issue they should tell the EU to sling their hook: Brexit proceeds with the RoI / NI border unchanged. I've never understood the Irish border 'problem' either. As you say, it's only the EU who have said there would need to be a hard border. It's their problem, and the way it's been weedled into the debate, using the troubles as a pretext, aided and abetted by Blair and his mates, is just wrong. If the EU feel the need to protect their single market and customs union with barbed wire then it's on them. I agree with comments above that the Irl/NI border is a non issue until someone makes it an issue, which the EU has done, and done it very well. They are very skilled in creating issues and getting what they want, particularly when they are negotiating with a partner who wants to cave in to them. I wonder what would change though, if the terrorists, sorry – refugees, and illegals began to realise that instead of drowning in the Channel, freezing to death in the back of a lorry or getting run over by a Euro tunnel train, all they need to do is make their way to Eire and then casually stroll over the border in to NI? Why the hell they would want to do that when the EU is Heaven on Earth as opposed to the Hellhole that the UK is about to become as an independent (free from the EU) nation I don't know but, leaving that aside, I think there could be issues around a hard border to control the flow of people from them to us. |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Nov 28, 2018 10:00:37 GMT
I've never understood the Irish border 'problem' either. As you say, it's only the EU who have said there would need to be a hard border. It's their problem, and the way it's been weedled into the debate, using the troubles as a pretext, aided and abetted by Blair and his mates, is just wrong. If the EU feel the need to protect their single market and customs union with barbed wire then it's on them. I agree with comments above that the Irl/NI border is a non issue until someone makes it an issue, which the EU has done, and done it very well. They are very skilled in creating issues and getting what they want, particularly when they are negotiating with a partner who wants to cave in to them. I wonder what would change though, if the terrorists, sorry – refugees, and illegals began to realise that instead of drowning in the Channel, freezing to death in the back of a lorry or getting run over by a Euro tunnel train, all they need to do is make their way to Eire and then casually stroll over the border in to NI? Why the hell they would want to do that when the EU is Heaven on Earth as opposed to the Hellhole that the UK is about to become as an independent (free from the EU) nation I don't know but, leaving that aside, I think there could be issues around a hard border to control the flow of people from them to us. Surely it will be the other way After March thousands of remainers will be skulking through bandit country trying to slip in to there beloved Eu |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 10:02:44 GMT
link
Let's add a little contrast A little balance A bit of ying to all that fucking yang
|
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Nov 28, 2018 10:42:59 GMT
link
Let's add a little contrast A little balance A bit of ying to all that fucking yang The country has had enough of experts from foundations telling us what to think.  |
|
|
|
Post by LL Cool Dave on Nov 28, 2018 10:48:41 GMT
link
Let's add a little contrast A little balance A bit of ying to all that fucking yang The country has had enough of experts from foundations telling us what to think. Particularly ones funded by Billionaire Republicans. I'll pass on this one, thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 11:30:54 GMT
The country has had enough of experts from foundations telling us what to think. Particularly ones funded by Billionaire Republicans. I'll pass on this one, thanks. Yeh you hang on the words of Hammond and the guardian 🤣🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Nov 28, 2018 11:44:07 GMT
But it's not a surprise is it? Remain tried the 'fewer pounds in your pocket' line during the ref campaign and it didn't resonate. Brexit isn't about money. Plus ALL these forecasts are RELATIVE to each other not against the status quo. So after Brexit we'll be 'worse off' than staying in the EU but still better off then we are today. The FT is a very Remain paper..... Attachment Deleted |
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Nov 28, 2018 11:56:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Nov 28, 2018 12:26:21 GMT
I agree with your last point. The headline though is misleading because they (the WTO) are saying some border controls may be necessary if tarrif asymmetries exist between nations with a land border if one of those nations has a concern. For the purposes of this discussion RoI and NI are separate nations. Which leads to a vital point made much earlier - who is going to raise the concern; the UK won't, The RoI won't. It can only be the EU. What the EU have done, very cleverly, is push this problem, which is their problem, onto the UK. The U.K. on the other hand, most uncleverly, has allowed this to happen. On the border issue they should tell the EU to sling their hook: Brexit proceeds with the RoI / NI border unchanged. Well, not just for the purpose of this discussion but in reality NI and RoI are separate Nations. They are separate now for currency, VAT, education, tax, anthems, flags etc etc. I've spent many hours twittering with trade experts, many of work or have worked for the WTO.
