Re: Brexit
 

It's going to be an order from varadkar to build it to save his precious single market,at which point he paints a target on his back for breaching the GF agreement,he'll be busy looking under his car and avoiding little parcels for the rest of his life.

Re: Brexit
 

You really don’t know how it works, do you?

Re: Brexit
 

It is not inevitable and you are simply adding to existing volumes relating to Project Fear.

Re: Brexit
 

It will be that way so long as Ireland is in the EU and the UK has planned/has left the EU. The EU will always support its members, regardless of their size. Traditionally, Ireland has been a weaker party to the UK but the roles are now reversed. Size matters, and people are starting to see what this statement means in practice.

Re: Brexit
 

The alternatives are accepting the backstop via the WA or Irish reunification.

I have no problem with either. The DUP may have other ideas.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Those are two alternatives, it's true. What about the others?

You are just being taken in by the Project Fear hype and the attempts by remainers and the EU to muddy the waters.

Re: Brexit
 

Let's drop the Project Fear bullshit shall we? It is called facts and reality. Anything else is denial.

If you disagree, prove it with facts and argument. The land of No Deal has no sunlit uplands running wild with unicorns I am afraid.

Re: Brexit
 

The only alternative is some technological solution that's not been invented yet. Not to say it won't happen in the future but for now we have to work with what we have.

---------- Post added at 20:09 ---------- Previous post was at 19:47 ----------

The UK voted in 2016 to effectively be a big cog in a small wheel, in a wheel of large cogs.

I can't see much changing now. The previous talking-up of the likelihood of Greece, Spain, the Netherlands and Ireland leaving the EU seems to have been more wishful thinking than wholesome facts.

Re: Brexit
 

Prove it with facts. (Potentially Fictional Forecasts are not proof before you even try running with them.)

You cannot tell others to prove something when you don’t bother to prove what you’re saying is even remotely true.

Re: Brexit
 

It's been demonstrated to the pro-Brexit UK Government. There's no stronger available analysis than this and despite their agenda, they have accepted it.
To me, ianch99 is not asking for perfect evidence but something equivalent to that which shows we will be worse off and not just optimistic phrases.

Re: Brexit
 

March 2016, ie before referendum

The New IRA is just a collective group for all the Republican terrorists.
July 2012

Re: Brexit
 

No one's saying the New IRA didn't exist before June 2016.
What's your post #3612 on about then?

Re: Brexit
 

The accusation made was "Brexit has been a brilliant recruitment tool for the latest incarnation of the IRA.".

1) Why should the IRA etc be that bothered about the border?
2) Why should we have to continually pander to them?

Re: Brexit
 

If you read this article that Angua linked to, it explains the recruitment question and the New IRA's interest in the border.

The first time that I've heard about our continually pandering to the New IRA is in your post. As far as I'm aware, no one is suggesting that. However, I'm sure you appreciate that it's better not to adopt policies that increase support for terrorism if you can avoid it.

Re: Brexit
 

As 1andrew1 posted, read the article.

Any system that of necessity closes off roads between RoI & Ni will cause problems with the GFA. Any system that is not robust enough will cause problems with WTO rules. Simple things, like milk being collected from farms both sides of the border, bottled on one side and sold on the other. This falls foul of Country of Origin rules when we leave the EU.

Then there is the problem of those pesky migrants, who travel to RoI under FoM, then cross into NI through one of these unchecked borders.

Shove checkpoints in and the New IRA will target them.
There is no technology that can cope with remote checking of tanker full of milk from either side of the border, let alone simple checks on goods.
Move the border to the Irish Sea and the DUP will kick off.
NI farmers are particularly vulnerable to cheap beef imports.

Simplest solution is reunification. Would the DUP support the government if this was even whispered, let alone supported?

Re: Brexit
 

:tu:

Re: Brexit
 

Reality does not work that way I am afraid. You research, assess the conclusions of those more knowledgeable that you in the applicable areas and then come to a informed position on what is the probable scenario.

What you do not do, although this is now the popular approach, is to invent a possibility based on no credible evidence and say this is going to happen.

---------- Post added at 09:28 ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 ----------

This is the logical & inexorable outcome of a No Deal scenario. NI has had a lot of EU funding over the years and this level of investment is unlikely to be continued by Westminster given the priority the Leave leaning politicians give NI. I mean, in the Leave campaign, when was the NI border discussed as a strategic factor in the process?

