Cable Forum
Page 3 of 56 12 3 45671353 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

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)

jfman 19-09-2019 11:49
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36010755)
Oh come on - normal scrutiny takes more than a day, more than a week, months, a Bill being rushed through in one day is not being scrutinised as it should be through each stage, the Parliamentary processes, were broken by the Speaker, so your point is moot.
I accept that it's not the usual practice but Parliament gets to decide. That is its role.

Hugh 19-09-2019 12:54
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36010763)
"Cobbled together" is a fair colloquialism for something that has been hurriedly put through a process.

and there is no denying that the bill was hurried. Given that the average time for a bill to go through Parliament is a year.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/legislat...ugh-parliament
He said in one day - they took 4 and 6 days (not including the time to actually write the bills).

Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36010710)
if they can cobble together new legislation in one day,8 days gives them time to do whatever they want to.

OLD BOY 19-09-2019 13:11
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36010767)
He said in one day - they took 4 and 6 days (not including the time to actually write the bills).
8 days should be plenty, then! :D

papa smurf 19-09-2019 13:29
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36010768)
8 days should be plenty, then! :D
Yes that's at least 8 more dodgy laws they can cobble together.

There's probably a stack of bills on the speakers desk ready for every eventuality,we all know democracy must be stopped at all costs.

1andrew1 19-09-2019 14:06
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Wonder why all these people want Brexit?

Quote:
Names that popped up in the Paradise Papers and will need to be living in a non-EU country before the EU Jan 2020 Tax Directive kicks in:
  • Rees-Mogg
  • Aaron Banks
  • Barclay Brothers (Daily Telegraph proprietors)
  • Andrea Leadsom's husband & brother in law
https://twitter.com/selzero/status/1171374980673822720

nomadking 19-09-2019 14:39
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36010774)
Wonder why all these people want Brexit?



https://twitter.com/selzero/status/1171374980673822720
It's a directive, so will have had to be passed into UK law separately. That is the way EU directives work. Each nation has to pass it's own version.


Also it's an amendment of an earlier directive which.
Quote:
Member States should apply these measures as from 1 January 2019.

Pierre 19-09-2019 14:43
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36010774)
Wonder why all these people want Brexit?



https://twitter.com/selzero/status/1171374980673822720
We’ve heard it all before

Mick 19-09-2019 14:59
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36010767)
He said in one day - they took 4 and 6 days (not including the time to actually write the bills).
And one day is correct,

I don't know why you keep bringing this up as though it is false - it is not, no matter how many times you want to repeat yourself. The Cooper/Letwin Bill was introduced and passed all of it's stages in one day, no-ones arguing that the Bill was not done and got Royal Assent, in one day, not interested in this, what is at stake is that the Bills were cobbled together, and no amount of spinning this by you will change this Hugh, you are fundamentally wrong on this. Papa is right, the Bills were cobbled together.

OLD BOY 19-09-2019 17:18
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36010774)
Wonder why all these people want Brexit?



https://twitter.com/selzero/status/1171374980673822720
Your point being? I voted Brexit, but the directive most certainly doesn't affect me.

The correlation is ridiculous and typical of the mud slinging that the remainers are throwing at the Brexiteers as they become more and more desperate to overturn the democratic vote.

Shame on all their houses.

1andrew1 19-09-2019 17:28
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36010800)
Your point being? I voted Brexit, but the directive most certainly doesn't affect me.

The correlation is ridiculous and typical of the mud slinging that the remainers are throwing at the Brexiteers as they become more and more desperate to overturn the democratic vote.

Shame on all their houses.
My comments are valid and obviously about the people I list and not anyone else. It shows why these six people are potentially pro-Brexit and why they may want us to exit before that deadline.

jfman 19-09-2019 17:28
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36010800)
Your point being? I voted Brexit, but the directive most certainly doesn't affect me.

The correlation is ridiculous and typical of the mud slinging that the remainers are throwing at the Brexiteers as they become more and more desperate to overturn the democratic vote.

Shame on all their houses.
It's hardly ridiculous to assert that campaigners and certain media outlets had significant vested interest against the upcoming EU tax directive. It's a clear fact.

nomadking 19-09-2019 17:58
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010807)
It's hardly ridiculous to assert that campaigners and certain media outlets had significant vested interest against the upcoming EU tax directive. It's a clear fact.
The original directive is from 2016.

The UK ALREADY has similar laws in place and therefore.
Link
Quote:
The changes included here implement the provisions of the ATAD. It applies to all taxpayers that are subject to corporate tax in one or more member states of the EU and deals with exit taxes on unrealised Capital Gains on assets transferred out of the tax jurisdiction
...
This measure is expected to have a negligible impact on the Exchequer.
Link
Quote:
The level of revenue accrued to the public purse as a result of the implementation of Article 5 of the EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of the European Parliament) is expected to be negligible. The UK already has comprehensive exit taxation rules, and the changes necessary to implement the directive are relatively minor and primarily of an administrative nature.

jfman 19-09-2019 18:02
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36010809)
The original directive is from 2016.

The UK ALREADY has similar laws in place and therefore.
Link
Link
Original, not updated.

Similar, not identical.

nomadking 19-09-2019 18:26
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010810)
Original, not updated.

Similar, not identical.
Still fulfils EU rules with the impact being NEGLIGIBLE, ie virtually nothing.

The UK has an agreement with the Netherlands that came into force in 2011 and with Luxembourg from 1968!

Link
Quote:
Multilateral convention to implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting
...
The UK signed the Multilateral Instrument (MLI) in Paris on 7 June 2017 and deposited its instrument of ratification and final list of reservations and notifications on 29 June 2018.
The MLI will enter into force for the UK on 1 October 2018 and will begin to have effect in the UK for UK tax treaties from:
Basically arrangements have been made with various EU and non-EU countries, outside the EU jurisdiction long before now.

We even have arrangements with Albania.
List of Countries

jfman 19-09-2019 18:36
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36010811)
Still fulfils EU rules with the impact being NEGLIGIBLE, ie virtually nothing.

The UK has an agreement with the Netherlands that came into force in 2011 and with Luxembourg from 1968!

Link
Basically arrangements have been made with various EU and non-EU countries, outside the EU jurisdiction long before now.

We even have arrangements with Albania.
List of Countries
Irrelevant. They don’t want us to adhere to soon to be implemented EU rules. Negligible can be different enough.

What about UK offshore tax havens?

The legislation could match 99.99% and still leave loopholes for the previously mentioned group.

nomadking 19-09-2019 18:56
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010813)
Irrelevant. They don’t want us to adhere to soon to be implemented EU rules. Negligible can be different enough.

