Cable Forum
Page 36 of 40 « First 2632333435 36 37383940
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)
-   -   Brexit (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33707507)

papa smurf 16-06-2019 11:31
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angua (Post 35999279)
Not paying only damages us, making us look like a poor bet to pay bills.
That's an interesting opinion but it's wrong.

Damien 16-06-2019 11:32
Re: Brexit
 
The EU will demand the £39 billion as a prerequisite for any forthcoming trade deal and since we'll be out at that point, and in greater need of a trade deal, they'll be in a stronger not weaker position to do so.

I think they'll offer better wording around the backstop. Something May sorta secured but no one believed. Legally the position will remain the same but packaged in such a way MPs can claim down and vote for a version of May's deal.

Angua 16-06-2019 11:37
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35999281)
That's an interesting opinion but it's wrong.

History would say otherwise.

nomadking 16-06-2019 12:21
Re: Brexit
 
Where in article 50 does it specify the rules for calculating any "divorce" bill? If there were any it would have been calculated on a regular basis for each EU country, and certainly before "negotiations" about the Withdrawal agreement or even the referendum.

One key plank of the EU imposed basis, is "agreed" spending. The EU doesn't do "agreed". The original "agreement", ie budget, was how money was to be spent, not raised. The money raised is on the basis on being part of the EU. If we're no longer in the EU, then we're not liable for any fees for membership and benefits of the "club".


As they've given us(after 1984), a 66% rebate, it shows that they've been severely overcharging since we joined.

Carth 16-06-2019 14:02
Re: Brexit
 
As far as I understand it, and it seems to be backed up by the hysteria sometimes shown on here, the EU exports £Billions of goods (of any shape size and form) into the UK every year.

If we leave with no deal and no trade agreements, how will the EU manage their loss of revenue and potential manufacturing slowdown?

Surely it will be in everyones favour to have temporary trade deals in place until definite deals are thrashed out :shrug:

1andrew1 16-06-2019 14:05
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35999282)
The EU will demand the £39 billion as a prerequisite for any forthcoming trade deal and since we'll be out at that point, and in greater need of a trade deal, they'll be in a stronger not weaker position to do so.

I think they'll offer better wording around the backstop. Something May sorta secured but no one believed. Legally the position will remain the same but packaged in such a way MPs can claim down and vote for a version of May's deal.
I reckon:
- Boris PM
- Brexit extension of max six months
- Reworded withdrawal agreement or appendices
- MPs vote narrowly to accept it.

---------- Post added at 14:05 ---------- Previous post was at 14:02 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35999297)
As far as I understand it, and it seems to be backed up by the hysteria sometimes shown on here, the EU exports £Billions of goods (of any shape size and form) into the UK every year.

If we leave with no deal and no trade agreements, how will the EU manage their loss of revenue and potential manufacturing slowdown?

Surely it will be in everyones favour to have temporary trade deals in place until definite deals are thrashed out :shrug:
Yes, that's called the Withdrawal Agreement.

Carth 16-06-2019 14:05
Re: Brexit
 
but we don't have one :D

1andrew1 16-06-2019 14:09
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35999302)
but we don't have one :D
We'll either have a withdrawal agreement or we won't leave.

Mr K 16-06-2019 14:21
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35999275)
I think they will if they are faced with us leaving with no deal and no payment.
Well they've called our bluff twice now, then we've had to beg for extensions when we realised they weren't changing the deal. What makes you think the next 'deadline' will be any different ? They've been consistent and unified, we haven't. And who the heck is going to any trade deals with us, if it's known we don't honour our side?

Sephiroth 16-06-2019 15:53
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35999282)
The EU will demand the £39 billion as a prerequisite for any forthcoming trade deal and since we'll be out at that point, and in greater need of a trade deal, they'll be in a stronger not weaker position to do so.

I think they'll offer better wording around the backstop. Something May sorta secured but no one believed. Legally the position will remain the same but packaged in such a way MPs can claim down and vote for a version of May's deal.
If it’s Boris, he’ll have to keep his word on the 39 billion. Sod them, they will always try to disadvantage us so we need to be smart. And we are provided the politicians sort themselves out.

OLD BOY 16-06-2019 16:08
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35999304)
We'll either have a withdrawal agreement or we won't leave.
Correction. We may have a withdrawal agreement if the EU climbs down off its high horse. Or we will make use of the protection period as provided for in Article 28 of GATT. Or we leave without a deal.

However, we will leave, one way or another.

Pierre 16-06-2019 17:11
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35999275)
I think they will if they are faced with us leaving with no deal and no payment.
Unfortunately Pops, our Parliament has nullified that threat, so they will never be faced with that outcome.

nomadking 16-06-2019 17:29
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35999325)
Unfortunately Pops, our Parliament has nullified that threat, so they will never be faced with that outcome.
When did they do that?
Link

Quote:
After Theresa May's deal was defeated, the Brexit deadline was extended to 31 October.
To avoid a no-deal Brexit on this date, the UK government must pass a Brexit divorce plan into law, obtain another extension from the EU, or cancel Brexit.

Damien 16-06-2019 17:31
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35999316)
If it’s Boris, he’ll have to keep his word on the 39 billion. Sod them, they will always try to disadvantage us so we need to be smart. And we are provided the politicians sort themselves out.
And after we leave we have to go back to the EU for a trade deal. We are going to have to work out a trade deal with the large single-market in the world that's right on our doorstep. Of course they'll try to 'disadvantage' us, that's the nature of the negotiations.

heero_yuy 16-06-2019 17:51
Re: Brexit
 
We don't have to back to the EU for a trade deal. We can trade on WTO rules. That £39bn is better spent on our people than pissed up against the EU wall.

Sephiroth 16-06-2019 18:23
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35999327)
And after we leave we have to go back to the EU for a trade deal. We are going to have to work out a trade deal with the large single-market in the world that's right on our doorstep. Of course they'll try to 'disadvantage' us, that's the nature of the negotiations.
This is what bothers me about the Remainers on this thread. They are mostly coming from the stop Brexit end and tell us that it's better to remain because their lovely EU will always try to disadvantage us in these circumstances.

The Leavers, intent, of course on fulfilling direct democracy and gaining full sovereignty for the UK, argue that anyone trying to disadvantage us should be treated with disdain They also argue that 39 billion and tariffs on French and German cars are a useful weapon from our side. We must not allow the EU to trample on us and to Remain is to cave into bullies who will remain bullies.

Pierre 16-06-2019 18:27
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35999326)
When did they do that?
Link
Well given that we’ve passed 2no. Previous exit dates what’s makes you think this one is final?

nomadking 16-06-2019 18:44
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35999331)
Well given that we’ve passed 2no. Previous exit dates what’s makes you think this one is final?
The link was from 3 days ago. You claimed that a no deal Brexit wasn't possible.

Pierre 16-06-2019 18:59
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35999332)
The link was from 3 days ago. You claimed that a no deal Brexit wasn't possible.
I believe it still isn’t, I say again we’ve had 2no. Brexit dates come and go, why do you believe a 3rd wouldn’t?

Carth 16-06-2019 19:26
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35999333)
I believe it still isn’t, I say again we’ve had 2no. Brexit dates come and go, why do you believe a 3rd wouldn’t?
Boris



methinks he'll say something they don't like and 'hey presto' no extension :D

Hugh 16-06-2019 19:45
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35999329)
We don't have to back to the EU for a trade deal. We can trade on WTO rules. That £39bn is better spent on our people than pissed up against the EU wall.
We can only trade on WTO rules if none of the other countries have any objections - so far, a number have objected, and anyway, WTO rules don’t cover services – 70% of the UK economy is services.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top...luck-1-6094529

Quote:
the UK must produce its own schedule covering both services and each of the 5,000-plus product lines covered in the WTO agreement and get it agreed by all the 163 WTO states in the remaining parliamentary sitting days until October 31. A number of states have already raised objections to the UK's draft schedule: 20 over goods and three over services.

The second hurdle is the sheer volume of domestic legislation that would need to be passed before being able to trade under WTO rules: there are nine statutes and 600 statutory instruments that would need to be adopted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.3e56652974b3
Quote:
So could Article 24 be invoked?

Liam Fox, the U.K. trade secretary, has already rejected the approach, saying he didn’t think it could apply since the U.K. and the EU haven’t already agreed to a trade accord. WTO Director-General Roberto Azevedo confirmed that there must be a bilateral agreement between the EU and U.K. in order to claim an implementation period under GATT Article 24. “Once they have an agreement I think Article 24 could give them some time for implementation of that agreement,” he told Bloomberg. “But the first question is the agreement itself.”

Damien 16-06-2019 20:09
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35999330)
This is what bothers me about the Remainers on this thread. They are mostly coming from the stop Brexit end and tell us that it's better to remain because their lovely EU will always try to disadvantage us in these circumstances.