Re: Brexit
 

It’s the logical and inexorable outcome of demographics. The birth rate amongst the Catholic (and largely nationalist) population in NI is higher than that in the Protestant (and largely unionist) population. Within a couple of decades there will be a natural majority for Irish reunification, a border poll and a change of sovereign control over the territory. The calculation has always been that that would occur so far down the road, with the institutions of Northern Irish government so well established, and with the ongoing cooperation of the British and Irish governments so embedded, that the change would have amounted to little more than a flag-raising ceremony.

Part of what’s worrying Varadkar right now is that Northern Ireland is still a money pit, and a fractious one. A major world economy like the UK has the resources to deal with it. Ireland does not. The Irish neither want nor need Northern Ireland on their plate right now. It suits them to have influence without ever having to pay for it.

I agree with you, Brexit is likely to hasten Irish reunification, but that doesn’t worry me to the extent that that has always been the endgame; just one nobody dared say out loud. It should concern all of us that doing it too soon could cause some problems, but I absolutely don’t agree with the argument that says we shouldn’t do Brexit because it’s too difficult. For me, that simply reinforces the argument that our ongoing entanglement with the EU is de facto eroding our sovereignty.

Re: Brexit
 

Which is what you do all the time.

Those that you claim are more knowledgeable are far from knowledgeable, they are still basing their negative presumptions on forecasts and as I said, these are not evidence in the slightest.

So perhaps stop demanding others have to prove something, when you continue to not do the same thing!

Re: Brexit
 

I don't think you can credibly expect anyone on this forum to come up with more evidence than is available to Her Majesty's Government.

Re: Brexit
 

Is this the same 'Her Majesty's Government' that many are currently calling incompetent clowns (or worse) ?

Re: Brexit
 

The politicians can be incompetent and the Civil Servants competent ;)

Re: Brexit
 

even Liam Fox admits gatt 24 claim is not true

BBC Politics
‏
Verified account

@BBCPolitics
2h
2 hours ago


More
Liam Fox on Boris Johnson’s ‘GATT 24’ #Brexit claims: “It isn’t true, that’s the problem”

The trade secretary tells #Marr that the argument from Boris Johnson, that we can use world trade rules to avoid tariffs after Brexit, “isn’t true”

http://bbc.in/2tnzxS0

Re: Brexit
 

And what they have is not evidence, they are forecasts, which means what they have, are predictions - you seem to have a real problem understanding the basic concept of what constitutes real evidence and just opinion. :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit
 

No, there is evidence. Even Liam Fox accepts that Article 24 cannot be used without the agreement of the EU.

Basically johnson is lying to our faces just like he did in 2016. He seems a good fit for the Prime Minister of Brexitland.

Re: Brexit
 

No there is not, stop telling lies - I am not talking about A24, and you jolly well know this. I am talking about your fictional negative fantasies of chaos, in a "No deal scenario" based on absolutely no evidence. My issue is your tiresome demands of evidence from others, when you have presented none at all. :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit
 

Ah but you see the world does not work like that. You suggest something is going to happen that has no downside when all the evidence presented contradicts you. Your position has all the work ahead of you to prove its case. The case that No Deal negatively impacts this country has already been made.

Re: Brexit
 

Again - That is not evidence, so I have not been contradicted thanks. I repeat, they are forecasts which have been and can be wrong!!!

If the weatherman forecasts it's going to rain on Wednesday but it does no such thing on the day, that is not evidence, it's a prediction just like your negative remainer fantasies of chaos are predictions.

You cannot cast forecasts as evidence, evidence is by definition something that has happened and witnessed to be fact-based. Predictions and opinions and forecasts are not and never will be evidence, so stop casting them as such and stop asking others for evidence when you don't present any.

Re: Brexit
 

You are entitled to your opinion however you are wrong on the definition of evidence:

There are numerous bodies of facts and information to indicate that the proposition that No Deal is disadvantageous to this country. This is a matter of record.

Now, please present the available body of facts or information that indicates that No Deal is advantageous to this country.

As to the request to stop asking for evidence to backup fantasy claims that could directly disadvantage me and my children, .. no chance ..

Re: Brexit
 

Regardless of whether we call it modelling, evidence or analysis, it is reasonable for someone to back up their opinions with the available information. An argument supported by the UK Government's own analysis (which does include the upside for new trade deals btw) is more powerful than one without any information.