What about UK offshore tax havens?

The legislation could match 99.99% and still leave loopholes for the previously mentioned group.
The UK introduced laws BEFORE the EU got involved. That is why implementing the EU rules will have a negligible impact.

This is about where money is transferred between countries. Eg earned in Albania but transferred to the UK. Any tax paid in Albania is taken into account when calculating the UK tax due. If it remains in Albania, then it is nothing to do with the EU or anybody else, just Albania.

Money transferred from the UK to a tax haven will already have been taxed in the UK. Any profits the business in the Tax haven makes, are subject to that countries rules only. It is when any profits are transferred back to the UK, it becomes liable for UK tax.


Money invested in a tax haven hedge fund will have already been taxed in the originating country. Money that is earned by the hedge fund will be taxed according to the tax haven rules. But when profits are sent back to the investors they will be subject to the rules of their country.

OLD BOY 19-09-2019 19:03
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010807)
It's hardly ridiculous to assert that campaigners and certain media outlets had significant vested interest against the upcoming EU tax directive. It's a clear fact.
Except that it implies that this is their motivation, whether good for the country or not.

I like eating turkey in the festive season, but that is not the reason I like Christmas.

jfman 19-09-2019 19:04
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36010814)
The UK introduced laws BEFORE the EU got involved. That is why implementing the EU rules will have a negligible impact.

This is about where money is transferred between countries. Eg earned in Albania but transferred to the UK. Any tax paid in Albania is taken into account when calculating the UK tax due. If it remains in Albania, then it is nothing to do with the EU or anybody else, just Albania.

Money transferred from the UK to a tax haven will already have been taxed in the UK. Any profits the business in the Tax haven makes, are subject to that countries rules only. It is when any profits are transferred back to the UK, it becomes liable for UK tax.

Money invested in a tax haven hedge fund will have already been taxed in the originating country. Money that is earned by the hedge fund will be taxed according to the tax haven rules. But when profits are sent back to the investors they will be subject to the rules of their country.
Again none of this is relevant in the context of wanting to avoid a similar but not identical EU directive that closes further loopholes.

They’re rational capitalists - of course they want different rules.

---------- Post added at 19:04 ---------- Previous post was at 19:03 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36010815)
Except that it implies that this is their motivation, whether good for the country or not.

I like eating turkey in the festive season, but that is not the reason I like Christmas.
Rational capitalists seek to income maximise. The good of the country is irrelevant.

nomadking 19-09-2019 19:09
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010816)
Again none of this is relevant in the context of wanting to avoid a similar but not identical EU directive that closes further loopholes.

They’re rational capitalists - of course they want different rules.

---------- Post added at 19:04 ---------- Previous post was at 19:03 ----------



Rational capitalists seek to income maximise. The good of the country is irrelevant.
If we remain in the EU:mad:, then NOTHING will have to be changed. It is STILL compliant with the EU directive, (for the most part) BEFORE the directive even existed.

jfman 19-09-2019 19:12
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36010819)
If we remain in the EU:mad:, then NOTHING will have to be changed. It is STILL compliant with the EU directive, (for the most part) BEFORE the directive even existed.
Original version, not the updated one. “For the most part” does not mean in entirety. You literally cannot win this argument you conceded defeat with your own carefully nuanced language.

nomadking 19-09-2019 19:29
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010820)
Original version, not the updated one. “For the most part” does not mean in entirety. You literally cannot win this argument you conceded defeat with your own carefully nuanced language.
Quote:
The UK already has comprehensive exit taxation rules, and the changes necessary to implement the directive are relatively minor and primarily of an administrative nature.
Just more paperwork involved.

If I set up a company in France, then any profits are initially taxed to FRENCH rules. If I keep the money there and use the company to make investments in France, then it is nothing to do with UK authorities. If I then pay myself a "dividend", that would be subject to UK tax, taking into account the tax already paid in France.

NO TAX HAS BEEN AVOIDED.


This is an example of tax avoidance.
Quote:
Jeremy Corbyn failed to declare a third pension on his HMRC tax form, it has emerged, as he refused to disclose documents regarding his full tax declaration last night.
Following the Labour leader's admission that he neglected to include his state pension or previous local government pension on his tax return, a spokesman for Mr Corbyn said yesterday that a third pension was also missed off the official document.

jfman 19-09-2019 19:35
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
“primarily of an administrative nature.”

Primarily doesn’t mean exclusively. If you were leaving a tax loophole open for your friends you aren’t likely to put it in the consultation.

More nuanced language.

If tax was as simple as you state why do tax havens exist at all???

I told you that you literally cannot win here. You clearly don’t understand the complexity of tax loopholes.

I don’t see why you are deflecting Corbyn into this. It’s irrelevant to the point under discussion although I can understand your frustration at losing it fairly embarrassingly.

Hugh 19-09-2019 19:37
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36010821)
Just more paperwork involved.


If I set up a company in France, then any profits are initially taxed to FRENCH rules. If I keep the money there and use the company to make investments in France, then it is nothing to do with UK authorities. If I then pay myself a "dividend", that would be subject to UK tax, taking into account the tax already paid in France.


NO TAX HAS BEEN AVOIDED.
HMG seem to think differently...

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ance-directive
Quote:
Two specific changes are being made to the UK CFC rules which will improve the protection they provide. These changes relate to the definition of control, and the treatment of certain profits generated by UK activity. These changes will make sure that the UK CFC rules comply with Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164, ATAD.
Quote:
This measure introduces 2 changes to the UK Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) regime.

The first change expands the scope of the control rules, which determine whether or not a non-UK resident entity falls within the UK CFC regime.

The second change restricts the scope of the full and partial exemption rules for finance profits, so that these exemptions are not available to the extent that key activities which generate such profits have been carried out in the UK.
Quote:
This measure is expected to impact on large multinational groups, with one or more UK tax resident companies, through introducing 2 changes to the UK CFC regime. One-off costs included familiarisation with these changes.

jfman 19-09-2019 19:40
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Oh Hugh get out of here with facts, they’re not welcome.

Hugh 19-09-2019 19:43
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
And the reason for these changes...

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top...f-eu-1-5669763

Quote:
The directive seeks to tackle the thriving culture of corporate tax avoidance. For example, consider the scenario in which an EU company shifts profits to a related company in a low-tax country reducing the tax paid on these profits: under ATAD, a company could still do this, but the profits will be taxable at EU rates.

Another situation is where EU businesses developing a new product move it to a low tax country to avoid paying larger taxes on the profits once it is developed. Thanks to ATAD this tactic won’t work as member states can levy tax on the product before it is moved.