The Leavers, intent, of course on fulfilling direct democracy and gaining full sovereignty for the UK, argue that anyone trying to disadvantage us should be treated with disdain They also argue that 39 billion and tariffs on French and German cars are a useful weapon from our side. We must not allow the EU to trample on us and to Remain is to cave into bullies who will remain bullies.
I am just stating my impression on our circumstances. Eventually a deal will have to be done with the EU and the reality is they were now going to be pressing in their own best interests.

It is utterly naive not to assume that anyone will attempt to disadvantage us when it comes to trade negotiations. EU, US, China. All will be trying to use their leverage to get a better deal for them.

You can't throw the toys out of the U.K. Pram every time this happens.

Sephiroth 16-06-2019 20:21
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35999343)
I am just stating my impression on our circumstances. Eventually a deal will have to be done with the EU and the reality is they were now going to be pressing in their own best interests.

It is utterly naive not to assume that anyone will attempt to disadvantage us when it comes to trade negotiations. EU, US, China. All will be trying to use their leverage to get a better deal for them.

You can't throw the toys out of the U.K. Pram every time this happens.
It's the EU we're leaving, not the US, Japan or China. We have to deal with the EU's behaviour and we have to play our cards right, which we haven't done. We have the 39 billion and we are net importers of their stuff; those cards have to be played.

The EU is meddling with our constitutional arrangements by insisting on the Backstop and Macron has threatened to keep the Backstop on if we don't give up our fishing grounds; the US and China wouldn't do that. The EU would have control over us due to the Backstop.

You really shouldn't be an apologist for the EU (you'll deny being an apologist but it's how you come across).

1andrew1 16-06-2019 21:21
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999318)
Correction. We may have a withdrawal agreement if the EU climbs down off its high horse. Or we will make use of the protection period as provided for in Article 28 of GATT. Or we leave without a deal.
Hugh's post #3521 shows why the above is incorrect and his subsequent post #3527 puts the nail in the coffin.

Chris 16-06-2019 21:26
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35999350)
Damien's post #3521 shows why the above is incorrect.
Damien’s post, quoting from The New European, currently advertising in its strapline a free Bollocks to Brexit mug when you subscribe for just £1 a week. Pardon me if I’m suspicious about the impartiality of that analysis.

1andrew1 16-06-2019 21:36
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35999345)
It's the EU we're leaving, not the US, Japan or China. We have to deal with the EU's behaviour and we have to play our cards right, which we haven't done. We have the 39 billion and we are net importers of their stuff; those cards have to be played.

The EU is meddling with our constitutional arrangements by insisting on the Backstop and Macron has threatened to keep the Backstop on if we don't give up our fishing grounds; the US and China wouldn't do that. The EU would have control over us due to the Backstop.

You really shouldn't be an apologist for the EU (you'll deny being an apologist but it's how you come across).
Damien's no apologist. He's just pointing out that in a negotiation, each side will try and maximise its advantages. By definition, it means they will try and minimise the advantages of the other side.

---------- Post added at 21:36 ---------- Previous post was at 21:32 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35999351)
Damien’s post, quoting from The New European, currently advertising in its strapline a free Bollocks to Brexit mug when you subscribe for just £1 a week. Pardon me if I’m suspicious about the impartiality of that analysis.
Sorry, it was Hugh's post.
As well as the source you mention, Hugh also cites The Washington Post which unfortunately doesn't have such a good offer on ceramics.

Hugh 16-06-2019 22:02
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35999351)
Damien’s post, quoting from The New European, currently advertising in its strapline a free Bollocks to Brexit mug when you subscribe for just £1 a week. Pardon me if I’m suspicious about the impartiality of that analysis.
Here’s the original source - Annelli Howard, a specialist in EU and competition law at Monckton Chambers and a member of the bar’s Brexit working group.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...it-say-experts
Quote:
There are two apparently insurmountable hurdles to the UK trading on current WTO tariffs in the event of Britain crashing out in March, said Howard.

Firstly, the UK must produce its own schedule covering both services and each of the 5,000-plus product lines covered in the WTO agreement and get it agreed by all the 163 WTO states in the 32 remaining parliamentary sitting days until 29 March 2019. A number of states have already raised objections to the UK’s draft schedule: 20 over goods and three over services.

To make it more complicated, there are no “default terms” Britain can crash out on, Howard said, while at the same time, the UK has been blocked by WTO members from simply relying on the EU’s “schedule” – its existing tariffs and tariff-free trade quotas.

The second hurdle is the sheer volume of domestic legislation that would need to be passed before being able to trade under WTO rules: there are nine statutes and 600 statutory instruments that would need to be adopted.

The government cannot simply cut and paste the 120,000 EU statutes into UK law and then make changes to them gradually, Howard said. “The UK will need to set up new enforcement bodies and transfer new powers to regulators to create our own domestic regimes,” she said.

nomadking 16-06-2019 23:54
Re: Brexit
 
Strange that it HAS successfully been done before.
Split up of Czechoslovakia and Brexit.

Quote:
From the current perspective, it is hard to imagine that the split was agreed and executed in less than a year.

...
Considering the timing of Brexit and to avoid legal loopholes, a “copy & paste approach” should be considered with respect to EU legislation effective in Britain. This is viewed as the standard approach in international law and was also used in the process of dissolving Czechoslovakia.
Weird that all this guff comes AFTER Remain lost the vote.

1andrew1 17-06-2019 01:12
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35999359)
Strange that it HAS successfully been done before.
Split up of Czechoslovakia and Brexit.

Weird that all this guff comes AFTER Remain lost the vote.
What has been done before? Small countries splitting up? What is your point? Are you advocating the UK splits up to solve the backstop issue?

nomadking 17-06-2019 01:56
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35999362)
What has been done before? Small countries splitting up? What is your point? Are you advocating the UK splits up to solve the backstop issue?
Czechoslovakia splitting up wasn't really that different to UK splitting from the EU. The SAME issues of moving from a common set of trade rules and regulations, to separate ones were there, as have been with other countries splitting up.


The Soviet Union split up, and that wasn't exactly a small country.


The backstop has nothing to do with what WTO rules or otherwise we can or cannot use, or with any regulations needed or not needed.

Angua 17-06-2019 07:26
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35999363)
Czechoslovakia splitting up wasn't really that different to UK splitting from the EU. The SAME issues of moving from a common set of trade rules and regulations, to separate ones were there, as have been with other countries splitting up.


The Soviet Union split up, and that wasn't exactly a small country.


The backstop has nothing to do with what WTO rules or otherwise we can or cannot use, or with any regulations needed or not needed.
The Backstop is to temporarily manage the GFA until an alternative arrangement can be made for the Irish border for trade. So it does have everything to do with WTO rules.

If NI decides on reunification, the Backstop is no longer required and the border in the Irish Sea is permanent.

Hugh 17-06-2019 10:50
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35999359)
Strange that it HAS successfully been done before.
Split up of Czechoslovakia and Brexit.

Weird that all this guff comes AFTER Remain lost the vote.
So you’re comparing a country that wasn’t in the EU to one that is to show it can be done?

Here’s the article without having to register - don’t see much in there to help, except this...

Quote:
the most important lesson to be learnt from the dissolution of Czechoslovakia is undoubtedly the willingness to go through the entire departure process in a peaceful and cooperative way.
http://www.giese.cz/novinky/brexit-l...nt-for-brexit/

nomadking 17-06-2019 11:12
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35999382)
So you’re comparing a country that wasn’t in the EU to one that is to show it can be done?

Here’s the article without having to register - don’t see much in there to help, except this...



http://www.giese.cz/novinky/brexit-l...nt-for-brexit/
So how was this "peaceful and cooperative way" carried out involving the rest of the world? There was no need to. That is essentially the comparison. The EU would just become another "country". No need to agree anything with them, which is what we're talking about with a no-deal scenario. It was only the "divorce" elements(division of assets, debt etc) they(Czechs & Slovaks) needed to agree on. Their trade relationships with the rest of the World carried on without any fuss.

Hugh 17-06-2019 11:20
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35999385)
So how was this "peaceful and cooperative way" carried out involving the rest of the world? There was no need to. That is essentially the comparison. The EU would just become another "country". No need to agree anything with them, which is what we're talking about with a no-deal scenario. It was only the "divorce" elements(division of assets, debt etc) they(Czechs & Slovaks) needed to agree on. Their trade relationships with the rest of the World carried on without any fuss.
Point.
Missed.
Completely...

There were no actual examples in the article you linked to which would show how this would be helpful to the UK - which is why the article header was a question, not a statement...

OLD BOY 17-06-2019 13:11
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35999350)
Hugh's post #3521 shows why the above is incorrect and his subsequent post #3527 puts the nail in the coffin.
The only real question is whether we can get a bi-lateral agreement with the EU, which you and other remainers on here are convinced is impossible. I don't buy that.