Re: Brexit
 

https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/

In the run up to our exit planned for 29 March 2019 the EU passed a number of measures to ensure continuity if the UK left without signing the Withdrawal Treaty. Measures included an aviation agreement to ensure the planes fly, a haulage agreement to allow road transport to continue, a rail agreement, “legal certainty for ship operators”, compensation for EU fishing businesses if they lose access to UK waters, continuity for students currently in the Erasmus programme, and more time for the Peace and Interreg programmes for Ireland and Northern Ireland.

In the update produced for the recent EU Council they also noted that rights of UK citizens currently legally settled in the rest of the EU will be protected. They are ensuring medicines and Reach approved chemicals can continue to be traded, and have increased customs capacity at UK facing ports and transport centres to handle any need to introduce tariffs.

This of course all goes largely unreported by the Remain facing UK media, who carry on with silly scare stories based on an imaginary exit with none of these agreements in place

[

Re: Brexit
 

John's losing it, that was all reported at the time.

Re: Brexit
 

Define continuity? Yes, planes will fly but what will the changes in cost & delay be? Yes, road transport will continue but what will the costs & delays be and what paperwork will be needed?

This is lazy populist blogging. If these areas will not be impacted by No Deal, he would of course of provided the links to said measures to back up his claims. But he didn't ... says it all really.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Oh, I thought that was evidence earlier :wavey:

Re: Brexit
 

It's only evidence when it suits the remain agenda.

Re: Brexit
 

Guess you did not read the definition of evidence? Here it is again:

I suppose he just forgot to include the facts and information part from his blog :dozey:

---------- Post added at 21:08 ---------- Previous post was at 21:01 ----------

You can support this claim then? I am sure that John did not make any of this up so you can ask him to produce the supporting documentation that illustrates this.

I mean, the UK Government, the majority of Parliament, the CBI and countless other people seem to disagree with Mr Redwood. Obviously they are all wrong and there will be no adverse affects of No Deal .... or may be Mr Redword is telling tales (again)?

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

John used to be a reputable politician but now he just seems to be trying to press populist buttons. For starters, all these benefits will start and end at the EU's discretion. We'll be more of a vassal state than if the ERG and chums had accepted the Withdrawal Agreement.

Re: Brexit
 

Step back and reassess things for a minute. You link a blog that claims all will be well. I point out that there is no evidence just claims and you say I am pompous and pedantic!!

You are blind to facts and reason. Get out of your Tory membership bubble and live in the real world for a while.

You claim something will happen? Fine but back it up with reasoning and evidence. If you cannot, it is just that, a claim ..

Re: Brexit
 

I'm surprised Hugh hasn't done his usual Google search.:D


Link

Re: Brexit
 

He missed out persistently;)

---------- Post added at 08:16 ---------- Previous post was at 08:14 ----------

I think he uses hughoo :)

Re: Brexit
 

Irish border issue could be solved in three years
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...it-says-report

Re: Brexit
 

Always amuses me when people denigrate research and fact-finding, as if it is a negative thing - having been an Intelligence Analyst for 6 years in a previous career, I was taught to not just research, analyse, collate, and present information, but also to look at the source of the material for validity; the truth is out there, it just needs to be found and verified.

Too busy eating Gelato in Rome to google... :D

Re: Brexit
 

I suspect doing robust research along the lines you suggest throws up the wrong kind of answers.
Enjoy Rome. :)

Re: Brexit
 

Pip stole my line....There is nothing amiss in researching, and fact finding, the thing that you do. But it’s the way you do it. The determination that you must try prove a forum opponent wrong and I say opponent, because that is how you characteristically treat the poster, you’re responding to and you apply this approach mainly to folk who are not politically aligned with you.

Re: Brexit
 

Or throws out millions of different answers, it's tedious work picking out the ones you agree with ;)

Re: Brexit
 

Erm, all you ever do is post claim after claim, with zero evidence. I told you forecasts are not evidence and never will be and that is the end of it.

Also. I told you to stop demanding others provide evidence when you never do. Ignore me again ianch, at your own peril. :mad:

Re: Brexit
 

Surely the only true debates you can have apart from philosophical ones are information-based ones. This should be commended and not denigrated. You can never assume another's motives here.
The alternative is of course the I'm right/No, I'm right argument which doesn't get us anywhere.
Of course, the information cited may not ever be perfect and probabilities may be attached to it. But we're all logical human beings so should be able to factor this in.