Even with ATAD, you might argue companies – through their nifty lawyers – will find new loopholes to avoid tax, right? The EU thought of that: ATAD provides a general anti-abuse rule to counteract these regimes where national laws have failed to address them.
I asked my friend* (who is a Tax Partner with one of the "Big 4" about these changes, and he thinks they are a good idea, and will discourage the behaviours listed above.

*we are also god-parents to each others children, and go on holiday together (next year is a Florida road trip...

nomadking 19-09-2019 19:47
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36010824)
The financial impact is NEGLIGIBLE. IE NEGLIGIBLE extra tax revenue.



Quote:
One-off costs included familiarisation with these changes.
How is that related to tax revenues?


Still not remotely connected to the spurious allegations, especially when the UK is introducing the changes anyway.

jfman 19-09-2019 19:55
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36010827)
The financial impact is NEGLIGIBLE. IE NEGLIGIBLE extra tax revenue.

How is that related to tax revenues?


Still not remotely connected to the spurious allegations, especially when the UK is introducing the changes anyway.
Negligible to the entire Government could still be hundreds of millions to individuals/funds. Also, they aren’t going to advertise that it’s huge amounts to their friends.

Sephiroth 19-09-2019 20:10
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36010696)
The Supreme Court won't venture into Parliamentary territory as Parliament is a sovereign body.

However, the Executive is as open to scrutiny from the Courts as it is from Parliament. That's why we can't call the judgement.

I don't think the judgement will make any difference to the way Brexit will go because there's a lot of Parliamentary time available after the Queen's Speech unless that debate can eat into the time substantially.
It strikes me that the SC might be asking the question as to what law had been broken by Boris. Surely there would have to be a law tobreak for anything to have been unlawful?

Pierre 19-09-2019 20:12
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010829)
Negligible to the entire Government could still be hundreds of millions to individuals/funds. Also, they aren’t going to advertise that it’s huge amounts to their friends.
Yeah well i’ve Filed this under “ under who gives a flying Fu....”

It’s a side issue that has already taken up more pages than it deserves.

nomadking 19-09-2019 20:18
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36010826)
And the reason for these changes...

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top...f-eu-1-5669763

I asked my friend* (who is a Tax Partner with one of the "Big 4" about these changes, and he thinks they are a good idea, and will discourage the behaviours listed above.

*we are also god-parents to each others children, and go on holiday together (next year is a Florida road trip...
Still nothing to do with the spurious allegations.


Amazon DOESN'T avoid tax. The only thing it sells, is the service of marketing, selling, and delivering for OTHERS. It pays tax on those profits. It just so happens as with ANY other UK based company, the large startup costs affect the taxable profits. Those OTHERS are the ones liable for tax on the actual product sales. Just as if Tescos, instead of buying Heinz baked beans from Heinz, simply put them on the shelves on behalf of Heinz, charging them a fee for doing so.

Chris 19-09-2019 20:20
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36010831)
It strikes me that the SC might be asking the question as to what law had been broken by Boris. Surely there would have to be a law tobreak for anything to have been unlawful?
That is a key aspect of the government’s case. Parliament has legislated on certain aspects of prorogation, but it has never legislated on this issue. Therefore there is, deliberately, no law here - only political judgement. This is non-justiciable.

I suspect their lordships are going to choose not to intervene here, except perhaps to point out that parliament could, and probably should, legislate in this area. That is the ruling already reached by two of the three courts that have heard the case.

1andrew1 19-09-2019 20:25
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36010827)
Still not remotely connected to the spurious allegations, especially when the UK is introducing the changes anyway.
What allegations?

jfman 19-09-2019 20:27
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36010832)
Yeah well i’ve Filed this under “ under who gives a flying Fu....”

It’s a side issue that has already taken up more pages than it deserves.
Suspected you would, although I agree he should have dropped it when he realised he was wrong.

Sephiroth 19-09-2019 20:35
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36010836)
That is a key aspect of the government’s case. Parliament has legislated on certain aspects of prorogation, but it has never legislated on this issue. Therefore there is, deliberately, no law here - only political judgement. This is non-justiciable.

I suspect their lordships are going to choose not to intervene here, except perhaps to point out that parliament could, and probably should, legislate in this area. That is the ruling already reached by two of the three courts that have heard the case.
Thank you,

1andrew1 19-09-2019 20:48
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010838)
Suspected you would, although I agree he should have dropped it when he realised he was wrong.
Agreed.

---------- Post added at 20:48 ---------- Previous post was at 20:47 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36010836)
That is a key aspect of the government’s case. Parliament has legislated on certain aspects of prorogation, but it has never legislated on this issue. Therefore there is, deliberately, no law here - only political judgement. This is non-justiciable.

I suspect their lordships are going to choose not to intervene here, except perhaps to point out that parliament could, and probably should, legislate in this area. That is the ruling already reached by two of the three courts that have heard the case.
Good summary.

OLD BOY 20-09-2019 08:41
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36010806)
My comments are valid and obviously about the people I list and not anyone else. It shows why these six people are potentially pro-Brexit and why they may want us to exit before that deadline.
But so what? We all have reasons for voting one way or another. People often vote Conservative because they want low taxes, which will benefit them and their family.

The point being made by you and the originator of this comment is designed to imply that these people were campaigning for Brexit for inappropriate reasons, when in actual fact, with or without that tax, they would have voted Brexit anyway.

Mr K 20-09-2019 08:50
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36010866)
But so what? We all have reasons for voting one way or another. People often vote Conservative because they want low taxes, which will benefit them and their family.

The point being made by you and the originator of this comment is designed to imply that these people were campaigning for Brexit for inappropriate reasons, when in actual fact, with or without that tax, they would have voted Brexit anyway.
And others are concerned that low taxes might mean health or social care isn't there when they need it for their family. Always seemed to me to be a short sighted, 'money now' view, unless you're incredibly rich.

Sometimes I think people just vote for change regardless of the actual issue. Particularly if they are unhappy with their life and they need someone to blame/punish. Also to kick it in the teeth to whoever is in power and they don't like. Such people can easily be manipulated by populist politicians or the media.

papa smurf 20-09-2019 09:14
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36010867)
And others are concerned that low taxes might mean health or social care isn't there when they need it for their family. Always seemed to me to be a short sighted, 'money now' view, unless you're incredibly rich.

Sometimes I think people just vote for change regardless of the actual issue. Particularly if they are unhappy with their life and they need someone to blame/punish. Also to kick it in the teeth to whoever is in power and they don't like. Such people can easily be manipulated by populist politicians or the media.
Yes you certainly have been.