By political will, which is a 2 minute phone call, the UK and the RoI agree to continue trading, as is, over the NI border. And that's it. In reality nothing changes.In theory any WTO member can make a point that traditional border controls are not being followed between the UK and RoI over what would be a WTO border. And that's it. Every 6 weeks or so the WTO meet and this observation would be noted. At the next meeting this point is raised again and duly noted again. At a third meeting the State complaining could raise their observation to a complaint. So you have to ask, who this State would be? Because when I've written RoI in reality that's the EU. Let's say it's Bulgaria. Would any EU member really lodge a complaint with the WTO criticising the EU (and the UK). No they wouldn't. They can as an individual member of WTO and a collective member of the EU but they won't. So let's say it's Japan or Argentina or China. Once the observation has been elevated to a complaint the parties in question have about 9 months to respond and explain why they're trading as they are. If the complainant isn't satisfied with this explanation they can return wanting to elevate the complaint further. Throughout this process those involved could offer the complainant a deal. If they turn a blind eye to the beef trade or widgets being sold over the NI border and drop their complaint we'll reduce import tariffs on your leather shoes (or some such). If these offers are still not accepted the complainant elevates their claim to compensation. Hard cash. Many more months go by whilst they calculate their compo and many more months go by after that whilst a counter offer is calculated and so on. And here's the kicker. The amount of compensation is calculated on the estimated amount the complainant is losing due to the unfair trading conditions between the UK and the EU. So Bulgaria or Japan or China actually have to be trading beef or widgets over the NI border in the first place. So who is going to annoy the UK and the EU by lodging a complaint? Who would then resist behind the scenes political pressure from both the UK and EU to back down? Who would than continue their cause for minimum 2-3 years? Who would then not dissolve their complaint into adjustments in other trade? Who would then continue to push for cash compo? Who is this State and what is that they're selling that is so precious? The answer of course is no State. Nobody. Even during this hypothetical, non-existent trade dispute, existing trade doesn't stop pending the decision. The NI border is a smoke screen that the EU have clung onto unchallenged by May and seemingly encouraged by her 'negotiators'. The reason it has gained traction is because the term 'political will' and the EU has offered none. Are these the experts the country apparently had had enough of prior to the referendum? I don't see how they can come to this conclusion. If there is a no deal Brexit then the UK becomes a third country. As a member of the European Union, The Republic of Ireland cannot simply decide to unilaterally trade with a third country. Can it? |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 28, 2018 12:39:01 GMT
But it's not a surprise is it? Remain tried the 'fewer pounds in your pocket' line during the ref campaign and it didn't resonate. Brexit isn't about money. Plus ALL these forecasts are RELATIVE to each other not against the status quo. So after Brexit we'll be 'worse off' than staying in the EU but still better off then we are today. The FT is a very Remain paper and their forecast over 12 years is a potential difference between Remaining and No Deal is about 3.5%. Maybe. View AttachmentOh yes the people who couldn't forecast what would happen the day after Brexit, 2 weeks before are now telling us with a straight face what will happen in 10-12 years time  At last some of the mainstream media are picking up the point too we won't be worse off than we are now, we just might not be as well off as they forecast us to be (see point 1 on forecasts) |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 28, 2018 12:48:00 GMT
I agree with your last point. The headline though is misleading because they (the WTO) are saying some border controls may be necessary if tarrif asymmetries exist between nations with a land border if one of those nations has a concern. For the purposes of this discussion RoI and NI are separate nations. Which leads to a vital point made much earlier - who is going to raise the concern; the UK won't, The RoI won't. It can only be the EU. What the EU have done, very cleverly, is push this problem, which is their problem, onto the UK. The U.K. on the other hand, most uncleverly, has allowed this to happen. On the border issue they should tell the EU to sling their hook: Brexit proceeds with the RoI / NI border unchanged. Well, not just for the purpose of this discussion but in reality NI and RoI are separate Nations. They are separate now for currency, VAT, education, tax, anthems, flags etc etc. I've spent many hours twittering with trade experts, many of work or have worked for the WTO. By political will, which is a 2 minute phone call, the UK and the RoI agree to continue trading, as is, over the NI border. And that's it. In reality nothing changes. In theory any WTO member can make a point that traditional border controls are not being followed between the UK and RoI over what would be a WTO border. And that's it. Every 6 weeks or so the WTO meet and this observation would be noted. At the next meeting this point is raised again and duly noted again. At a third meeting the State complaining could raise their observation to a complaint. So you have to ask, who this