Re: Brexit
 

We cannot have a situation where someone demands evidence all the time, and you can be guilty of this at times, but then provide absolutely none yourself, when you cast off your own dispersions of opinion.

The problem here is Brexit has not occurred so there is no evidence of fact. Remainers want to write off Brexit because they are so against it, and put forward claims of chaos. The so called experts said the millennium bug would be a massive issue, a disaster for the tech industry, it wasn’t. They said not joining the EURO, would be catastrophic for the British Economy, it wasn’t.

You and ianch telling the rest of us that this expert opinion or forecast for the millennium bug and not joining the Euro, is evidence, because that is quite frankly, bullshit.

We are a single country that has voted to become independent again, of the EU, we do not need to be in their overpriced club to do trade. But we’re too busy here, well, some of us are, trying to still argue the toss that we should leave or not, that boat has sailed. The UK voted to leave.

Re: Brexit
 

I have posted many times with links to evidential articles detailing ways No Deal is disadvantageous to this country. Here are some more for you:

https://assets.publishing.service.go...alysis__1_.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.go...March_2019.pdf

Look, you just don't care what anyone says about what is likely to happen, you just want the outcome at any cost. I get that but I care what happens to this country and I care what happens to my children.

If someone says No Deal will not adversely impact this country, like John Redwood does, I will say prove it .. every time ..

Re: Brexit
 

Wonderful, you have linked to more opinions and waffle.

And It’s not about caring, it’s about believing. Past Forecasts and disaster predictions have been historically false.

Re: Brexit
 

1) I've never demanded a higher standard of evidence than I am prepared to supply myself, that's inaccurate.
2) I've never mentioned the Millennium Bug (what a joke that was, lol) or advocated joining the Euro or we will suffer on this forum. Experts do sometimes get things wrong but mostly they get it right - experts built this forum's software, the device you have typed into and the power station that supplies the electricity for doing so.
3) Forecasts are not bullshit. They represent the best available information out there and those supplied to the Government are as impartial as possible and not produced by some underground pact of Remainers. Indeed, the Government was not keen for them to be published.

Re: Brexit
 

BREAKING: Brexit Party to challenge Peterborough by-election result amid mounting evidence convicted electoral fraudster Tariq Mahmood acted as an “agent” to Labour candidate @LisaForbes_

Re: Brexit
 

Those are extremely reputable sources, Mick as they're published by the Government. If you were ranking source accuracy, they would be at the top and sites like RT and InfoWars at the bottom. You may not agree with 100% of their conclusions but you should be able to both understand and agree with a lot of the information in there.

Re: Brexit
 

You suddenly trust this government, because it fits squarely with your agenda.

Re: Brexit
 

It's just a unsubstantiated claim by them. Every time people say we must or mustn't do X, because of the peace process, is purposefully and blatantly pandering to the terrorists.

Re: Brexit
 

It's about looking at the source of the material and its purpose.

I think it's right to be sceptical of Government literature issued to households by a Remain government encouraging people to vote remain.

But if a Government commissions analysis to help it plan for different scenarios and then tries to prevent such information falling into the public domain, I wouldn't be as sceptical.

---------- Post added at 12:23 ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 ----------

No because as you've highlighted, they don't believe in the peace process.

Re: Brexit
 

Just my opinion on this . .

You can have as much expert analysis, profiling, research, forecasts etc etc as you like, but it's the way the information is finally presented (and the 'keywords' used therein) at the target that sway the reader in many cases.

Interpretation/Presentation . . open to human fallibility

Re: Brexit
 

Agreed.

In terms of the Government reports Ian linked to, they will have been through robust processes with many people challenging them and checking them to minimise human fallibility. In terms of other sources, that's not often a given.

I think it's also useful to understand the purpose of the information including knowing who it's intended audience is.

Re: Brexit
 

Look, let's be honest here. You can present as many reasoned arguments with supporting, fact-based analysis as you like but if people have been sold something that aligns with their political & personal aspirations then you are going to have your work cut out to dissuade them.

The closest parallels are belief systems like religion or the Flat Earth concept: as Mick said, "it’s about believing". Faith demands no proof by definition. The problem we have is this: you can believe any religion and you can sign up to the Flat Earth belief and all it affects is you (and possibly your family). However, when a minority of the electorate drags the entire country to a place where there is a clear & present danger to the UK economy then it matters. It matters because you drag the rest of us there as well.

Re: Brexit
 

I love it when people compare the Millennium Bug with Brexit (and then put "lol").

