Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35997042)

Wrong as usual HUGH.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997044)

Who's to say they wouldn't? That is exactly what I am saying, isn't it? However, you have put the cart before the horse. The new PM would need to present all the arguments and all the alternatives to Parliament first and get their endorsement. That, in fact, is the main hurdle, not the EU!

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35997046)

That's a bit mean of you, mate.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35997049)

Apart from there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest the EU would accept this proposal... Then we're on an even sticker wicket than we already are.

My thought is that this has already been discussed and discounted for reasons we're not privy too

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35997046)

That's a bit mean of you, mate.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35997054)

The 'wrong as usual' is a commonly used bit of abuse on here. Seems to have originated from 'the top', then spread....

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35997049)

Apart from there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest the EU would accept this proposal... Then we're on an even sticker wicket than we already are.

My thought is that this has already been discussed and discounted for reasons we're not privy too

Originally Posted by Angua (Post 35997056)

Think one of the issues is the NI Border & GFA. That easily forgotten part of the UK that would have a direct border with the EU.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997060)

No, it has not been discussed and rejected - where did you get that from? All along, it has been TM's plan to get the Withdrawal Agreement done and dusted. Article 24 was the idea the ERG came up with, and it seems to me the Government has given this scant attention so far as they wanted to concentrate on getting the WA through.

Given that this has clearly failed, the attraction of Article 24 is that it does away with an agreement that Parliament would not sanction and gets us into the next stage - the trade agreement - at a stroke, so to speak. Let's concentrate on that now, and with a 10 year protection period available, that is way more time than the EU has already admitted it needed to resolve the backstop issue.

Where's the disadvantage to that?

---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:00 ----------



The EU is on record as saying that the backstop would be most unlikely to be needed within the existing timescales. So if they had a much longer period to resolve it - 10 years in all - why would they not agree it, given that it also provides for no tariffs while negotiations contiinue?

You're not accusing the EU of acting in bad faith, are you?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997060)

No, it has not been discussed and rejected - where did you get that from? All along, it has been TM's plan to get the Withdrawal Agreement done and dusted. Article 24 was the idea the ERG came up with, and it seems to me the Government has given this scant attention so far as they wanted to concentrate on getting the WA through.

Given that this has clearly failed, the attraction of Article 24 is that it does away with an agreement that Parliament would not sanction and gets us into the next stage - the trade agreement - at a stroke, so to speak. Let's concentrate on that now, and with a 10 year protection period available, that is way more time than the EU has already admitted it needed to resolve the backstop issue.

Where's the disadvantage to that?

---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:00 ----------



The EU is on record as saying that the backstop would be most unlikely to be needed within the existing timescales. So if they had a much longer period to resolve it - 10 years in all - why would they not agree it, given that it also provides for no tariffs while negotiations contiinue?

You're not accusing the EU of acting in bad faith, are you?

Originally Posted by Angua (Post 35997064)

No. The EU has to protect the RoI as a member of the EU. We are leaving, what happens to us will be on our heads alone.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35997067)

Yes and accepted.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35997068)

But not by all. hence the predicament in which we find ourselves.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997020)

You don't understand. Article 24 provides for the status quo to be maintained while a trade agreement is being negotiated. Once again, you are putting forward problems that don't exist.

Why can you not post solutions instead of objections? That would be much more constructive and stop this thread going around in circles.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35997073)

But it is you who are resetting the clock again! If only we just ask the EU to agree to the GATT Article 24 procedure, we will be home again in time for tea & cake. It's so easy & obvious, I cannot believe why no one has asked them before. I mean all that time, effort and money spent by the Government detailing why No Deal is bad for the country when all that had to go to BrexitCentral.com, ring up the EU and ask them to sign up to Article 24.