OLD BOY 20-09-2019 09:23
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36010867)
And others are concerned that low taxes might mean health or social care isn't there when they need it for their family. Always seemed to me to be a short sighted, 'money now' view, unless you're incredibly rich.

Sometimes I think people just vote for change regardless of the actual issue. Particularly if they are unhappy with their life and they need someone to blame/punish. Also to kick it in the teeth to whoever is in power and they don't like. Such people can easily be manipulated by populist politicians or the media.
Low taxes also encourage investment, Mr K. The Conservatives are well renowned for being safe guardians of the economy, which benefits the poor.

The recent austerity programme has skewed opinions somewhat due to Labour's failure to allocate appropriate balances, but now we are out of that, we will start to see public services being restored to more appropriate levels. Things will look very different, and for the better, over the next five years, provided Boris can remain in power and get his legislation through.

---------- Post added at 09:23 ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 ----------

Good to see that Jean-Claude Juncker is at last conceding that a deal can be done by the end of next month and he is 'not emotionally attached' to the backstop.

Looks like Boris's tactics are paying off!

Mr K 20-09-2019 09:32
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36010869)
Low taxes also encourage investment, Mr K. The Conservatives are well renowned for being safe guardians of the economy, which benefits the poor.

The recent austerity programme has skewed opinions somewhat due to Labour's failure to allocate appropriate balances, but now we are out of that, we will start to see public services being restored to more appropriate levels. Things will look very different, and for the better, over the next five years, provided Boris can remain in power and get his legislation through.
10 years of austery in which time the national debt has increased from £1.2bn to £1.8bn !

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36010869)
Good to see that Jean-Claude Juncker is at last conceding that a deal can be done by the end of next month and he is 'not emotionally attached' to the backstop.

Looks like Boris's tactics are paying off!
Not really , he's said nothing new. Just you can get rid of the backstop if you have a workable alternative, which we don't. Don't fall for the Torygraph spin OB ! ;)

Hugh 20-09-2019 10:07
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36010866)
But so what? We all have reasons for voting one way or another. People often vote Conservative because they want low taxes, which will benefit them and their family.

The point being made by you and the originator of this comment is designed to imply that these people were campaigning for Brexit for inappropriate reasons, when in actual fact, with or without that tax, they would have voted Brexit anyway.
But these people either funded, or were drivers behind, Leave - huge difference between that and voting.

Mick 20-09-2019 11:07
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
I see we’re just going back to the silly arguments so now I’m implementing the following policy.

Keep this thread to discussion on News on Brexit Developments only. That’s why I opened this debate again.

I don’t want to see the petty arguments about the merits of Brexit. We’ve argued over 3 years over this.

I do not want to see stupid arguments about who funded who’s group/side. It is just irrelevant.

---------- Post added at 11:07 ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 ----------

The Current Brexit News Developments are as follows:


  1. Finland and France give Boris Johnson until 30th September to come up with proposals with alternatives to Irish Backstop, or it is over.
  2. Brexit Secretary, Steve Barclay heading to Brussels Fri for urgent Brexit talks.
  3. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and it’s 11 Justices are expected to release their decision on the case of whether Boris Johnson legally advised Queen to prorogue Parliament for 5 weeks.

Hugh 20-09-2019 13:48
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9113451.html
Quote:
The European Union has rejected a request from the British government for a Brexit deal without a Irish backstop in.

Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay on Thursday said the UK should be given until the end of 2020 to come up with a replacement for the policy – instead of the end of September deadline set by EU leaders.

The minister travelled to Brussels on Friday to meet with Michel Barnier, the EU's chief negotiator – but was told that the EU could not consider a deal without a backstop or replacement in.

Following the meeting, a spokesperson for the European Commission told reporters that it is "essential that there is a fully workable and legally operational solution included in the withdrawal agreement".

They added that the EU was "willing and open to examine any such proposals that meet all the objective of the backstop".

Without a withdrawal agreement there will be no transition period, and the UK would leave without a deal at the end of October, barring a further extension.

Chris 20-09-2019 13:59
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
The EU’s position is odd. They insist on advance agreement of a technical solution for a problem that may never arise, despite abundant evidence that it is politically impossible for the British to accept it, and at the imminent risk of actually creating the border problems they claim to want to avoid.

It’s almost as if there’s a greater prize to be had in getting the British side to agree to a mechanism that it cannot later exit without the EU’s permission - permission that would be being sought right about the time each side was trying to get the best concessions out of the other in a permanent trade deal. I wonder, to what extent the EU side is still trying to assess how likely we are to push the nuclear button and leave on 31 October, before making a final judgment about what it wants most - an actual shed-load of real headaches on their desks about 6 weeks from now, or a 2 year break in which the border problem can be solved along with everything else.

Sephiroth 20-09-2019 14:06
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

"Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay has said the UK and EU share a "common purpose" in reaching a new withdrawal deal, after a meeting in Brussels with chief EU negotiator Michel Barnier." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49764546

A pity that those weren't Barnier's words.

Carth 20-09-2019 15:29
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
I'm at a loss as to who is trying to fool who here? :shrug:

The EU want (need, desire, expect) a backstop type arrangement or it's no deal.

However, if a no deal is what happens, where does that leave the EU and their trading complexities without the 'desired' backstop?

If the EU are capable of managing with no deal, then surely the backstop isn't such a big thing . . . apart from the ties it then binds us with :tiptoe:

Hugh 20-09-2019 15:41
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36010894)
I'm at a loss as to who is trying to fool who here? :shrug:

The EU want (need, desire, expect) a backstop type arrangement or it's no deal.

However, if a no deal is what happens, where does that leave the EU and their trading complexities without the 'desired' backstop?

If the EU are capable of managing with no deal, then surely the backstop isn't such a big thing . . . apart from the ties it then binds us with :tiptoe:
If my wife lost her job, we could manage - but we’d prefer not to have to...

jfman 20-09-2019 16:04
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
The backstop protects the integrity of the Single Market. No deal and a hard border has the same result for the EU.

Chris 20-09-2019 16:48
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010897)
The backstop protects the integrity of the Single Market. No deal and a hard border has the same result for the EU.
Not quite. Whatever apocalyptic queues, shortages and general sky-falling occurs on the island of Great Britain, will occur also on the island of Ireland, most of which is remaining in the EU. A withdrawal agreement without a backstop provides vital continuity for a vulnerable member state, at the trivial cost of deferring a solution to border management - a solution that isn’t required on 31 October *if* there’s a withdrawal agreement to ensure temporary continuity.