The MB was a real issue, just like Brexit, and there were a number of issues which if not identified and resolved, would have a severely adverse impact on every day life.

The difference between the MB and Brexit is that no one said about the MB "don’t worry, it’ll be fine, you’re worrying over nothing, just let it happen and we’ll sort it out later, you’re just scaremongering".

Ask anyone who worked in IT for the years leading up to Y2K about the amount of time, resources, and money that was put into identifying and fixing potential issues - the reason hardly anything went wrong is because we identified and resolved the problem, not denied there was a problem.

But I suppose all the "experts" who put the time and effort in didn’t know what they were talking about...

Re: Brexit
 

In fairness, it was me who put lol but Mick who raised the comparison in his post, but I get your point about the behind-the-scenes work that prevented a disaster.

Re: Brexit
 

I don't get it, when the "experts" said there would be a problem, Y2K had not yet happened so surely they should have been dismissed as scaremongers? I mean until something happens it's not real, right?

Re: Brexit
 

No one listens to experts anymore Hugh, according to Arron Banks all we need do is believe, who'd have thought he'd be such a hippy snowflake

Re: Brexit
 

Except that the reason for the concern was explained, and it was logical.

The Brexit scaremongering does not take into account the benefits of leaving and is illogical.

---------- Post added at 07:45 ---------- Previous post was at 07:40 ----------

Those experts who keep changing their minds about what food is good for you (and which is now proved to be wrong)? Who are only just beginning to realise that low carb diets are better for avoiding Type 2 Diabetes? Who keep getting their economics forecasts wrong? Who told us we were heading for an ice age?

There comes a point when you just have to use a little common sense to work out what may or may not be true.

Re: Brexit
 

It takes time to learn things. Especially when it comes to food where you cannot have a proper control group. These people work on the best knowledge of the time and then adjust as they learn more. We know a lot more about nutrition than we did 100 years ago and we'll know more in another 100 years and the people who'll be responsible for that are the experts you dismiss.

Re: Brexit
 

:tu:

---------- Post added at 08:19 ---------- Previous post was at 08:18 ----------

:tu:

Re: Brexit
 

Patrick Minford is one of the experts who makes a habit of getting it wrong, he's mogg and farages go to economist, he claims agriculture and manufacturing will have to be sacrificed for brexit, is he wrong again?

Re: Brexit
 

But noone has provided a worked example of these benefits especially when offset against the negative aspects. You are just hiding behind a wall of noise: shout "scaremonger", "Project Frear", etc. when someone asks you to back up your claims.

It is not an unreasonable proposition is it? To ask for something, anything to backup the claims? Your approach to use "common sense" to predict what will happen is just bonkers.

---------- Post added at 09:35 ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 ----------

Specifically the car industry:

Re: Brexit
 

Which of course, means that 'experts' can be wrong, which is all I'm saying. To put the amount of faith in experts that some people do ignores the fact that they have been proved wrong before many times simply because of a misunderstanding or no awareness of the full facts.

Economic forecasts are no different and yet despite the examples given of the number of occasions they have been proved wrong, if these forecasts 'prove' a person's point of view, then this becomes part of their mindset.

There is also the other elephant in the room. Scientists and economists actually disagree amongst themselves. For all these reasons, trying to find some Biblical truth from expert opinions is simply delusional. Listen to what they say, of course, but then apply the common sense test.

---------- Post added at 09:51 ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 ----------

Er, what about increased trade with the rest off the world, for a start? :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit
 

One of the very minor perks of Brexit, is seeing how the deluded dreams turn into nightmares. Spoilt of course by being part of it all....

Re: Brexit
 

What will we sell the world the day after we leave that we didn't sell them the day before we left?

Re: Brexit
 

And what happened ... nothing (or nearly nothing).

What was the response - what a waste, all that effort and nothing went wrong what a waste vs phew, we did it, nothing went wrong, money well spent.

The same will happen with Brexit or any other future.

Some will say it went well and the right choice other will say the opposite. In this case we can add it would be better if or it would be worse if.

Re: Brexit
 

I am confused.

Are you saing it's a waste because nothing went wrong?

Or you saying people will perceive to have been a waste precisely because nothing went wrong as a result of the problem being addressed?