State would be? Because when I've written RoI in reality that's the EU. Let's say it's Bulgaria. Would any EU member really lodge a complaint with the WTO criticising the EU (and the UK). No they wouldn't. They can as an individual member of WTO and a collective member of the EU but they won't. So let's say it's Japan or Argentina or China. Once the observation has been elevated to a complaint the parties in question have about 9 months to respond and explain why they're trading as they are. If the complainant isn't satisfied with this explanation they can return wanting to elevate the complaint further. Throughout this process those involved could offer the complainant a deal. If they turn a blind eye to the beef trade or widgets being sold over the NI border and drop their complaint we'll reduce import tariffs on your leather shoes (or some such). If these offers are still not accepted the complainant elevates their claim to compensation. Hard cash. Many more months go by whilst they calculate their compo and many more months go by after that whilst a counter offer is calculated and so on. And here's the kicker. The amount of compensation is calculated on the estimated amount the complainant is losing due to the unfair trading conditions between the UK and the EU. So Bulgaria or Japan or China actually have to be trading beef or widgets over the NI border in the first place. So who is going to annoy the UK and the EU by lodging a complaint? Who would then resist behind the scenes political pressure from both the UK and EU to back down? Who would than continue their cause for minimum 2-3 years? Who would then not dissolve their complaint into adjustments in other trade? Who would then continue to push for cash compo? Who is this State and what is that they're selling that is so precious? The answer of course is no State. Nobody. Even during this hypothetical, non-existent trade dispute, existing trade doesn't stop pending the decision. The NI border is a smoke screen that the EU have clung onto unchallenged by May and seemingly encouraged by her 'negotiators'. The reason it has gained traction is because the term 'political will' and the EU has offered none. Yes for whatever reason it seems we played along with the EU even when their preferred solution was using technology in the irish sea to create a border there it appear we lacked the whit to ask why technology works on water but not on land..... It is also very debatable whether this is even something for the EU at all (Sir Christopher Meyer below) or if it was it should have actually been for the future trading relationship rather than the withdrawal agreement. |
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Nov 28, 2018 12:56:49 GMT
Gutless McDonnell looks like he's leaning towards a second referendum, now. Utter wanker.
|
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 28, 2018 13:07:37 GMT
Gutless McDonnell looks like he's leaning towards a second referendum, now. Utter wanker. They only see Brexit as a means of getting elected, they have failed to trigger a General Election so a referendum is another route to the same end, the good news is that whether parliament votes for or against a referendum there is no legal requirement for the government to follow this so fingers crossed the deal gets voted down and we just leave on 29/3/19, we might get to the right end position despite all their best efforts. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 13:29:23 GMT
Gutless McDonnell looks like he's leaning towards a second referendum, now. Utter wanker. They have no policy themselves (and can only sit and criticise and heckle) and are just a bunch of gutless, feckless oiks. Ably led by the bearded wonder, marxist McD, and good old Diane Abacus. No need to worry if they get elected then ! God help us ! |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Nov 28, 2018 13:32:33 GMT
Well, not just for the purpose of this discussion but in reality NI and RoI are separate Nations. They are separate now for currency, VAT, education, tax, anthems, flags etc etc. I've spent many hours twittering with trade experts, many of work or have worked for the WTO.
By political will, which is a 2 minute phone call, the UK and the RoI agree to continue trading, as is, over the NI border. And that's it. In reality nothing changes.In theory any WTO member can make a point that traditional border controls are not being followed between the UK and RoI over what would be a WTO border. And that's it. Every 6 weeks or so the WTO meet and this observation would be noted. At the next meeting this point is raised again and duly noted again. At a third meeting the State complaining could raise their observation to a complaint. So you have to ask, who this State would be? Because when I've written RoI in reality that's the EU. Let's say it's Bulgaria. Would any EU member really lodge a complaint with the WTO criticising the EU (and the UK). No they wouldn't. They can as an individual member of WTO and a collective member of the EU but they won't. So let's say it's Japan or Argentina or China. Once the observation has been elevated to a complaint the parties in question have about 9 months to respond and explain why they're trading as they are. If the complainant isn't satisfied with this explanation they can return wanting to elevate the complaint further. Throughout this process those involved could offer the complainant a deal. If they turn a blind eye to the beef trade or widgets being sold over the NI border and drop their complaint we'll reduce import tariffs on your leather shoes (or some such). If these offers are still not accepted the complainant elevates their claim to