This is so eye-poppingly obvious that it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the EU prizes the backstop not for its theoretical safeguards two years down the road, but because it creates a bargaining chip in future trade negotiations.

jfman 20-09-2019 18:19
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36010900)
Not quite. Whatever apocalyptic queues, shortages and general sky-falling occurs on the island of Great Britain, will occur also on the island of Ireland, most of which is remaining in the EU. A withdrawal agreement without a backstop provides vital continuity for a vulnerable member state, at the trivial cost of deferring a solution to border management - a solution that isn’t required on 31 October *if* there’s a withdrawal agreement to ensure temporary continuity.

This is so eye-poppingly obvious that it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the EU prizes the backstop not for its theoretical safeguards two years down the road, but because it creates a bargaining chip in future trade negotiations.
While I do accept your thoughtful input into the thread, and unlike others you do accept invitation to "agree to disagree" to avoid circular arguments, it would be my view the EU would be better placed to mitigate for an island of 4m people than we can two islands of 66m.

Everything is, and always will be a bargaining chip, that'll be the case until capitalism collapses.

Pierre 20-09-2019 18:52
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36010895)
If my wife lost her job, we could manage - but we’d prefer not to have to...
But what if it was up to your wife whether she lost her job or not? Would she voluntarily leave her job if she didn’t have to?

---------- Post added at 18:52 ---------- Previous post was at 18:47 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36010900)
Not quite. Whatever apocalyptic queues, shortages and general sky-falling occurs on the island of Great Britain, will occur also on the island of Ireland, most of which is remaining in the EU. A withdrawal agreement without a backstop provides vital continuity for a vulnerable member state, at the trivial cost of deferring a solution to border management - a solution that isn’t required on 31 October *if* there’s a withdrawal agreement to ensure temporary continuity.

This is so eye-poppingly obvious that it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the EU prizes the backstop not for its theoretical safeguards two years down the road, but because it creates a bargaining chip in future trade negotiations.
The problem is, is that the backstop has now become Brexit.

Neither side will climb down now, so now they would have to Engineer a solution that both keeps and removes the backstop so both sides can claim a win.

nomadking 20-09-2019 19:08
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Link

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."
What is that supposed to mean? Everything short of that is going to blocked by the EU.


Seems strange and quite sinister that Ireland are blocking things. They have a massive amount to lose.
Eg Link
Quote:
Around two-thirds of the products on Irish supermarket shelves are made in the UK or come through that country.

jfman 20-09-2019 19:11
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Or a lot to gain in trade terms by freezing the UK out.

nomadking 20-09-2019 19:12
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36010910)
But what if it was up to your wife whether she lost her job or not? Would she voluntarily leave her job if she didn’t have to?

---------- Post added at 18:52 ---------- Previous post was at 18:47 ----------

The problem is, is that the backstop has now become Brexit.

Neither side will climb down now, so now they would have to Engineer a solution that both keeps and removes the backstop so both sides can claim a win.
The Withdrawal Agreement is just an interim arrangement, making the backstop a de facto ongoing Brexit arrangement It is the thing that would be in place beyond 2020.

jfman 20-09-2019 19:16
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Protecting the Single Market isn’t “sinister” any more than the UK wouldn’t entertain closing the border but allowing immigrants to walk the Channel Tunnel freely.

nomadking 20-09-2019 19:25
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010915)
Or a lot to gain in trade terms by freezing the UK out.
How? If they could produce it themselves, they would've done so a long time ago.
Quote:
Electricity and gas prices could spiral as almost 90% of Ireland’s total energy requirements are imported, and most of it comes from or through the UK.
Link

Quote:
There are 3 ferry routes operating between France and Ireland offering you combined total of 8 sailings per week. Irish Ferries operates 1 route, Cherbourg to Dublin which runs 3 times weekly. Brittany Ferries operates 1 route, Roscoff to Cork which runs 2 times weekly. Stena Line operates 1 route, Cherbourg to Rosslare which runs 3 times weekly.
The Cherbourg-Rosslare journey takes 17 hours. Plus the extra time to get to Cherbourg and from Rosslare.

---------- Post added at 19:25 ---------- Previous post was at 19:23 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010918)
Protecting the Single Market isn’t “sinister” any more than the UK wouldn’t entertain closing the border but allowing immigrants to walk the Channel Tunnel freely.
Imposing a "single Irish economic zone" by the backdoor is sinister.

1andrew1 20-09-2019 19:29
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36010919)
Imposing a "single Irish economic zone" by the backdoor is sinister.
It's not imposing if the respective Governments agree. And it's scarcely through the back door as it's what we have at the moment.

Pierre 20-09-2019 19:32
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010918)
Protecting the Single Market isn’t “sinister”
Who said it was? I missed that bit.

---------- Post added at 19:32 ---------- Previous post was at 19:29 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36010921)
It's not imposing if the respective Governments agree. And it's scarcely through the back door as it's what we have at the moment.
It won’t happen. They say that putting in border controls would impact the GFA and upset the republicans? Well anything that looks like we are enabling the reunification of Ireland.................well that would also scupper the GFA, expect UDF/UDA and the rest to kick off.

1andrew1 20-09-2019 19:36
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36010922)
It won’t happen. They say that putting in border controls would impact the GFA and upset the republicans? Well anything that looks like we are enabling the reunification of Ireland.................well that would also scupper the GFA, expect UDF/UDA and the rest to kick off.
I'm not arguing that point, just explaining that it's neither imposing or sinister.

nomadking 20-09-2019 19:41
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36010921)
It's not imposing if the respective Governments agree. And it's scarcely through the back door as it's what we have at the moment.
UK Parliament has turned it down 3 times, and not being able to get out of it, is imposing. Especially under ever continuing threats of violence.


Who gets to run and control this "single Irish economic zone", whatever that's meant to mean. And of course over time, what it means will expand relentlessly, taking over more and more.

jfman 20-09-2019 19:41
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36010919)
How? If they could produce it themselves, they would've done so a long time ago.
Wrong. No incentive to. Can’t compete with UK goods on Single Market terms. Now there’s incentive.

Quote:
Imposing a "single Irish economic zone" by the backdoor is sinister.
It’s hardly sinister. They’re either operating in the same economic zone or they are not. The people of the occupied six counties weren’t consulted when England invented the idea of Brexit.

Pierre 20-09-2019 19:50
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36010924)
I'm not arguing that point.
:tu:

Still won’t happen though, for those reasons.