I see no reason why the EU would not co-operate to the extent that it too is concerned about frictionless trade to us.

In the Washington post article that Hugh posted, the revelation is made that a protection period is possible.

'WTO Director-General Roberto Azevedo confirmed that there must be a bilateral agreement between the EU and U.K. in order to claim an implementation period under GATT Article 24. “Once they have an agreement I think Article 24 could give them some time for implementation of that agreement,” he told Bloomberg. “But the first question is the agreement itself.”

However, the defeatist attitude that so many posts on here reveal simply doesn't allow them to see the obvious. I guess they won't believe it until they see it. Only then will they shut up about the impossibility of it all and move on to a new lefty topic to promote despite all reason to the contrary.

1andrew1 17-06-2019 14:28
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999398)
The only real question is whether we can get a bi-lateral agreement with the EU, which you and other remainers on here are convinced is impossible. I don't buy that.

I see no reason why the EU would not co-operate to the extent that it too is concerned about frictionless trade to us.

In the Washington post article that Hugh posted, the revelation is made that a protection period is possible.

'WTO Director-General Roberto Azevedo confirmed that there must be a bilateral agreement between the EU and U.K. in order to claim an implementation period under GATT Article 24. “Once they have an agreement I think Article 24 could give them some time for implementation of that agreement,” he told Bloomberg. “But the first question is the agreement itself.”

However, the defeatist attitude that so many posts on here reveal simply doesn't allow them to see the obvious. I guess they won't believe it until they see it. Only then will they shut up about the impossibility of it all and move on to a new lefty topic to promote despite all reason to the contrary.
Business is largely against Brexit so you can say that Brexit is more left-wing than right-wing. Indeed, we heard one infamous Brexiter say "F-business".

What you repeatedly fail to recognise is that no-deal means what it says. It doesn't mean a different type of deal or a cake-and-eat-it deal.

If you read the serious business analysis around Brexit, you will understand that the EU doesn't want to undermine the integrity of the single market and needs to demonstrate that it will stand by its smaller members.
Quote:
"Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission president, said last week that the 585-page exit treaty “is not a treaty between Theresa May and Juncker, it is a treaty between the UK and the EU. It has to be respected by whoever is the next British prime minister.”
Yielding on that point of principle risked damaging the EU for years to come, one official told the Financial Times, placing at stake the integrity of the single market and decimating trust that the bloc would stick by its smaller members, in this case Ireland.
Ireland is also quick to dismiss suggestions from Tory leadership contenders that the new prime minister will get superior terms from Brussels and an alternative to the backstop.
As Mr Johnson and his rivals insist they can secure new solutions to the border question once they take office, Dublin sees such demands as further proof of the need for an “all weather” backstop to avoid checks on the frontier no matter who is in power.
https://www.ft.com/content/50a31434-...d-b42f641eca37

jonbxx 17-06-2019 15:09
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999398)
The only real question is whether we can get a bi-lateral agreement with the EU, which you and other remainers on here are convinced is impossible. I don't buy that.

I see no reason why the EU would not co-operate to the extent that it too is concerned about frictionless trade to us.

In the Washington post article that Hugh posted, the revelation is made that a protection period is possible.

'WTO Director-General Roberto Azevedo confirmed that there must be a bilateral agreement between the EU and U.K. in order to claim an implementation period under GATT Article 24. “Once they have an agreement I think Article 24 could give them some time for implementation of that agreement,” he told Bloomberg. “But the first question is the agreement itself.”

However, the defeatist attitude that so many posts on here reveal simply doesn't allow them to see the obvious. I guess they won't believe it until they see it. Only then will they shut up about the impossibility of it all and move on to a new lefty topic to promote despite all reason to the contrary.
Of course the countries of the EU want a deal with the UK, it's a no brainer to accommodate gravity based trade. However, the EU27 have some other priorities/red lines, namely;
  • Citizens rights
  • Integrity of the EU single market and customs union
  • The Good Friday Agreement
  • Financial liabilities already agreed to

Putting any one or more of the above at risk brings everything to a grinding halt. The agreement already proposed but knocked back covered these priorities of course, for better or for worse.

OLD BOY 17-06-2019 18:50
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35999414)
Of course the countries of the EU want a deal with the UK, it's a no brainer to accommodate gravity based trade. However, the EU27 have some other priorities/red lines, namely;
  • Citizens rights
  • Integrity of the EU single market and customs union
  • The Good Friday Agreement
  • Financial liabilities already agreed to

Putting any one or more of the above at risk brings everything to a grinding halt. The agreement already proposed but knocked back covered these priorities of course, for better or for worse.
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and that includes the £39bn.

All we need is a Canada style trade deal and given that the EU have already said we can have that, it won't be so difficult to get an agreement to negotiate that which will satisfy GATT.

jonbxx 17-06-2019 19:39
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999452)
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and that includes the £39bn.

All we need is a Canada style trade deal and given that the EU have already said we can have that, it won't be so difficult to get an agreement to negotiate that which will satisfy GATT.
Have the EU said we can have a Canada style deal? I have seen Canada being cited as the option left at the bottom of Barniers 'staircase' slide (http://qpol.qub.ac.uk/brexit-tell-us-eu/) but I thought that was more what was left after the Governemts red lines were taken in to account.

Of course a Canada style deal still closes the RoI/NI border. We need that technology (or alternatively, May shouldn't have called an election and she could have binned off Northern Ireland)

That's the problem, everything keeps cycling back to either breach UK or EU red lines. I am sure there is a deal out there but as it stands, nothing is standing out

Sephiroth 17-06-2019 23:15
Re: Brexit
 
There is no deal standing out there. The EU won’t lose face - any trade deal for the future relationship will require us to pay the 39 billion. If they agree to the 14 billion we say we go, then maybe.

Otherwise, sod them.

OLD BOY 18-06-2019 07:15
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35999468)
Have the EU said we can have a Canada style deal? I have seen Canada being cited as the option left at the bottom of Barniers 'staircase' slide (http://qpol.qub.ac.uk/brexit-tell-us-eu/) but I thought that was more what was left after the Governemts red lines were taken in to account.

Of course a Canada style deal still closes the RoI/NI border. We need that technology (or alternatively, May shouldn't have called an election and she could have binned off Northern Ireland)

That's the problem, everything keeps cycling back to either breach UK or EU red lines. I am sure there is a deal out there but as it stands, nothing is standing out
Barnier has said we can have a Canada style deal. Here is one report of his statement.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...exit-deal-over

The NI border is a red herring and if we leave the EU without a deal, that problem remains, doesn't it?

The EU is concerned to get a deal with the UK because it has a large volume of its own exports hanging on this. And when I say a 'no deal' I mean no withdrawal agreement. Article 28 and the trade deal are both accepted as being options under a so called 'no deal' scenario.

ianch99 18-06-2019 08:38
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999496)
Barnier has said we can have a Canada style deal. Here is one report of his statement.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...exit-deal-over

The NI border is a red herring and if we leave the EU without a deal, that problem remains, doesn't it?

The EU is concerned to get a deal with the UK because it has a large volume of its own exports hanging on this. And when I say a 'no deal' I mean no withdrawal agreement. Article 28 and the trade deal are both accepted as being options under a so called 'no deal' scenario.
But the Canada style deal excludes services:

https://www.ft.com/content/30705bfc-...2-916d4fbac0da

Quote:
is expected to be based on the Canada trade deal, with little or no privileged access on services added. The “plus” would come from linked agreements on fisheries, aviation, security and foreign policy co-ordination, which are not included in the Canada-EU agreement.
Brexit Britain faces services squeeze with Canada-style deal

Quote:
An accord that almost entirely deals with goods will offer only limited benefits. London and Brussels agree: for an idea of where Britain’s post-Brexit relations with the EU are heading, look to Canada.

As soon as the UK wound up its divorce talks last Friday, Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, said Britain’s demands to break with the bloc’s single market and customs union left no option other than a deal modelled on the 2016 goods trade-focused accord with Canada.

David Davis, Mr Barnier’s opposite number, told the BBC at the weekend that Britain was aiming at “Canada plus plus plus”, an agreement that would go much further in grafting on other sectors, notably services.

But Brussels insists that the UK faces a binary choice between participating in the single market, as Norway does, or a Canada-style deal.

The focus by both sides on the Canada accord highlights a particular problem for Britain: the limited benefits for a services-based economy of a treaty that almost entirely deals with goods.

Services account for 70 per cent of British output, and, more relevantly, 40 per cent of its exports.

And while there are limits to how well the EU services market functions — it lags well behind the bloc’s single market for goods — executives and economists say that British business would still feel the pain from leaving.

“Even if we are critical, it [the single market for services] is one of the EU’s biggest achievements,” says Arnaldo Abruzzini, chief executive of Eurochambres, the Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry. “There is no free-trade agreement that gives access in this same way.”

