Brexit

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Wrong as usual HUGH.

That's a bit mean of you, mate.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Who's to say they wouldn't? That is exactly what I am saying, isn't it? However, you have put the cart before the horse. The new PM would need to present all the arguments and all the alternatives to Parliament first and get their endorsement. That, in fact, is the main hurdle, not the EU!

Apart from there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest the EU would accept this proposal... Then we're on an even sticker wicket than we already are.

My thought is that this has already been discussed and discounted for reasons we're not privy too

[nomadking]

The figures, from the UK's current account published by the Office for National Statistics, say that, before the application of the rebate, the UK's gross contribution was £19.6bn a year - about £376m a week.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

That's a bit mean of you, mate.

The 'wrong as usual' is a commonly used bit of abuse on here. Seems to have originated from 'the top', then spread....

[Angua]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Apart from there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest the EU would accept this proposal... Then we're on an even sticker wicket than we already are.

My thought is that this has already been discussed and discounted for reasons we're not privy too

Think one of the issues is the NI Border & GFA. That easily forgotten part of the UK that would have a direct border with the EU.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

That's a bit mean of you, mate.

You obviously don't know about his supposed mind reading abilities.

---------- Post added at 14:59 ---------- Previous post was at 14:58 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

The 'wrong as usual' is a commonly used bit of abuse on here. Seems to have originated from 'the top', then spread....

No abuse as such just a statement of truth.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Apart from there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest the EU would accept this proposal... Then we're on an even sticker wicket than we already are.

My thought is that this has already been discussed and discounted for reasons we're not privy too

No, it has not been discussed and rejected - where did you get that from? All along, it has been TM's plan to get the Withdrawal Agreement done and dusted. Article 24 was the idea the ERG came up with, and it seems to me the Government has given this scant attention so far as they wanted to concentrate on getting the WA through.

Given that this has clearly failed, the attraction of Article 24 is that it does away with an agreement that Parliament would not sanction and gets us into the next stage - the trade agreement - at a stroke, so to speak. Let's concentrate on that now, and with a 10 year protection period available, that is way more time than the EU has already admitted it needed to resolve the backstop issue.

Where's the disadvantage to that?

---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:00 ----------

Originally Posted by Angua

Think one of the issues is the NI Border & GFA. That easily forgotten part of the UK that would have a direct border with the EU.

The EU is on record as saying that the backstop would be most unlikely to be needed within the existing timescales. So if they had a much longer period to resolve it - 10 years in all - why would they not agree it, given that it also provides for no tariffs while negotiations contiinue?

You're not accusing the EU of acting in bad faith, are you?

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

No, it has not been discussed and rejected - where did you get that from? All along, it has been TM's plan to get the Withdrawal Agreement done and dusted. Article 24 was the idea the ERG came up with, and it seems to me the Government has given this scant attention so far as they wanted to concentrate on getting the WA through.

Given that this has clearly failed, the attraction of Article 24 is that it does away with an agreement that Parliament would not sanction and gets us into the next stage - the trade agreement - at a stroke, so to speak. Let's concentrate on that now, and with a 10 year protection period available, that is way more time than the EU has already admitted it needed to resolve the backstop issue.

Where's the disadvantage to that?

---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:00 ----------



The EU is on record as saying that the backstop would be most unlikely to be needed within the existing timescales. So if they had a much longer period to resolve it - 10 years in all - why would they not agree it, given that it also provides for no tariffs while negotiations contiinue?

You're not accusing the EU of acting in bad faith, are you?

I will. The division in this country is partially down to them. They want to keep us in by whatever means.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

No, it has not been discussed and rejected - where did you get that from? All along, it has been TM's plan to get the Withdrawal Agreement done and dusted. Article 24 was the idea the ERG came up with, and it seems to me the Government has given this scant attention so far as they wanted to concentrate on getting the WA through.

Given that this has clearly failed, the attraction of Article 24 is that it does away with an agreement that Parliament would not sanction and gets us into the next stage - the trade agreement - at a stroke, so to speak. Let's concentrate on that now, and with a 10 year protection period available, that is way more time than the EU has already admitted it needed to resolve the backstop issue.

Where's the disadvantage to that?

---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:00 ----------



The EU is on record as saying that the backstop would be most unlikely to be needed within the existing timescales. So if they had a much longer period to resolve it - 10 years in all - why would they not agree it, given that it also provides for no tariffs while negotiations contiinue?

You're not accusing the EU of acting in bad faith, are you?

No. The EU has to protect the RoI as a member of the EU. We are leaving, what happens to us will be on our heads alone.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Angua

No. The EU has to protect the RoI as a member of the EU. We are leaving, what happens to us will be on our heads alone.

Yes and accepted.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Yes and accepted.

But not by all. hence the predicament in which we find ourselves.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

But not by all. hence the predicament in which we find ourselves.

I am not in a predicament.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You don't understand. Article 24 provides for the status quo to be maintained while a trade agreement is being negotiated. Once again, you are putting forward problems that don't exist.

Why can you not post solutions instead of objections? That would be much more constructive and stop this thread going around in circles.

But it is you who are resetting the clock again! If only we just ask the EU to agree to the GATT Article 24 procedure, we will be home again in time for tea & cake. It's so easy & obvious, I cannot believe why no one has asked them before. I mean all that time, effort and money spent by the Government detailing why No Deal is bad for the country when all that had to go to BrexitCentral.com, ring up the EU and ask them to sign up to Article 24.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by ianch99

But it is you who are resetting the clock again! If only we just ask the EU to agree to the GATT Article 24 procedure, we will be home again in time for tea & cake. It's so easy & obvious, I cannot believe why no one has asked them before. I mean all that time, effort and money spent by the Government detailing why No Deal is bad for the country when all that had to go to BrexitCentral.com, ring up the EU and ask them to sign up to Article 24.

Perhaps the better question would be.

Why the hell have you been going on about having to have to have this withdrawal agreement in place before we can talk about any deal. BTW we've also made sure you can't leave until we say so!

[jfman]

Are we planning on making contributions to the EU in this ten year transition? Can we strike glorious trade deals with the USA?