[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m still lost as to the point you are making. Nobody disputes that the EU can operate borders with countries adhering to their legal obligations around it.

What the UK is essentially proposing is that the UK partition of the island of Ireland doesn’t need a robust one, or any at all, which is where the hole in the Single Market comes from.

I ask again would you be happy if unlimited illegal immigration crossed from France to England because nobody bothered to make any attempt to control the border?

The same applies to uncontrolled movement of goods. No established standards, no tariffs or duties paid etc.

Again it’s good that Denmark holds goods to higher standards than the EU. You cannot say with any certainty that’s what the UK intend to do.

The simple answer to those is SO WHAT.
The external EU borders are NOT currently robust, so it's a complete and utter irrelevance to NI.

If the EU are that bothered they can put up a form of border between Ireland and the rest of the EU, The Irish are (unsurprisingly) more than happy to put up a border between NI and GB.

The question over differences in standards was over examples of where different EU countries had differing standards. Question answered. Other examples of differences out there.

The UK-France border isn't comparable, as in case you haven't noticed, we are an island. That gives limited routes into the UK, but somehow a huge number of illegals still get in. How did they get into the EU(mainly France)? How many non-EU borders does France have? Are they all coming through Switzerland? But then again Switzerland is surrounded by EU countries which they would have to get into beforehand.

If post-Brexit, somebody in NI wants to supply to a customer in Ireland, something that doesn't meet EU rules, but does meet UK ones, then the supplier is OUTSIDE of EU jurisdiction.

The real central issue is that the backstop can ONLY be the subject of any 2nd agreement. The WA is a TRANSITIONAL one, UNAMBIGUOUSLY LIMITED IN TIME, according to the EU.
Link(Again)

Any transitional agreement must unambiguously be limited in time;

Something can only be "transitional", if there is a defined end point of the transition. Something open-ended as the backstop, is not a transition to anywhere, other than to infinity and beyond.

The withdrawal agreement will cover issues such as:
The rights of EU citizens in the UK

• The rights of UK citizens living in other parts of the EU
• The UK’s financial commitments undertaken as member state
• Border issues (especially the one between the UK and the Republic of Ireland)
• The seat of EU agencies
• International commitments undertaken by UK as member state (for example the Paris agreement)

No WA = no money for the EU.

What the agreement on the future framework could cover
The agreement on the future framework would set out to describe the conditions for cooperation on a variety of issues, ranging from defence, the fight against terrorism, the environment, research, education and so on.

One of the key sections would be to agree the basis for future trade. It could also describe possible tariffs, product standards, and how to resolve disputes.

Has the EU and Remain side redefined the meaning of the word "future"? If they have, what is in this mythical future agreement?

---------- Post added at 13:34 ---------- Previous post was at 13:22 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

You are just rehashing old news here. It is clear to any reasonable person that there is not, and never has been, a mandate for No Deal.

What we need to focus on now is why the once cautious and prudent Conservative Party is hellbent on playing fast & loose with the economic future of the country when most of the country is against it.

The "deal"/WA is an OPTIONAL(on the UKs part, the EU is obliged to seek one) step, on the path to Leave. Even a vote FOR the WA is a vote for Leave. The WA just means LEAVING later. NOTHING ELSE. It does NOT(or isn't meant to) mean Remain. Either way, Deal and no deal both lead to LEAVING.