According to an internal European Commission document on Brexit, the Canada deal’s provisions on services merely reflect the “current state of openness applied (but not guaranteed) to all World Trade Organization members” — and does not cover sectors such as aviation or broadcasting.

The deal’s services chapter amounts to “no new access for Canada, in a word: nada”, says Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, director of the European Centre for International Political Economy, a think-tank.

The Canada agreement tackles overt discrimination against foreign ownership, but it does little to deal with lower-level barriers such as country-specific regulations.

“It essentially provides guarantees that the EU won’t impose restrictions that it doesn’t intend to impose anyway,” he says. “It is rules about rules — a guarantee of what WTO members already have.”

papa smurf 18-06-2019 14:41
Re: Brexit
 
Man ordered to pay Nigel Farage £350 in compensation for throwing milkshake at him


The Brexit Party leader's suit was left covered with the banana and salted caramel Five Guys milkshake in Newcastle last month.

https://news.sky.com/story/man-who-t...amage-11744012

Damien 18-06-2019 15:02
Re: Brexit
 
Plus the milkshake cost hm £5.

papa smurf 18-06-2019 15:06
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35999526)
Plus the milkshake cost hm £5.
£355.25 for a milkshake :rofl:

denphone 18-06-2019 15:32
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35999528)
£355.25 for a milkshake :rofl:
Less then a pound to buy in your nearest supermarket.;)

Chris 18-06-2019 15:48
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35999528)
£355.25 for a milkshake :rofl:
That’s Five Guys for you.

bubblegun 18-06-2019 16:05
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35999528)
£355.25 for a milkshake :rofl:
And reportedly got sacked by Sky too so a very expensive lunch break.

Hugh 18-06-2019 16:10
Re: Brexit
 
1 Attachment(s)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...exit-rq2m30t8n
Quote:
Priorities, priorities. If you were a member of the Tory party (maybe you are, there are 160,000 out there somewhere) it would be easy to assume that one of your priorities might be the preservation of the Tory party. Apparently not.

There is only thing that the current Conservative member is worried about: Brexit. And they are willing to see almost everything else destroyed to ensure it happens.

According to a new YouGov poll, 61 per cent of members would rather have “significant damage” to the economy to ensure Brexit takes place. The membership of the Conservative and Unionist Party would shrug off the break-up of the union: 63 per cent think it acceptable to see Scotland leave the UK to get Brexit, while 59 per cent would rather Northern Ireland left too to ensure what is left of the country leaves the EU.

More than half of members (54 per cent) would rather Brexit took place, even if it meant “the Conservative Party being destroyed”. In fact the only scenario in which they are willing to opt for preventing Brexit is if it also meant preventing Jeremy Corbyn becoming prime minister.

Hugh 18-06-2019 16:16
Re: Brexit
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-48680303
Quote:
He was his usual charismatic self and he struck a positive note for the commercial future of the UK and the role of business as being seen as a force for good. That all went down very well.

However, when pressed on what his plan is - people were less convinced.

Mr Johnson's plan appeared to be to defer the negotiations over the problematic Irish backstop till after the UK leaves the EU on 31 October. He proposed extending the transition period till December 2021, which would give everyone enough time to negotiate a free-trade deal and come up with the technology to ensure no physical infrastructure would be required at the Irish border.

This plan is roughly the same as the one suggested by Kit Malthouse. A plan that was dismissed by the EU as it required the backstop to be replaced by a solution that does not yet exist and therefore couldn't be considered a backstop at all.

When asked whether he was prepared to leave with no deal on 31 October, he said that it was not his preferred option, we had to prepare for no-deal and if necessary go through with it.

One attendee I spoke to felt that "his heart wasn't in that comment", another said, "the look in his eyes made you question whether he really meant that".
Update, after some reflection...

Defer negotiations until after a "no deal" exit on 31st October - the "transition period" is part of the Withdrawal Agreement, so if there is a "no deal" exit, there is no Withdrawal Agreement, so no transition period to extend...

So, in summary, BJ is going to leave with "no deal" and then use the transition period agreed in the deal he didn’t get to sort out a deal.

papa smurf 18-06-2019 16:28
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubblegun (Post 35999532)
And reportedly got sacked by Sky too so a very expensive lunch break.
Win win outcome then ;)

jonbxx 19-06-2019 10:41
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999496)
Barnier has said we can have a Canada style deal. Here is one report of his statement.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...exit-deal-over

The NI border is a red herring and if we leave the EU without a deal, that problem remains, doesn't it?

The EU is concerned to get a deal with the UK because it has a large volume of its own exports hanging on this. And when I say a 'no deal' I mean no withdrawal agreement. Article 28 and the trade deal are both accepted as being options under a so called 'no deal' scenario.
Sorry for the delay, I was away Yesterday. Thanks very much for the link, it does seem to reflect Barniers 'staircase' slide. It seems a pragmatic solution but again, the NI/RoI border issue is still an issue and of course it would be under a 'no deal' situation.

I guess my pessimism come from the inability to see a deal that is politically acceptable in the UK AND preserves the principles of the GFA.

I haven't heard much about article 28 of GATT recently. The last I heard was some grumpy noises from Australia and New Zealand on Tariff Rate Quotas but that was late last year

Hugh 19-06-2019 13:10
Re: Brexit
 
Not just Oz & NZ - some 20 countries, including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, and the US, raised objections over the proposed new commitment documents.

1andrew1 19-06-2019 13:17
Re: Brexit
 
I see that Boris's daft GATT 24 claims have failed the Factchecker!
Quote:
Boris Johnson was challenged by Rory Stewart to detail what tariffs (taxes on imports) would be charged on agricultural goods crossing the border.
He said there would be "no tariffs or quotas" because "what we want to do is get a standstill in our current arrangements under GATT 24" until a free trade deal had been negotiated.
GATT 24 is an article of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Supporters of a no-deal Brexit say it would allow the UK to continue to trade with the EU without tariffs for up to 10 years, while the two sides were negotiating a permanent future trade agreement.
But you can't use it in this way - a trade agreement has to be agreed in principle before Article 24 can be used.
It also needs the two sides to agree - the UK can't just impose it on the EU. You can read more about it here.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48685344

papa smurf 19-06-2019 14:12
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35999612)
I see that Boris's daft GATT 24 claims have failed the Factchecker!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48685344
Will that stand in the way of his rise to power?

Mr K 19-06-2019 14:24
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35999617)
Will that stand in the way of his rise to power?
Logic, reason and common sense? Probably not, given the electorate involved....

Comrade Corbyn is loving all this, Boris is also his route to power.

OLD BOY 19-06-2019 14:46
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35999618)
Logic, reason and common sense? Probably not, given the electorate involved....

Comrade Corbyn is loving all this, Boris is also his route to power.
In which case, he is deluded.*

Of all the candidates vying to be PM to replace Theresa May, it is Boris who is most likely to win over Labour voters. If Boris becomes PM (which is now a foregone conclusion), the Conservative Party will rise again and Labour will be nowhere to be seen. Provided, of course, that Brexit is delivered.



*But we already knew that, didn't we?

Dave42 19-06-2019 15:31
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999619)
In which case, he is deluded.*

Of all the candidates vying to be PM to replace Theresa May, it is Boris who is most likely to win over Labour voters. If Boris becomes PM (which is now a foregone conclusion), the Conservative Party will rise again and Labour will be nowhere to be seen. Provided, of course, that Brexit is delivered.



*But we already knew that, didn't we?
totally disagree OB Boris most likely to win labour votes when he only for the rich like his tax plan and cliff edge Brexit he one that will destroy the tories for very long time he be Corbyn's best weapon in getting power and you know I no fan of Corbyn both be a disaster for UK

OLD BOY 19-06-2019 19:21
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35999632)
totally disagree OB Boris most likely to win labour votes when he only for the rich like his tax plan and cliff edge Brexit he one that will destroy the tories for very long time he be Corbyn's best weapon in getting power and you know I no fan of Corbyn both be a disaster for UK
The Conservative Party is not only for the rich, and nor is Boris, although that is what Labour would like you to believe.

The issue abuut Boris's proposal regarding the higher rate of tax simply re-sets the position to where it was when the higher tax rate was introduced. This happens more regularly with other taxes (for example the minimum wage, which is increased annually) and it is long overdue.

You may not be aware, but when tax rates for higher earners is reduced, it tends to bring in more income for the treasury and so there is no case for leaving these rates as they are.

A Brexit without a deal would not be a disaster. That is just hype based on forecasts which take into account only the downsides without giving credit for the upsides. The result is unduly pessimistic forecasts, which is no surprise, surely?

