Cable Forum - UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33708171)

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36011039)

It’s to protect the Single Market. As I’ve said before we wouldn’t accept uncontrolled migration over an open border why would the EU accept an uncontrolled flood of goods?

That's incidental. The real reason for the backstop to be under the EU's control is as I've said earlier.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36011039)

It’s to protect the Single Market. As I’ve said before we wouldn’t accept uncontrolled migration over an open border why would the EU accept an uncontrolled flood of goods?

But that would be an issue for the EU, not the UK. It is the receiving country responsible for controlling things coming into their country. That is how it works in every other part of the world.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36011012)

As I see it, we have several public takes on Brexit negotiations:

1 Varadkar - keen to do a deal in New York next week;
2 Coveney - we’re miles away from a deal;
3 Juncker - a deal could be done by 31-Aug;
4 Barclay - we share the same ideals and objectives;
5 Barnier - neither optimistic nor pessimistic;
6 Finnish bloke - final proposals required by 30-Sep;
7 Verhofstat - the usual claptrap.

Looks bad for a deal.

Ignore. It's all rhetoric. I've said from the very start, we will get a deal. The EU is not going to shoot itself in the foot!

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36011040)

Unless you block non-UK compliant goods coming from Ireland/France and going on to France/Ireland, you have the SIMILAR risk of leaking into the UK internal market.
Link

You don’t. Shipments can be checked entering and exiting the UK to ensure they didn’t go for a detour.

---------- Post added at 19:59 ---------- Previous post was at 19:57 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36011044)

But that would be an issue for the EU, not the UK. It is the receiving country responsible for controlling things coming into their country. That is how it works in every other part of the world.

Indeed, the EU are concerned about this which is why it’s a backstop or a border.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36011047)

You don’t. Shipments can be checked entering and exiting the UK to ensure they didn’t go for a detour.

---------- Post added at 19:59 ---------- Previous post was at 19:57 ----------

Indeed, the EU are concerned about this which is why it’s a backstop or a border.

It was Dublin that insisted on the backstop and including it as part of the Withdrawal Agreement, in order to IMPOSE conditions on the UK.
Link(again)

Quote:

In October Kenny agreed with the European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, that technical talks between officials in Brussels and Dublin would open. They met again in January 2017 and agreed “there was no technical solution” to the border.
They were beginning to realise that only a political solution – specifically, regulatory alignment between Northern Ireland and the EU – could avert a hard border. This was the genesis of the backstop.
...
The Irish goal was to get the border into a legally binding withdrawal agreement – Dublin’s point of maximum leverage – rather than future trade relations, when Dublin would struggle to be heard.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36011049)

It was Dublin that insisted on the backstop and including it as part of the Withdrawal Agreement, in order to IMPOSE conditions on the UK.
Link(again)

Ireland would have more to lose with a flood of non-EU regulated goods into its territory.

I’m going to point out this isn’t a “new development” it’s just anti-Irish sentiment and moaning about the EU protecting the Single Market we are adamant we want to leave.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Bored now - next provocative pointless post will result in a time out for the poster (and anyone who responds).

This is a discussion forum, not an argument forum - learn, or get fracked.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36011050)

You mean like horse meat masquerading as beef?:rolleyes:

The article is from "The Guardian".

Flood? The regulations will be the same or very similar. The bigger problem is dodgy stuff and people coming from the EU. The EU could always follow our changes in regulations.

Link(again)

Quote:

Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said: "It's not enough on its own.
"We would need a single Irish economic zone, or whatever you would like to call it, to cover more than agriculture and food."

Which apparently includes:-
Link

Quote:

Northern Ireland would therefore remain fully part of the UK’s customs territory and would remain aligned with UK rules governing the regulation of industrial goods, state aid, fiscal rules and so on.

How is that anything but a takeover of NI?

Quote:

It is also potentially perilous for Dublin. Ireland has long resisted any notion that the UK would have a unilateral exit from the backstop. No serious discussions have yet started on what a consent mechanism might look like. But what if, as part of some overall deal, the Assembly could vote to exit the backstop, and the effect of that was to restore checks and controls at the border?

The Ireland-UK-France issues should be covered by
TIR (Transports Internationaux Routiers, International Road Transport)system.

Quote:

Although each EU Member State is a Contracting Party to the TIR Convention, the European Union is considered to be a single territory for the purposes of the TIR procedure. This means TIR can only be used in the Union for international movements, i. e. where the movement either starts or ends in a third country, or where the goods move between two or more EU Member States via the territory of a third country.
...
Each EU Member State, including the Union itself, is a Contracting Party to the TIR Convention 1975.

Still adds extra costs and delays for the Irish.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

I’m not sure your point. They’re protecting the Single Market, for a multitude of reasons including those you have specified.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

BREAKING: UK Supreme Court to give verdict on Miller/Cherry Prorogation cases, tomorrow 10.30am.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36011204)

BREAKING: UK Supreme Court to give verdict on Miller/Cherry Prorogation cases, tomorrow 10.30am.

Well, I hope the judges remember the Bill of Rights. They need to keep their noses out. If the judges interfere with this, there are major implications for our Constitution.

Boris has not broken any laws. All this fuss over five extra days!

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

You don't get to decide if he has or hasn't broken any laws. That's opinion on your part.

You imply that major implications for our Constitution is a bad thing. The fact we don't have a written one leaving it open to interpretation seems like the problematic issue here!

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36011228)

Well, I hope the judges remember the Bill of Rights. They need to keep their noses out. If the judges interfere with this, there are major implications for our Constitution.

Boris has not broken any laws. All this fuss over five extra days!

I don't think there is a law to actually break,be interesting to see if the court manages to cobble one together.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

You can't break the law if there wasn't one in the first place. Seems we need a law to keep MP's from taking over the country.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavin78 (Post 36011234)

You can't break the law if there wasn't one in the first place. Seems we need a law to keep MP's from taking over the country.

Umm, we elected them to do that ?