---------- Post added at 19:50 ---------- Previous post was at 19:47 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010926)
Wrong. No incentive to. Can’t compete with UK goods on Single Market terms. Now there’s incentive.



It’s hardly sinister. They’re either operating in the same economic zone or they are not. The people of the occupied six counties weren’t consulted when England invented the idea of Brexit.
Won’t happen, it’s a dead end discussion.

The status quo on the island of Ireland must and will prevail, above all else.

jfman 20-09-2019 20:00
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
We shall see. Brexit makes the status quo untenable economically for the occupied counties who do not want to leave the EU.

Sephiroth 20-09-2019 20:01
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010930)
We shall see. Brexit makes the status quo untenable economically for the occupied counties who do not want to leave the EU.
You really are a provocactive piece of work. "The occupied counties ...". Tut tut.

jfman 20-09-2019 20:03
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36010931)
You really are a provocactive piece of work. "The occupied counties ...". Tut tut.
“British controlled territory on the island of Ireland”.

As it’s under direct rule is that better?

However you disagree over the definition the EU will no more accept a gaping hole in the single market than Britain would an uncontrolled flood of migrants via a back door.

1andrew1 20-09-2019 20:03
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36010925)
UK Parliament has turned it down 3 times, and not being able to get out of it, is imposing. Especially under ever continuing threats of violence.

Who gets to run and control this "single Irish economic zone", whatever that's meant to mean. And of course over time, what it means will expand relentlessly, taking over more and more.
If a Brexit withdrawal agreement happens, it will be something close to what Theresa May put to Parliament. The more controversial aspects may be tweaked and rebranded. The DUP is getting fearful of the consequences of no deal which include a united Ireland, so look set to be more flexible with proposals from BoJo than May. I always agreed that Brexit should be led by a Brexiter as it couldn't then be argued that the Government wasn't doing its best, and I think BoJo will help bring the DUP on board.

Pierre 20-09-2019 20:05
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010930)
Brexit makes the status quo untenable economically for the occupied counties who do not want to leave the EU.
Very interesting turn of phrase you use there. “ Occupied counties”. What do you mean by that?

Antrim is as much a part of the UK as Yorkshire.

You forget that at your peril.

Hugh 20-09-2019 20:07
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36010910)
But what if it was up to your wife whether she lost her job or not? Would she voluntarily leave her job if she didn’t have to?

---------- Post added at 18:52 ---------- Previous post was at 18:47 ----------



The problem is, is that the backstop has now become Brexit.

Neither side will climb down now, so now they would have to Engineer a solution that both keeps and removes the backstop so both sides can claim a win.
No, she would remain in her job... ;)

Pierre 20-09-2019 20:10
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010933)
“British controlled territory on the island of Ireland”

As it’s under direct rule is that better?
At present because the power sharing assembly can’t get their act together.

What is undeniable is that it is part of the UK.

Quote:
However you disagree over the definition the EU will no more accept a gaping hole in the single market than Britain would an uncontrolled flood of migrants via a back door.
Well, when it comes down to it. The nation state trumps the EU, so they can whistle.

---------- Post added at 20:10 ---------- Previous post was at 20:08 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36010937)
No, she would remain in her job... ;)
Great stuff. The EU should then relent, thanks for clearing up that analogy.

jfman 20-09-2019 20:10
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36010936)
Very interesting turn of phrase you use there. “ Occupied counties”. What do you mean by that?

Antrim is as much a part of the UK as Yorkshire.

You forget that at your peril.
Peril? Don’t make me laugh.

I’ve explained my definition before.

Pierre 20-09-2019 20:17
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010940)
Peril? Don’t make me laugh.
Laugh all want, go to Antrim with that attitude and let me know how your knee caps are afterwards.

Typical English idiot that has no idea of Northern Ireland. And yes mods i’m Afraid I think I am justified in the term idiot based on the last few posts, as JFman has deliberately used inflammatory language in regards to Northern Ireland.

jfman 20-09-2019 20:21
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36010942)
Laugh all want, go to Antrim with that attitude and let me know how your knee caps are afterwards.

Typical English idiot that has no idea of Northern Ireland. And yes mods i’m Afraid I think I am justified in the term idiot based on the last few posts, as JFman has deliberately used inflammatory language in regards to Northern Ireland.
You might feel justified but you’ve proven yourself an enemy of democracy here. There’s nothing inaccurate about describing six counties of Ireland as occupied by the United Kingdom. They’re British, aren’t they? As in this of the island we sit on.

Pierre is clearly an idiot who neither understands geography, history nor the concept of democracy! Which is ironic really.

Pierre 20-09-2019 20:37
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010943)
You might feel justified but you’ve proven yourself an enemy of democracy here. There’s nothing inaccurate about describing six counties of Ireland as occupied by the United Kingdom. They’re British, aren’t they? As in this of the island we sit on.

Pierre is clearly an idiot who neither understands geography, history nor the concept of democracy! Which is ironic really.
They are not “occupied”. They are no more occupied than Kent, is occupied. They are part of the U.K.

I understand history and geography just fine thank you as my heritage is from Ireland.

I understand democracy too.

Northern Ireland is “occupied” by the Northern Irish. Some identify as Irish, some identify as British, many Identify, and are legally allowed to, as both.

But Britain does not “occupy” any counties of Northern Ireland.

As I say, go to Antrim, and other parts of Northern Ireland and make your case, not on here.

Sephiroth 20-09-2019 20:37
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010933)
“British controlled territory on the island of Ireland”.

As it’s under direct rule is that better?

However you disagree over the definition the EU will no more accept a gaping hole in the single market than Britain would an uncontrolled flood of migrants via a back door.
It's the sentiment you put forward that's offensive. "Occupied counties".

Your final paragraph I would not dispute. It's what the whole impasse ultimately boils down to.

jfman 20-09-2019 20:43
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36010946)
They are not “occupied”. They are no more occupied than Kent, is occupied. They are part of the U.K.

I understand history and geography just fine thank you as my heritage is from Ireland.

I understand democracy too.

Northern Ireland is “occupied” by the Northern Irish. Some identify as Irish, some identify as British, many Identify, and are legally allowed to, as both.

But Britain does not “occupy” any counties of Northern Ireland.

As I say, go to Antrim, and other parts of Northern Ireland and make your case, not on here.
Your final sentence is essentially a threat to invite attack by paramilitaries. A reasonably unpleasant experience I’m sure. However reflective of a dying culture, further threatened as the enlightened folk of the island of Ireland see their future differently from the British.

It’ll be my last point on the matter. Six counties of the island of Ireland are governed from London - it’s a fact of so little controversy I’m stunned it’s caused so many posts. Mick has asked everyone to keep to topic and I’m trying my best against others here.