Corbyn would totally ruin the economy, and the poor would be the first to suffer. Could you manage with the rampant inflation that would be caused by the excessive money printing programme he would have implemented for his ridiculous spending projects? That would be just the start, believe me. The money makers would invest their dosh elsewhere and emigrate. So there would be little investment and Corbyn would boast that he had abolished the rich in this country. Then he would find that tax income had slumped and so tax rates for everyone (including those currently not taxed under Conservative policies) would rise substantially. Everyone still living in the UK would end up poorer (except the Westminster elite and their hangers on) and Corbyn would say he had achieved pay equality outside his little bubble.

The Conservatives have received a bad press as a result of the austerity measures introduced to avoid the bankruptcy we were headed towards after the Blair/Brown mismanagement of the economy over 13 years, which saw Gordon Brown plunder our gold reserves, steal money from our pension schemes and squander it all with not much to show for it..

However, the end of austerity is now with us, and you will soon see what the Conservatives can do to help the poor. If they get another term at the end of this Parliament with a decent majority, you will see what I mean by that.

The best man for that job is Boris, because he can deliver Brexit and he can get the votes from the electorate.

You'll see.

daveeb 19-06-2019 19:59
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999675)
The Conservative Party is not only for the rich, and nor is Boris, although that is what Labour would like you to believe.

The issue abuut Boris's proposal regarding the higher rate of tax simply re-sets the position to where it was when the higher tax rate was introduced. This happens more regularly with other taxes (for example the minimum wage, which is increased annually) and it is long overdue.

You may not be aware, but when tax rates for higher earners is reduced, it tends to bring in more income for the treasury and so there is no case for leaving these rates as they are.

A Brexit without a deal would not be a disaster. That is just hype based on forecasts which take into account only the downsides without giving credit for the upsides. The result is unduly pessimistic forecasts, which is no surprise, surely?

Corbyn would totally ruin the economy, and the poor would be the first to suffer. Could you manage with the rampant inflation that would be caused by the excessive money printing programme he would have implemented for his ridiculous spending projects? That would be just the start, believe me. The money makers would invest their dosh elsewhere and emigrate. So there would be little investment and Corbyn would boast that he had abolished the rich in this country. Then he would find that tax income had slumped and so tax rates for everyone (including those currently not taxed under Conservative policies) would rise substantially. Everyone still living in the UK would end up poorer (except the Westminster elite and their hangers on) and Corbyn would say he had achieved pay equality outside his little bubble.

The Conservatives have received a bad press as a result of the austerity measures introduced to avoid the bankruptcy we were headed towards after the Blair/Brown mismanagement of the economy over 13 years, which saw Gordon Brown plunder our gold reserves, steal money from our pension schemes and squander it all with not much to show for it..

However, the end of austerity is now with us, and you will soon see what the Conservatives can do to help the poor. If they get another term at the end of this Parliament with a decent majority, you will see what I mean by that.

The best man for that job is Boris, because he can deliver Brexit and he can get the votes from the electorate.

You'll see.

"Significant damage to the economy" doesn't seem to bother the the majority of current Tory party members, depending on what they're getting in return of course.

Damien 19-06-2019 20:05
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999675)
The Conservatives have received a bad press as a result of the austerity measures introduced to avoid the bankruptcy we were headed towards after the Blair/Brown mismanagement of the economy over 13 years, which saw Gordon Brown plunder our gold reserves, steal money from our pension schemes and squander it all with not much to show for it..

However, the end of austerity is now with us, and you will soon see what the Conservatives can do to help the poor. If they get another term at the end of this Parliament with a decent majority, you will see what I mean by that.
I agree with you on Corbyn but austerity hasn't been a great success. We're still running deficits, our economy has been stagnant and some people have had to bare a disproportionate amount of the burden for it.

In retrospect we would probably have done better to have copied the example from America where they had a massive stimulus package to try and boost the economy. Compare the 2008-2018 performance of the U.S. Economy to our own. Obviously that's speculative, there is no way to know for sure, but austerity wasn't the answer either.

nomadking 19-06-2019 21:27
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35999612)
I see that Boris's daft GATT 24 claims have failed the Factchecker!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48685344
Strange that when Czechoslovakia split up, they had no problem with GATT 24.

---------- Post added at 21:24 ---------- Previous post was at 21:22 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35999506)
The clue is in the word "style". That doesn't mean exactly the same.

---------- Post added at 21:27 ---------- Previous post was at 21:24 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35999407)
Business is largely against Brexit so you can say that Brexit is more left-wing than right-wing. Indeed, we heard one infamous Brexiter say "F-business".

What you repeatedly fail to recognise is that no-deal means what it says. It doesn't mean a different type of deal or a cake-and-eat-it deal.

If you read the serious business analysis around Brexit, you will understand that the EU doesn't want to undermine the integrity of the single market and needs to demonstrate that it will stand by its smaller members.

https://www.ft.com/content/50a31434-...d-b42f641eca37
It wasn't meant as "I don't care about business", it was a "I don't care what the whinging Remainers say".

1andrew1 19-06-2019 21:40
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35999685)
Strange that when Czechoslovakia split up, they had no problem with GATT 24.
We're talking about a no-deal situation between the EU and the UK. Not a deal situation between Slovakia and the Czech Republic

Quote:
It wasn't meant as "I don't care about business", it was a "I don't care what the whinging Remainers say".
It was quite clear what he meant. His subsequent backpedalling when campaigning to be CP leader was a sensible ploy.

OLD BOY 20-06-2019 07:36
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveeb (Post 35999683)
"Significant damage to the economy" doesn't seem to bother the the majority of current Tory party members, depending on what they're getting in return of course.
That's because the Conservatives by and large don't buy the argument that there would be significant damage to the economy if we had a no 'Withdrawal Deal' Brexit.

---------- Post added at 07:36 ---------- Previous post was at 07:30 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35999684)
I agree with you on Corbyn but austerity hasn't been a great success. We're still running deficits, our economy has been stagnant and some people have had to bare a disproportionate amount of the burden for it.

In retrospect we would probably have done better to have copied the example from America where they had a massive stimulus package to try and boost the economy. Compare the 2008-2018 performance of the U.S. Economy to our own. Obviously that's speculative, there is no way to know for sure, but austerity wasn't the answer either.
The deficit is a fraction of its original size and is now manageable by more traditional means. The economy is not stagnant, but it has slowed as a result of uncertainty over Brexit. When that is over, the economy is expected to bounce back again.

I'm not convinced that a stimulus package would have been the answer in our case. We have had pretty full employment here, and such a package would have required money we did not have, which would have meant more borrowing. Shame that Gordon Brown spent all our gold reserves and left no balances. Same old Labour shambles.

Hugh 20-06-2019 14:02
Re: Brexit
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999704)
That's because the Conservatives by and large don't buy the argument that there would be significant damage to the economy if we had a no 'Withdrawal Deal' Brexit.

---------- Post added at 07:36 ---------- Previous post was at 07:30 ----------



The deficit is a fraction of its original size and is now manageable by more traditional means. The economy is not stagnant, but it has slowed as a result of uncertainty over Brexit. When that is over, the economy is expected to bounce back again.

I'm not convinced that a stimulus package would have been the answer in our case. We have had pretty full employment here, and such a package would have required money we did not have, which would have meant more borrowing. Shame that Gordon Brown spent all our gold reserves and left no balances. Same old Labour shambles.
They weren’t asked the question "do you buy the argument that there will be significant damage to the British Economy", and you are being duplicitous to try and rewrite the narrative.

They were asked

Quote:
for each of the following please say whether you would rather Brexit took place, even if it caused this scenario.

Significant damage to the U.K. economy
And 61% said it was worth it.

And whilst the deficit has reduced, our debt as a % of GDP has doubled - not so good.

ianch99 20-06-2019 17:11
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999704)
Shame that Gordon Brown spent all our gold reserves and left no balances. Same old Labour shambles.
Vintage OB, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant about Labour!

Dave42 20-06-2019 17:25
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35999759)
Vintage OB, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant about Labour!
cant wait for his rant when Boris disapoints and we still in EU 1st November

Damien 20-06-2019 17:26
Re: Brexit
 
Brown did sell off a lot of gold but I don't see the massive issue around it. You can only sell it once, it doesn't provide a stream of income, we don't use it to back our currency. So the only real reason to hold it is to later have an intent to sell it. The issue is then when do you sell it and this is where Brown made a mistake as gold later increased in price. However we only know that in hindsight - gold doesn't naturally have to increase in value. You might as well call him an idiot for not moving the money into Apple shares.

TheDaddy 20-06-2019 19:17
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35999762)
Brown did sell off a lot of gold but I don't see the massive issue around it. You can only sell it once, it doesn't provide a stream of income, we don't use it to back our currency. So the only real reason to hold it is to later have an intent to sell it. The issue is then when do you sell it and this is where Brown made a mistake as gold later increased in price. However we only know that in hindsight - gold doesn't naturally have to increase in value. You might as well call him an idiot for not moving the money into Apple shares.
It's an easy stick to beat him and labour with, only the slow witted actually belive it credible criticism

Dave42 20-06-2019 19:21
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35999780)
It's an easy stick to beat him and labour with, only the slow witted actually belive it credible criticism
well known tory lie

Sephiroth 20-06-2019 19:45
Re: Brexit
 
And what's all this Gordon Brown cobblers got to do with Brexit?