compensation. Hard cash. Many more months go by whilst they calculate their compo and many more months go by after that whilst a counter offer is calculated and so on. And here's the kicker. The amount of compensation is calculated on the estimated amount the complainant is losing due to the unfair trading conditions between the UK and the EU. So Bulgaria or Japan or China actually have to be trading beef or widgets over the NI border in the first place. So who is going to annoy the UK and the EU by lodging a complaint? Who would then resist behind the scenes political pressure from both the UK and EU to back down? Who would than continue their cause for minimum 2-3 years? Who would then not dissolve their complaint into adjustments in other trade? Who would then continue to push for cash compo? Who is this State and what is that they're selling that is so precious? The answer of course is no State. Nobody. Even during this hypothetical, non-existent trade dispute, existing trade doesn't stop pending the decision. The NI border is a smoke screen that the EU have clung onto unchallenged by May and seemingly encouraged by her 'negotiators'. The reason it has gained traction is because the term 'political will' and the EU has offered none. Are these the experts the country apparently had had enough of prior to the referendum? I don't see how they can come to this conclusion. If there is a no deal Brexit then the UK becomes a third country. As a member of the European Union, The Republic of Ireland cannot simply decide to unilaterally trade with a third country. Can it? If there is a bilateral agreement between the parties either side of the NI border (UK and EU) to keep an 'open' border then it's up to another country to complain. The EU won't agree to this of course because the confected Irish border "problem" is where the EU has nailed it's colours to make Brexit as difficult as possible. Varadkar has gone along with Brussels 100% so it would be almost impossible to see him agree an open border with London without the nod from Brussels. Technically they could but no doubt the EU would fine them, or more, as they did over the Apple tax thing. 'Experts' - @julianunwto @davidheniguk @allierenison @coppetainpu @lsebrexitvote @shankerasingham @dmitryopines @henrynewman |
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Nov 28, 2018 14:18:22 GMT
Gutless McDonnell looks like he's leaning towards a second referendum, now. Utter wanker. They have no policy themselves (and can only sit and criticise and heckle) and are just a bunch of gutless, feckless oiks. Ably led by the bearded wonder, marxist McD, and good old Diane Abacus. No need to worry if they get elected then ! God help us ! “ …and can only sit and criticise and heckle”. But that is their modus operandi, particularly Jezza which is why he is such a shit leader. There is a legitimate place for critics and hecklers in politics (The Beast of Bolsover, and George Galloway are good examples) but they rarely make good leaders in my experience. Leaders lead, hecklers heckle and all the while Theresa May is still the Prime Minister  As you said, "God help us!". |
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Nov 28, 2018 15:34:22 GMT
Are these the experts the country apparently had had enough of prior to the referendum? I don't see how they can come to this conclusion. If there is a no deal Brexit then the UK becomes a third country. As a member of the European Union, The Republic of Ireland cannot simply decide to unilaterally trade with a third country. Can it? If there is a bilateral agreement between the parties either side of the NI border (UK and EU) to keep an 'open' border then it's up to another country to complain. The EU won't agree to this of course because the confected Irish border "problem" is where the EU has nailed it's colours to make Brexit as difficult as possible. Varadkar has gone along with Brussels 100% so it would be almost impossible to see him agree an pen border with London withgou the nod from Brussels. Technically they could but no doubt the EU would fine them, or more, as they did over the Apple tax thing. 'Experts' - @julianunwto @davidheniguk @allierenison @coppetainpu @lsebrexitvote @shankerasingham @dmitryopines @henrynewman |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Nov 28, 2018 16:23:50 GMT
If there is a bilateral agreement between the parties either side of the NI border (UK and EU) to keep an 'open' border then it's up to another country to complain. The EU won't agree to this of course because the confected Irish border "problem" is where the EU has nailed it's colours to make Brexit as difficult as possible. Varadkar has gone along with Brussels 100% so it would be almost impossible to see him agree an pen border with London without the nod from Brussels. Technically they could but no doubt the EU would fine them, or more, as they did over the Apple tax thing. 'Experts' - @julianunwto @davidheniguk @allierenison @coppetainpu @lsebrexitvote @shankerasingham @dmitryopines @henrynewman I've read all the reviews. But here's the thing. Nothing is perfect. If anyone is waiting for a perfect Brexit they will be waiting until they die. That's the EU's (and May's) plan. A neverendum of debate, negotiations and deadlines all designed to produce yet another fork in the road. A perfect Brexit doesn't exist just like the EU isn't perfect but just chooses to bend it's own rules when and where it wants. A perfect trade border doesn't exist. Brexit has never been done before. There is no blueprint or precedent. Singham's proposal isn't a legal text more a direction of travel. The only form of Brexit that fits the EU's rules-based order is a No Deal. No blurring of rules and dependency of 'good will'. At least the IEA's plan illustrates a different mindset. A different approach that No.10 insist doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Nov 28, 2018 16:29:40 GMT