Pierre 20-09-2019 20:51
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010948)
Your final sentence is essentially a threat to invite attack by paramilitaries.
No it isn’t, just ask the man on the street.

Quote:
as the enlightened folk of the island of Ireland see their future differently from the British.
You’ve proven “ emphatically” that you know nothing of the folk of Ireland, and I’m sure they wouldn’t want some drip , I assume, from southern England talking on their behalf.

Quote:
It’ll be my last point on the matter
. That’ll be a blessed relief

Quote:
Six counties of the island of Ireland are governed from London
plainly incorrect, they are governed from Stormont.

Quote:
it’s a fact
. That you got wrong .

Quote:
Mick has asked everyone to keep to topic and I’m trying my best against others here.
then don’t be a Richard.

jfman 20-09-2019 21:00
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
There’s no Stormont government, as you well know. Don’t invite me back in with obvious inaccuracies.

Nor am I from the south of England, Dick.

Pierre 20-09-2019 21:12
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010952)
There’s no Stormont government
there is, it just isn’t sitting at the moment. The Westminster government isn’t currently sitting, are you saying there is no Westminster government?

Quote:
Don’t invite me back in with obvious inaccuracies.
I didn’t invite you, you came back like a faithful old Labrador, tongue out, wagging your tail, dribbling a little bit.

Quote:
Nor am I from the south of England.
Wow, and yet that’s how you come across.........in deepest sympathy.........

Hugh 20-09-2019 21:15
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Stop bickering, or infractions will be issued

jfman 20-09-2019 21:17
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36010953)
there is, it just isn’t sitting at the moment. The Westminster government isn’t currently sitting, are you saying there is no Westminster government?
Oh bless.

You don’t understand that Parliament is prorogued and the Government remains. It’s a risk to allow you to vote on constitutional matters.

Edit: just saw the mod instruction so I won’t revisit the topic.

nomadking 20-09-2019 21:20
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010948)
Your final sentence is essentially a threat to invite attack by paramilitaries. A reasonably unpleasant experience I’m sure. However reflective of a dying culture, further threatened as the enlightened folk of the island of Ireland see their future differently from the British.

It’ll be my last point on the matter. Six counties of the island of Ireland are governed from London - it’s a fact of so little controversy I’m stunned it’s caused so many posts. Mick has asked everyone to keep to topic and I’m trying my best against others here.
Whenever somebody says something is a threat to the "peace process", they are threatening violence
The IRA are still very much active.
Link
Quote:
A bomb was found in the Creggan area of Londonderry after police searches in the area on Monday 9 September.
and various other attacks listed in the link.
Link
Quote:
Who are the New IRA and what have they done?
Formed in 2012, it has been involved in killings, gun and bomb attacks and ‘punishment’ shootings and beatings
Even if there was a "border" in the Irish Sea, the negative impact on Ireland is going to be massive, and strangely enough not that different to a hard Brexit. Any obstructions or difficulties will still be there, just in a different place. They benefit from a common language with England etc.

jfman 20-09-2019 21:28
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36010956)
Whenever somebody says something is a threat to the "peace process", they are threatening violence
The IRA are still very much active.
Link
and various other attacks listed in the link.
Link
Even if there was a "border" in the Irish Sea, the negative impact on Ireland is going to be massive, and strangely enough not that different to a hard Brexit. Any obstructions or difficulties will still be there, just in a different place. They benefit from a common language with England etc.
The EU is more than Ireland.

Ireland has bad outcomes from England’s decision. Which is why a deal, and the backstop is best for the island of Ireland.

You are ignoring that there has to be a border somewhere, unless you are advocating Ireland leaving the EU! Pretty colonial, and unexpected I suppose.

Pierre 20-09-2019 21:32
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010955)
Oh bless.

You don’t understand that Parliament is prorogued and the Government remains. It’s a risk to allow you to vote on constitutional matters.
Northern Ireland is not currently under Direct Rule. Unless you know different.

Quote:
just saw the mod instruction so I won’t revisit the topic.
Good, cos you’re really bad at it.

jfman 20-09-2019 21:36
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36010958)
Northern Ireland is not currently under Direct Rule. Unless you know
It’s not controlled from a government in Stormont as you claimed. Please cease from posting absolute falsehoods. It’ll save us both time in the long run.

Hugh 20-09-2019 22:17
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Off topic bickering posts removed - final warning.

Any more of this childish bickering and the Loving Mallet of Correction™ will be deployed.

---------- Post added at 22:17 ---------- Previous post was at 21:57 ----------

More posts removed, fracks issued.

Paul 20-09-2019 22:26
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Hugh has been very lenient, I wont be.

Anyone else ignoring staff directives will be suspended from the site for a period of days.

nomadking 21-09-2019 13:00
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
In the name of protecting the UK internal market, we will have to ban through traffic to/from Ireland, wherever the backstop related border is to be set. Currently goods destined for Ireland or from Ireland to France and beyond, pass through the UK. Those goods may be EU certified, but they won't be UK certified. In order to protect the UK internal market as agreed in the Political Declaration, what are the EU going to do?:D The single/internal market issues work both ways.
Political Declaration.
Quote:
17.
...
It should facilitate trade and investment between the Parties to the
extent possible, while respecting the integrity of the Union's Single Market
and the Customs Union as well as the United Kingdom's internal market,
and recognising the development of an independent trade policy by
the United Kingdom beyond this economic partnership.

jfman 21-09-2019 13:29
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
EU goods transiting the UK don’t threaten the UK single market. Essentially you are proposing to blockade another country as a result of our poor planning.

1andrew1 21-09-2019 13:36
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36011009)
EU goods transiting the UK don’t threaten the UK single market. Essentially you are proposing to blockade another country as a result of our poor planning.
Just looks like another way that hard-working Brits could lose their jobs through no fault of their own. Hope this gets sorted.

Sephiroth 21-09-2019 13:53
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
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.

Carth 21-09-2019 16:06
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.

Don't be daft, the Government aren't allowed to leave with no deal, I think it's the law or summat, therefore the EU will have to give us one . . won't they? ;)

nomadking 21-09-2019 17:17
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36011009)
EU goods transiting the UK don’t threaten the UK single market. Essentially you are proposing to blockade another country as a result of our poor planning.
How do we know they are just transiting? Just as the EU complains that they wouldn't know what happens to goods arriving in NI from the rest of the UK or from abroad. Goods would end up in the UK, either from Ireland or from France that were not UK compliant and without UK tariffs applied because they were just passing through. If the NI related issues as the EU keeps claiming, are up to the UK to resolve, then these issues are up to the EU to resolve.:D Still means 2 sets of border/customs checks, even if the "border" is in the Irish Sea, as the Irish seem to be aiming for.