Dave42 20-06-2019 20:54
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35999783)
And what's all this Gordon Brown cobblers got to do with Brexit?
nothing at all we will see if Boris lets all your brexiteers down which i think he will

1andrew1 20-06-2019 23:01
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35999793)
nothing at all we will see if Boris lets all your brexiteers down which i think he will
BoJo may well be the grinch that betrays Brexit. ;) He's not a fundamentalist Brexiter in the way that Raab is, he sees Brexit (correctly in my opinion) as his route to No.10

Meanwhile, a reminder that the EU member states don't have much patience left.
Quote:
Speaking as the contest to replace Theresa May reached a crucial stage, Leo Varadkar said on Thursday he believed leaders would only grant Britain a delay to its October 31 exit date in order to hold a general election or a second referendum.
He added that any bid to revise the terms of Mrs May’s deal would fail, remarks that suggest the EU is closing ranks ahead of a possible attempt to renegotiate the exit treaty by Boris Johnson or another new UK prime minister.
Mr Varadkar made his comments after meetings with the EU’s centre-right leaders and Michel Barnier, the bloc’s Brexit negotiator. “There’s very much a strong view across the EU that there shouldn’t be any more extensions [to the October 31 date],” he said. “While I have endless patience, some of my colleagues have lost patience quite frankly with the UK, and there is enormous hostility to any further extension.”
The Irish prime minister said Britain would not be granted more time for further negotiations or further House of Commons vote on different Brexit options, adding “the time for that has long since passed.”
https://www.ft.com/content/58561858-...1-2b1d33ac3271

TheDaddy 21-06-2019 02:07
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35999783)
And what's all this Gordon Brown cobblers got to do with Brexit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35999793)
nothing at all we will see if Boris lets all your brexiteers down which i think he will
It might mean we're sick of people telling lies and half truths to suit a particular political agenda, with a bit of luck....

1andrew1 21-06-2019 09:36
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35999742)
They weren’t asked the question "do you buy the argument that there will be significant damage to the British Economy", and you are being duplicitous to try and rewrite the narrative.

They were asked

And 61% said it was worth it.

And whilst the deficit has reduced, our debt as a % of GDP has doubled - not so good.
I can't but see a contradiction on Northern Ireland. Happy for it to leave the UK to secure Brexit but not happy for it to be in a backstop with Ireland.

ianch99 21-06-2019 10:01
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35999762)
Brown did sell off a lot of gold but I don't see the massive issue around it. You can only sell it once, it doesn't provide a stream of income, we don't use it to back our currency. So the only real reason to hold it is to later have an intent to sell it. The issue is then when do you sell it and this is where Brown made a mistake as gold later increased in price. However we only know that in hindsight - gold doesn't naturally have to increase in value. You might as well call him an idiot for not moving the money into Apple shares.
I agree. In fact, at the time, interestingly the FT agreed with him at the time - see below. Also, apparently, the Health government also did the same thing:

Gordon Brown and the Gold sell off Myth


Quote:
Between 1970-71 the Bank of England sold nearly half of our gold reserves. Just like the Brown sell-off it was sold at a historic low of about $42.5/oz in October 1971. Only a year later it was worth $65/oz. This was done under the Tories and Edward Heath and had to be a much larger sale and loss as by the time Brown got to it half had already been sold so in effect Brown only sold a quarter of what was originally held in reserve with the Conservative Heath government selling off half.
The FT article:

Britain was right to sell off its pile of gold

Quote:
The continued run of the gold price is a global investment sensation. Recently it broke the $1,500 an ounce barrier for the first time, 30 per cent higher than a year ago. Surely this lays bare the extraordinary foolishness of Gordon Brown’s announcement, 12 years ago this week, that the UK Treasury would sell off some of Britain’s gold holdings?

Actually, no. On this one occasion, Mr Brown’s decision was the right one. Let speculators go gambling on a shiny metal, if they want to. For most governments in rich countries, holding gold remains a largely pointless activity.

With hindsight, of course, Mr Brown could have gained a better price by waiting. At current rates, the $3.5bn the UK received selling bullion between 1999 and 2002 would have been closer to $19bn. The difference at current exchange rates, by the way, would be enough to cover a little over three weeks of the UK’s expected public deficit for the fiscal year 2010-2011 – not negligible, but hardly pivotal.

Mr Brown, his critics say, must be kicking himself. Similarly, the French no doubt still suffer sleepless nights for prematurely taking profit on their Louisiana claim by offloading it to Thomas Jefferson in 1803. And had I put my life savings on Ballabriggs at 20-1 before last month’s Grand National, I’d be writing this on a solid platinum laptop while being sprayed with pink champagne in my new beachfront villa in Barbados.

That is the way of things with speculative assets. The truth is that no one has a good explanation why the gold price is currently where it is. The familiar story – a hedge against inflation or government insolvency – is flatly contradicted by the low yields and inflation expectations in US Treasury bonds. The volatility of gold (and other precious metals – witness the huge drop in silver prices this week) merely underlines the risk of holding it. The $1,500 landmark is a nominal price: had governments listened to the bullion fanatics and loaded up on gold in the last big bull market in the early 1980s, they would still be waiting to earn their money back in real terms.

More substantively, criticism of Mr Brown’s sale also betrays a misunderstanding of why a country such as the UK has gold at all.

In common with most rich nations, the function of British foreign exchange reserves is not for the government to manage wealth on behalf of the country. British citizens do that themselves. The UK does not have a sovereign wealth fund that aims to maximise returns, and nor should it. It is not a big net oil and gas exporter such as Norway – UK net foreign exchange reserves are about $40bn, equivalent to 2 per cent of nominal gross domestic product, while Norway’s sovereign fund has $525bn, equivalent to almost 140 per cent of its GDP.

Nor does the UK pile up foreign assets by persistently selling its own currency to manipulate the exchange rate, as does China. It is notable that the much-vaunted official purchases of gold over the past year are mainly by countries such as China and Russia – and, to a lesser extent, Mexico– with big excess reserves.

UK reserves are there mainly for precautionary reasons – to intervene in currency markets to stop a run on sterling or to pursue monetary policy objectives. Yet gold is badly suited for this task because, despite recent interest from private investors, a large proportion of global above-ground stocks – 18 per cent in 2010 – is still held by governments.

Any attempt to sell off large amounts quickly risks driving down the world price, which is what happened after Mr Brown’s announcement in 1999, leading to an international agreement between central banks to restrict further sales.

A precautionary reserve asset held for intervention purposes whose price is likely to fall the instant it is used to intervene is singularly pointless. Of course, central banks selling into a rising market like today’s may not have the same impact as in 1999, but who knows what demand for gold will be like if and when the intervention is needed?

There remains only one other main reason for governments to hold gold – to set monetary policy by linking the national currency to the gold price. This remains as bad an idea as ever. It would have meant sharply tightening monetary policy since the fall of 2008. This would have been madness.

Private investors, and sovereign wealth funds out to make returns, can punt their money on what they like. If they choose to plonk it down on the blackjack table of the commodity markets, that is their decision. But there is no good reason that governments that hold reserves for purely precautionary purposes should feel the need to follow them.


---------- Post added at 10:01 ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35999783)
And what's all this Gordon Brown cobblers got to do with Brexit?
Because it illustrates the lies that underpin this fiasco and how we got here. The nonchalant use of lies to promote arguments has got us in this perilous position. "Gordon Brown sold all the gold", "We can trade tariff free under GATT Article 24 without any EU agreement", etc.

The constant use of this "cobblers" as you put it leaves us where no one believes anyone anymore. A recipe for disaster ...

1andrew1 21-06-2019 10:07
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35999814)
I agree. In fact, at the time, interestingly the FT agreed with him at the time - see below. Also, apparently, the Health government also did the same thing:

Gordon Brown and the Gold sell off Myth


The FT article:

Britain was right to sell off its pile of gold

Because it illustrates the lies that underpin this fiasco and how we got here. The nonchalant use of lies to promote arguments has got us in this perilous position. "Gordon Brown sold all the gold", "We can trade tariff free under GATT Article 24 without any EU agreement", etc.

The constant use of this "cobblers" as you put it leaves us where no one believes anyone anymore. A recipe for disaster ...
Important to note also that Old Boy's accusation was "which saw Gordon Brown plunder our gold reserves". The reality was that he converted half of the gold reserves into other assets. That's not plundering.

ianch99 21-06-2019 10:49
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35999816)
Important to note also that Old Boy's accusation was "Gordon Brown plunder our gold reserves". The reality was that he converted half of the gold reserves into other assets. That's not plundering.
Exactly my point. Reality is so different from the rubbish spouted by the current crop of politicians and swallowed by the gullible.