Re: Brexit
 

That confused me too. I think he’s saying different groups of people said one thing or the other about the millennium bug, and different groups of people will likewise say one thing or another about Brexit.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Y2K was a known problem with a known solution. It isn't a hoax or a myth, it was a programming issue people understand. No one can tell you precisely why some systems were less vulnerable than others without understanding how that system handled dates and the consequences to those systems of the dates being wrong. However anyone who maintained such systems at the turn of the century would have had first-hand knowledge of what they needed to do and what the consequences would have been had they not. There are literally people out there who directly would have seen these things.

The article linked above points out some of the possible problems. The Italy/Russia/South Korean thing is a red-herring since we don't really have an idea of how much software they had to maintain at a state-level rather than using private companies which fixed the issue or working from software written in countries which deployed patches to systems running in those countries.

Re: Brexit
 

Sounds like some country's didn't have a market for snake oil ;)

Re: Brexit
 

I worked for a major hotel company at the time, which tested its reservation system and discovered it would just stop working when the date flipped over. There was a real problem that cost time and money to fix. However it was a very well understood problem several years ahead of time so planning and implementing the fix wasn’t the end of the world; not fixing it, however, would have had serious repercussions for a business with global operations employing tens of thousands of people.

Nevertheless there was a Y2K operations room staffed all night of the millennium. It did not have to deal with any problems but that’s because everything had been identified and patched.

Re: Brexit
 

Think this has gone a bit off topic. However don't blame anyone tbh ! ;)

Re: Brexit
 

I'm saying that after the event some people said it was a waste of time and money. I knew it wasn't as I had to rewrite much of the hospital system I was working on. Fortunately the data store was compliant, just the application needed to add the century. We had to add bits of code to move the epoch so 2 digit years would work also - had to handle past and future dates correctly. We had it ready well before 1999.

Brexit is different but if things go well those who support it will say they said so (in advance) those against will say it would be even better if we remained. If things go badly those who oppose will say told you so, those who support will blame the opposers.

Bit like farmers who are never happy with the weather. Whatever the Brexit outcome some will not be happy.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Boris 'vows to IGNORE MPs efforts to block No Deal' as poll shows Britain wants Brexit more than ever: 57% now want to leave EU (MORE than at the referendum) and 28% would be happy to crash out


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-leave-EU.html


Boris Johnson will simply steamroller attempts by MPs to block a No Deal Brexit, his allies said today, as a new poll suggested Britain wants to leave the EU more than ever.


So it's 57% v 43% now

Re: Brexit
 

It will be an Article 28 managed Brexit.

Re: Brexit
 

It sounds like an article two fingers brexit to me.

Re: Brexit
 

I think there are many who will be surprised at how straight forward this turns out to be in the end. A few weeks ago I was castigated on here for ‘falling’ for that Article 28 proposition just because some ‘expert’ remainders said it was impossible and that clearly it couldn’t be done!

Well, Boris will see about that. Look and learn, guys!

Re: Brexit
 

I'm bookmarking this post ;)

Re: Brexit
 

Please do, and don’t accidentally lose it when it comes to pass!

Re: Brexit
 

Article 28 is difficult as at requires the non-objection of all WTO members.

Last I heard, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Uruguay, the United States, Canada, Brazil, Thailand, China, Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Argentina, Colombia, Nicaragua and Ecuador weren't happy at our proposed schedule under article 28.

I haven't seen much movement recently on this so hopefully there is some good news soon.

Re: Brexit
 

Like Theresa May l suppose...;)

Re: Brexit
 

Yes, although I understand that it takes a couple of years to get these cases to court, by which time we should have the trade deal with the EU.

Re: Brexit
 

So we should break WTO rules and ask nicely for other trade deals from countries like the US, Canada, China and Australia who are objecting at the same time?

One thought is that it will be interesting how the EUs own Article 28 negotiations will affect things with future deals. I understand quite a few countries aren't happy with their proposals either.

Re: Brexit
 

are you on fantasy island again OB and it takes much longer than couple years to do a trade deal

Re: Brexit
 

It's all about 'belief' Dave, facts mean nothing.

Clearly you are an unbeliever, however you will be blamed for 'negative vibes' when it all doesn't work out....

Re: Brexit
 

I guess a lot depends on how quickly both parties want a deal, nobody wants to lose trade - either way

Re: Brexit
 

You need to believe more and you will see a unicorn.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Article 28 is a GATT provision, so it is not illegal!

---------- Post added at 10:04 ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 ----------

Not between the UK and the EU, it won't. We already meet their standards, so it will not take anywhere near as long as it did for the Canada deal.