I've read all the reviews. But here's the thing. Nothing is perfect. If anyone is waiting for a perfect Brexit they will be waiting until they die. That's the EU's (and May's) plan. A neverendum of debate, negotiations and deadlines all designed to produce yet another fork in the road. A perfect Brexit doesn't exist just like the EU isn't perfect but just chooses to bend it's own rules when and where it wants. A perfect trade border doesn't exist. Brexit has never been done before. There is no blueprint or precedent. Singham's proposal isn't a legal text more a direction of travel. The only form of Brexit that fits the EU's rules-based order is a No Deal. No blurring of rules and dependency of 'good will'. At least the IEA's plan illustrates a different mindset. A different approach that No.10 insist doesn't exist. Presumably May's Withdrawal Agreement fits in with the EU's rules-based order, as the EU have accepted it? |
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Nov 28, 2018 16:47:12 GMT
May,a remainer,the deal should keep her and most other remainers happy.  |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Nov 28, 2018 16:59:34 GMT
I've read all the reviews. But here's the thing. Nothing is perfect. If anyone is waiting for a perfect Brexit they will be waiting until they die. That's the EU's (and May's) plan. A neverendum of debate, negotiations and deadlines all designed to produce yet another fork in the road. A perfect Brexit doesn't exist just like the EU isn't perfect but just chooses to bend it's own rules when and where it wants. A perfect trade border doesn't exist. Brexit has never been done before. There is no blueprint or precedent. Singham's proposal isn't a legal text more a direction of travel. The only form of Brexit that fits the EU's rules-based order is a No Deal. No blurring of rules and dependency of 'good will'. At least the IEA's plan illustrates a different mindset. A different approach that No.10 insist doesn't exist. Presumably May's Withdrawal Agreement fits in with the EU's rules-based order, as the EU have accepted it? Correct because it's not leaving. It's not "the deal" it's only an agreement to talk about a deal but within this preamble is the trap. There never, ever will be a trade deal with the EU if that WA passes Parliament. There will never be a Brexit. It's not May's deal. It was originally written in French. The ECJ has jurisdiction over the whole thing. The UK can't unilaterally leave but we continue to follow the EU rules on trade, defence, environment, refugees, state aid, tax and VAT, fishing, budget contributions etc, etc. All there in black and white. The Seven Deadly Sins in the draft Withdrawal AgreementThe so called future deal, that thing that threatens to change the EU's rules is only a vague wish list. An aspiration. Zero is legally binding and for very good reason. They don't intend to go through with any bespoke Trade deal. They never have. It's No Deal or stay in the EU forever by legally binding International Treaty which binds future UK Governments whatever the colour of their rosette. |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Nov 28, 2018 17:05:35 GMT
Gutless McDonnell looks like he's leaning towards a second referendum, now. Utter wanker. They have no policy themselves (and can only sit and criticise and heckle) and are just a bunch of gutless, feckless oiks. Ably led by the bearded wonder, marxist McD, and good old Diane Abacus. No need to worry if they get elected then ! God help us ! Corbyn was a absolute clown at pm questions today Taunting the pm about losing twenty ministers May I’ll take no lessons of a person who has lost a 100 The time is coming for the true labour position to come out and shit on the leave voters of the north and midlands Let’s hope for the socialist’ s on here that enough of the Islington luvies vote labour and they sweep the south |
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Nov 28, 2018 17:29:11 GMT
Presumably May's Withdrawal Agreement fits in with the EU's rules-based order, as the EU have accepted it? Correct because it's not leaving. It's not "the deal" it's only an agreement to talk about a deal but within this preamble is the trap. There never, ever will be a trade deal with the EU if that WA passes Parliament. There will never be a Brexit. It's not May's deal. It was originally written in French. The ECJ has jurisdiction over the whole thing. The UK can't unilaterally leave but we continue to follow the EU rules on trade, defence, environment, refugees, state aid, tax and VAT, fishing, budget contributions etc, etc. All there in black and white. The Seven Deadly Sins in the draft Withdrawal AgreementThe so called future deal, that thing that threatens to change the EU's rules is only a vague wish list. An aspiration. Zero is legally binding and for very good reason. They don't intend to go through with any bespoke Trade deal. They never have. It's No Deal or stay in the EU forever by legally binding International Treaty which binds future UK Governments whatever the colour of their rosette. Was there ever a plan to have a legally binding, all-details-spelled-out trade deal agreed before the Withdrawal Agreement is passed (or not passed, as the case may be)? I agree the document for the future deal is very wooly at the moment but it's not surprising that the plan for the second step is rough when the first step hasn't even been signed off yet. |
|