Here's a topical example. The GATT article 24 lie that Johnson and co are promoting:

Brexit: Carney rejects Boris Johnson's no-deal trade claim

Quote:
The Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, has said that the UK would be hit automatically by tariffs on exports to the EU in a no-deal Brexit, rejecting a claim made by Boris Johnson that this could be avoided.

Tory leadership candidate Johnson said this week that tariffs would not necessarily have to be paid if the UK left the EU without a deal because the UK could rely on article 24 of the general agreement on tariffs and trade (Gatt).

Some Brexit supporters have claimed that the Gatt, a treaty under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO), would allow a “standstill” in which tariffs are avoided, even in the absence of any agreement on trade.

Many trade experts say this is not the case without agreement from both sides. Carney cited the head of the WTO and Liam Fox, the minister for international trade who backed the Vote Leave campaign in 2016, to contradict Johnson.

Talking to the BBC, Carney said: “Gatt 24 applies if you have an agreement, not if you’ve decided not to have an agreement or have been unable to come to an agreement.

“Not having an agreement with the EU means that there are tariffs automatically because the Europeans have to apply the same rules to us as they apply to everyone else. If they were to decide not to put in place tariffs they also have to lower their tariffs with the United States, with the rest of the world. And the same would hold for us.”

1andrew1 21-06-2019 12:12
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35999818)
Exactly my point. Reality is so different from the rubbish spouted by the current crop of politicians and swallowed by the gullible.

Here's a topical example. The GATT article 24 lie that Johnson and co are promoting:

Brexit: Carney rejects Boris Johnson's no-deal trade claim
Like the £350m lie, I'm pretty sure that BoJo and pals know the GATT 24 statement to be one too. its job is to get BoJo into No. 10. After that, he knows that many will have forgotten about it and there will be plenty of scapegoats and dead cats to throw into the mix.

---------- Post added at 12:12 ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 ----------

The reality of what's next for Brexit.

Ivan Rogers, the UK's former ambassador to Brussels this week said there are four options open to the next PM:
1) UK leaves on 31 October without a deal.
2) Makes unreasonable demands of the EU as a pretext for calling a general election which would be run on a no-deal platform.
3) Seek another extension in the forlorn hope of discovering a new solution to the Irish border question.
4) et the existing withdrawal agreement through parliament alongside a marginally changed declaration on Britain’s future relations with the EU.

According to the Financial Times
Quote:
Sir Ivan’s options compress into two plausible outcomes: this autumn Britain will suffer either the rupture of a no-deal Brexit in the first two or accusations of betrayal from Leavers with the others.
Even without believing economic forecasts, we know no deal would come at a price. It would bring tariffs on trade with the EU, the administrative burden of customs declarations and infrastructure on the Northern Ireland border. At any time, Brussels could revoke temporary permissions for planes to fly, trucks to drive on the continent and finance to flow.
We do not know how bad short-term disruption might be or the consequences for community relations in Ireland. But adjusting to new trade barriers with the EU would inevitably cause pain in many exposed industries, and this would not be offset by lower trade barriers with the rest of the world.
The alternative of failing to leave on October 31 would anger large sections of society and the Conservative party. Whether a further delay or revocation of Article 50 is caused by parliament, the prime minister or the people, Britain’s relationship with Europe is likely to be a festering sore, not a healing wound. The uncertainty now clouding business decisions would persist for a long time.
https://www.ft.com/content/3f40e4da-...a-60e35ef678d2

OLD BOY 21-06-2019 14:19
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35999742)
They weren’t asked the question "do you buy the argument that there will be significant damage to the British Economy", and you are being duplicitous to try and rewrite the narrative.

They were asked



And 61% said it was worth it.

And whilst the deficit has reduced, our debt as a % of GDP has doubled - not so good.
Are you seriously suggesting that these people had not figured out the narrative behind that question? It is not me being disingenous or duplicitous here, Hugh.

---------- Post added at 14:04 ---------- Previous post was at 14:02 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35999759)
Vintage OB, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant about Labour!
Vintage maybe, but so true. That one act set the scene for the serious situation we faced when the economic crash came, which led to the austerity. It is important that people remember that, just as it is important to remember that the electorate voted to leave the EU.

---------- Post added at 14:06 ---------- Previous post was at 14:04 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35999781)
well known tory lie
It is not a lie. Are you trying to re-write history? Of course he sold off our gold reserves. Economically, so inept.

---------- Post added at 14:17 ---------- Previous post was at 14:06 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35999814)
I agree. In fact, at the time, interestingly the FT agreed with him at the time - see below. Also, apparently, the Health government also did the same thing:

Gordon Brown and the Gold sell off Myth




The FT article:

Britain was right to sell off its pile of gold



---------- Post added at 10:01 ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 ----------



Because it illustrates the lies that underpin this fiasco and how we got here. The nonchalant use of lies to promote arguments has got us in this perilous position. "Gordon Brown sold all the gold", "We can trade tariff free under GATT Article 24 without any EU agreement", etc.

The constant use of this "cobblers" as you put it leaves us where no one believes anyone anymore. A recipe for disaster ...
I think you are deliberately ignoring the point that he cashed in the gold and squandered the money. Had he invested it, this debate would not be happening.

As for Article 28, perhaps you need to read this for yourself instead of relying on what the leavers are saying. Of course we need to agree the triggering of Article 28, but given that both sides want a trade deal, there would be no disagreement on both sides agreeing what they wanted from this and setting out the extent of the negotiations that had yet to be carried out. Given that the protection period lasts for up to 10 years, there's plenty of time to sort out the backstop.

Instead of finding imaginary obstacles, surely it would be a better use of this thread to discuss ways in which the decision of the electorate can actually be implemented.

---------- Post added at 14:19 ---------- Previous post was at 14:17 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35999816)
Important to note also that Old Boy's accusation was "which saw Gordon Brown plunder our gold reserves". The reality was that he converted half of the gold reserves into other assets. That's not plundering.
He eventually sold all the assets. There was nothing left when the coalition took over in 2010. They said so themselves, just as they did in 1979.

Hugh 21-06-2019 15:00
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999833)
Are you seriously suggesting that these people had not figured out the narrative behind that question? It is not me being disingenous or duplicitous here, Hugh.

---------- Post added at 14:04 ---------- Previous post was at 14:02 ----------



Vintage maybe, but so true. That one act set the scene for the serious situation we faced when the economic crash came, which led to the austerity. It is important that people remember that, just as it is important to remember that the electorate voted to leave the EU.

---------- Post added at 14:06 ---------- Previous post was at 14:04 ----------



It is not a lie. Are you trying to re-write history? Of course he sold off our gold reserves. Economically, so inept.

---------- Post added at 14:17 ---------- Previous post was at 14:06 ----------


I think you are deliberately ignoring the point that he cashed in the gold and squandered the money. Had he invested it, this debate would not be happening.

As for Article 28, perhaps you need to read this for yourself instead of relying on what the leavers are saying. Of course we need to agree the triggering of Article 28, but given that both sides want a trade deal, there would be no disagreement on both sides agreeing what they wanted from this and setting out the extent of the negotiations that had yet to be carried out. Given that the protection period lasts for up to 10 years, there's plenty of time to sort out the backstop.

Instead of finding imaginary obstacles, surely it would be a better use of this thread to discuss ways in which the decision of the electorate can actually be implemented.

---------- Post added at 14:19 ---------- Previous post was at 14:17 ----------



He eventually sold all the assets. There was nothing left when the coalition took over in 2010. They said so themselves, just as they did in 1979.
Yoi say "potato", I say "reality"...

1andrew1 21-06-2019 15:46
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999833)
He eventually sold all the assets. There was nothing left when the coalition took over in 2010. They said so themselves, just as they did in 1979.
I'm afraid you're wrong.
1. The gold sale was a move from one asset class to another.
2. It was only half of our gold reserves, not all of them.
3. Liam Byrne wrote the note which was intended to be a joke. He explains so here:
Quote:
And so in my final hours of office, I was writing thank-you notes to my incredible team of civil servants. And then I thought I’d write one letter more to my successor. Into my head came the phrase I’d used to negotiate all those massive savings with my colleagues: “I’m afraid there is no money.” I knew my successor’s job was tough. I guess I wanted to offer them a friendly word on their first day in one of government’s hardest jobs by honouring an old tradition that stretched back to Churchill in the 1930s and the Tory chancellor Reginald Maudling, who bounced down the steps of the Treasury in 1964 to tell Jim Callaghan: “Sorry to leave it in such a mess, old cock.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...neral-election

ianch99 21-06-2019 15:47
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999833)
Instead of finding imaginary obstacles, surely it would be a better use of this thread to discuss ways in which the decision of the electorate can actually be implemented.
Nah. I prefer to stick to facts and live in the real world. Your cartoon-like narrative of "Labour bad, Tory good" is losing its entertainment value.