Ireland could always bypass the UK by moving everything via Cherbourg. These issues would also apply to an independent Scotland or Wales, regardless of whether they were in or out of the EU. It is a geographical thing.

If only there was a pre-existing scheme to cope with all this?
Perhaps they could call it the Common Transit Scheme?
Common Transit Scheme.
Quote:
The Common Transit Convention is used for the movement of goods between or through common transit countries.
The common transit countries are:
  • EU member states
  • Iceland
  • Norway
  • Liechtenstein
  • Switzerland
  • Turkey
  • North Macedonia
  • Serbia
By using the Common Transit Convention you:
  • can move your goods quicker because customs declarations are not required at each border crossing
  • only pay customs duties when the goods reach their final destination
  • can complete some customs procedures away from the border
As long as the UK is added to that list in it's own right, then backstop issues SOLVED. That's assuming the issues that the EU(ie Ireland) is claiming are there, are the true ones.

Paddy1 21-09-2019 17:33
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36011025)
As long as the UK is added to that list in it's own right, then backstop issues SOLVED. That's assuming the issues that the EU(ie Ireland) is claiming are there, are the true ones.
So you're not planning on shipping anything TO the EU then?

nomadking 21-09-2019 18:11
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddy1 (Post 36011027)
So you're not planning on shipping anything TO the EU then?
It's about where the goods are alleged to be finally going to. If goods go from UK to France, it's a standard cross border thing. If goods leave Ireland, arrive in the UK, but are said to be going on to France, what happens? The UK bans the goods from entry because they do not comply with UK rules? If they are allowed in, they are subject to UK applied tariffs, but what happens in France? Non-UK compliant & tariffed goods would be in the UK. That is the same as what the EU is complaining about(non-EU compliant & tariffed goods being in the EU).

The EU is effectively insisting that the rest of the UK is blocked from sending goods to NI, as they wouldn't be EU compliant. Otherwise as, the EU constantly complains, non-EU compliant goods could end up in Ireland or in the NI-Irish Republic customs zone.

jfman 21-09-2019 18:15
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36011025)
How do we know they are just transiting? Just as the EU complains that they wouldn't know what happens to goods arriving in NI from the rest of the UK or from abroad. Goods would end up in the UK, either from Ireland or from France that were not UK compliant and without UK tariffs applied because they were just passing through. If the NI related issues as the EU keeps claiming, are up to the UK to resolve, then these issues are up to the EU to resolve.:D Still means 2 sets of border/customs checks, even if the "border" is in the Irish Sea, as the Irish seem to be aiming for.

Ireland could always bypass the UK by moving everything via Cherbourg. These issues would also apply to an independent Scotland or Wales, regardless of whether they were in or out of the EU. It is a geographical thing.

If only there was a pre-existing scheme to cope with all this?
Perhaps they could call it the Common Transit Scheme?
Common Transit Scheme.
As long as the UK is added to that list in it's own right, then backstop issues SOLVED. That's assuming the issues that the EU(ie Ireland) is claiming are there, are the true ones.
Except the concern of the EU isn’t transit. It’s essentially smuggling across an “open” border.

I think the best way for you to visualise it is EU citizens freely walking across the border and working in the UK, despite not having the right to do so. Would you be happy for uncontrolled migration into the UK over an open border?

nomadking 21-09-2019 18:47
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36011030)
Except the concern of the EU isn’t transit. It’s essentially smuggling across an “open” border.

I think the best way for you to visualise it is EU citizens freely walking across the border and working in the UK, despite not having the right to do so. Would you be happy for uncontrolled migration into the UK over an open border?
The backstop isn't remotely connected to movement of people. By the same token, goods could be shipped into the UK from the EU, but not go on to another EU country. That would break the UK internal market, in the SAME way as the EU complains the EU single market could be broken.
Link

Quote:
And many trade experts suggest the only way to prevent those checks at the Irish border would be for the two parts of the island to have the same standards.
In effect, that would mean Northern Ireland would have to continue to follow EU standards.
And that would mean some food products coming from elsewhere in the UK would be subject to new checks and controls at Northern Ireland ports.
Link
Quote:
The Irish Freight Transport Association estimates that the final destination of roughly 60% of the 475,925 freight containers shipped to Britain is Britain itself.
That means the other 40% - roughly 190,000 per year - is destined for elsewhere in the EU, transiting across Britain via ports such as Dover or Hull, or via the Channel Tunnel.
No-one knows the exact number, although Ireland's Department of Transport has commissioned in-depth research that should be released shortly.
But one thing is clear: any kind of breakdown or problem posed by the failure to reach a Brexit agreement could have a huge impact, not just on Ireland's trade with the UK, but also on Ireland's trade with the rest of the EU.
That's a problem for the EU to find a solution for.

jfman 21-09-2019 19:18
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36011033)
The backstop isn't remotely connected to movement of people. By the same token, goods could be shipped into the UK from the EU, but not go on to another EU country. That would break the UK internal market, in the SAME way as the EU complains the EU single market could be broken.
Link

Link
That's a problem for the EU to find a solution for.
It’s called an analogy. I framed it in terms easier for you to understand.

You’ve denoted a risk there that could be picked up by border checks - which is why the backstop is necessary to prevent a hard border. That’s literally the whole point.

The UK could, for example, conduct random exit checks.

That’s not the same as an open border leaking products into the EU.

Sephiroth 21-09-2019 19:24
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
The backstop in its current form is there to protect Ireland's financial interests and to punish the UK.

jfman 21-09-2019 19:31
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36011038)
The backstop in its current form is there to protect Ireland's financial interests and to punish the UK.
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?

nomadking 21-09-2019 19:40
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36011036)
It’s called an analogy. I framed it in terms easier for you to understand.

You’ve denoted a risk there that could be picked up by border checks - which is why the backstop is necessary to prevent a hard border. That’s literally the whole point.

The UK could, for example, conduct random exit checks.

That’s not the same as an open border leaking products into the EU.
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

Quote:
In Brussels and Dublin it was decided that the UK now “had to own” the border issue.
All they had extracted out of Britain so far was a line in May’s speech that there would be “no return to the borders of the past”.
“That was no good to us,” said one source. “That referenced watchtowers and guns, but this is not what the border issue was about, we were never going back there. This was about the customs union and the single market.”


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:29.
Page 3 of 56 12 3 45671353 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.