Mr K 21-06-2019 16:24
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35999848)
Nah. I prefer to stick to facts and live in the real world. Your cartoon-like narrative of "Labour bad, Tory good" is losing its entertainment value.
But remember L is for Labour, L is for Lice ;)
https://youtu.be/L8rapth5Cno

1andrew1 21-06-2019 16:26
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35999848)
Nah. I prefer to stick to facts and live in the real world. Your cartoon-like narrative of "Labour bad, Tory good" is losing its entertainment value.
Indeed. Everyone's entitled to their opinions but not their facts. If we look at table 5 from the ONS we can see that government debt was £1,194.3bn in 2010 or 75.2% of GDP and is currently £1,837.5bn or 86.7% of GDP.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gover...t/december2018

OLD BOY 21-06-2019 17:24
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35999853)
Indeed. Everyone's entitled to their opinions but not their facts. If we look at table 5 from the ONS we can see that government debt was £1,194.3bn in 2010 or 75.2% of GDP and is currently £1,837.5bn or 86.7% of GDP.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gover...t/december2018
No-one disputes that the debt has increased. That happened because we were in a huge deficit situation.

Now that the deficit is down to manageable proportions, we can start paying off the debt.

Mick 21-06-2019 22:00
Re: Brexit
 
This topic is not about Debt - it's not about Gold reserves, it's not about how crap Labour/Tory party are or have been, it's not about cartoons, it's not to discuss the arguments for or against Brexit. The decision has been made, the UK voted to leave.

I am sick of the old pathetic, tiresome arguments resurfacing all the time, by the same members. It has got to stop.

Angua 22-06-2019 11:19
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35999884)
This topic is not about Debt - it's not about Gold reserves, it's not about how crap Labour/Tory party are or have been, it's not about cartoons, it's not to discuss the arguments for or against Brexit. The decision has been made, the UK voted to leave.

I am sick of the old pathetic, tiresome arguments resurfacing all the time, by the same members. It has got to stop.
We haven't left because Cameron was arrogant enough to think Remain would win, whilst also idiotically forgetting the GFA.

Sephiroth 22-06-2019 12:54
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angua (Post 35999924)
We haven't left because Cameron was arrogant enough to think Remain would win, whilst also idiotically forgetting the GFA.
The GFA really has nothing to do with Brexit. It is used by Ireland as an economic weapon and by Remainers as an artificial excuse to stop Brexit. Are you seriously implying/suggesting that the public should not have been able to vote on leaving the wretched EU because of the GFA? Tut tut.

Angua 22-06-2019 13:13
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35999935)
The GFA really has nothing to do with Brexit. It is used by Ireland as an economic weapon and by Remainers as an artificial excuse to stop Brexit. Are you seriously implying/suggesting that the public should not have been able to vote on leaving the wretched EU because of the GFA? Tut tut.
Brexit has been a brilliant recruitment tool for the latest incarnation of the IRA.

Completely forgetting about the impact of Leaving on the GFA has been the problem. The UK asked for the Backstop arrangement in the WA. This has prevented the WA getting through parliament. You can wish the GFA has nothing to do with Brexit all you want. It does not stop it being a factor .

Dave42 22-06-2019 13:19
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35999935)
The GFA really has nothing to do with Brexit. It is used by Ireland as an economic weapon and by Remainers as an artificial excuse to stop Brexit. Are you seriously implying/suggesting that the public should not have been able to vote on leaving the wretched EU because of the GFA? Tut tut.
the GFA is in international law and kept the peace for all these years since it was signed and leader of the US congress as said no trade deal if UK break the GFA it does not us stop us from leaving EU but need border sorted and deal that keeps the peace

Sephiroth 22-06-2019 13:22
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angua (Post 35999938)
Brexit has been a brilliant recruitment tool for the latest incarnation of the IRA.

Completely forgetting about the impact of Leaving on the GFA has been the problem. The UK asked for the Backstop arrangement in the WA. This has prevented the WA getting through parliament. You can wish the GFA has nothing to do with Brexit all you want. It does not stop it being a factor .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northe...itics-44615404

The BBC disagrees with you.

Bother the UK and Ireland have forces at their disposal to counter terrorism.

We must not bee held to blackmail by terrorist bodies.

Furthermore, who is going to build the border? When the dust settles, and the wretched EU doesn’t get all of the 39 billion, something will be sorted out over cross-border traffic.

Btw, coaches entering Ireland from NI are stopped by the police a mile down the road and all passports/ID are checked.
|

Mick 22-06-2019 14:12
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35999939)
the GFA is in international law and kept the peace for all these years since it was signed and leader of the US congress as said no trade deal if UK break the GFA it does not us stop us from leaving EU but need border sorted and deal that keeps the peace
The GFA will not be broken - no-one wants a border, who is going to build one?

No-one, not the UK, not the EU and not Ireland - there, job done, stop looking for weak excuses to stop something your side lost. :rolleyes:

And Brexit certainly has not been a recruitment tool for the IRA - that is utter rubbish.

A trilateral agreement between the US, the UK and Japan would link the world’s first, third and fifth-largest economies and also scupper any notion from Remainers that we are "isolating" ourselves from the rest of the World.

Angua 22-06-2019 14:25
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35999940)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northe...itics-44615404

The BBC disagrees with you.

Bother the UK and Ireland have forces at their disposal to counter terrorism.

We must not bee held to blackmail by terrorist bodies.

Furthermore, who is going to build the border? When the dust settles, and the wretched EU doesn’t get all of the 39 billion, something will be sorted out over cross-border traffic.

Btw, coaches entering Ireland from NI are stopped by the police a mile down the road and all passports/ID are checked.
|
The ‘backstop’ was a British proposal, not one tabled by Ireland or the EU

Varadkar: 'We cannot accept alternative arrangements'

Brexit: No-deal border checks 'will be needed'

Mr K 22-06-2019 14:30
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35999949)
The GFA will not be broken - no-one wants a border, who is going to build one?

No-one, not the UK, not the EU and not Ireland - there, job done, stop looking for weak excuses to stop something your side lost. :rolleyes:

And Brexit certainly has not been a recruitment tool for the IRA - that is utter rubbish.

A trilateral agreement between the US, the UK and Japan would link the world’s first, third and fifth-largest economies and also scupper any notion from Remainers that we are "isolating" ourselves from the rest of the World.
1st, 3rd and 5th largest economies? No prizes for guessing who'll get the rough end of that deal !

We are of course currently part of the World's largest economy, the EU, however lets throw all that away and demote ourselves to 5th..... No wonder Trump and Putin are keen on Brexit.

Dave42 22-06-2019 14:45
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35999949)
The GFA will not be broken - no-one wants a border, who is going to build one?

No-one, not the UK, not the EU and not Ireland - there, job done, stop looking for weak excuses to stop something your side lost. :rolleyes:

And Brexit certainly has not been a recruitment tool for the IRA - that is utter rubbish.

A trilateral agreement between the US, the UK and Japan would link the world’s first, third and fifth-largest economies and also scupper any notion from Remainers that we are "isolating" ourselves from the rest of the World.
wasn't me that said that

Angua 22-06-2019 14:48
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35999959)
wasn't me that said that
It was me based on this article

Reuters if you prefer

Mick 22-06-2019 15:53
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35999954)
1st, 3rd and 5th largest economies? No prizes for guessing who'll get the rough end of that deal !

We are of course currently part of the World's largest economy, the EU, however lets throw all that away and demote ourselves to 5th..... No wonder Trump and Putin are keen on Brexit.
More rubbish - The EU is not the largest Economy in the world, it comes second after the United States of America, which is the worlds largest and in which you not want us to do trade with - bonkers because of your hate of the U.S!!! :rolleyes:

Angua 22-06-2019 16:00
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35999966)
More rubbish - The EU is not the largest Economy in the world, it comes second after the United States of America, which is the worlds largest and in which you not want us to do trade with - bonkers because of your hate of the U.S!!! :rolleyes:
As long as Trump is President and Congress claim to protect the GFA we are a bit stuck over trading with the US.

The EU will not allow a border that would let US sourced produce into the EU via Ireland. The checks needed on top of the Country of Origin rules makes a hard border inevitable.

Sephiroth 22-06-2019 16:29
Re: Brexit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angua (Post 35999968)
As long as Trump is President and Congress claim to protect the GFA we are a bit stuck over trading with the US.

The EU will not allow a border that would let US sourced produce into the EU via Ireland. The checks needed on top of the Country of Origin rules makes a hard border inevitable.
Aside from the question of just who's going to construct this hard border or indeed order it, to see the perfidious Varadkar squirm will be a reward of significant value.

I've had enough of the Irish tail wagging the UK dog.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:52.
Page 36 of 40 « First 2632333435 36 37383940
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum