UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The EU is the one forcing a hard border, and NOBODY ELSE. They are the ones being constantly stubborn on a trade deal. Where else on the planet would another country be allowed to dictate what could and couldn't be moved around in the country? Do you have the remotest idea of what the EU has control over. eg parcels from GB to NI. There is a very long list of things that we have to get their approval over.
Why on earth should the IRA dictate what this country can and cannot do?

Given “taking back control” of our borders was one of the reasons for Brexit I’m sure even you see the irony that “we want control of our borders but we don’t want you to control yours” is a somewhat unrealistic ambition.

Would you accept a flood of migrants heading our way over the UK partition on the island or Ireland? Of course you wouldn’t. It’s unreasonable to expect so.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The EU is the one forcing a hard border, and NOBODY ELSE. They are the ones being constantly stubborn on a trade deal. Where else on the planet would another country be allowed to dictate what could and couldn't be moved around in the country? Do you have the remotest idea of what the EU has control over. eg parcels from GB to NI. There is a very long list of things that we have to get their approval over.
Why on earth should the IRA dictate what this country can and cannot do?

From a soft Brexiter's viewpoint, if the UK took an approach like Norway and Switzerland we wouldn't be in this mess.

Alternatively, from a no-deal Brexiter's viewpoint, the Government could have decided that it was better to review a 20-year old treaty (The Good Friday Agreement) and not a 20-week-old treaty (Withdrawal Agreement). It would have won the moral agreement (eg why is the EU interfering in a sovereign nation) if it had done the former and not the latter. The Government has failed no-deal Brexiters as it's too late for such a situation.

[Carth]

I have no qualms regarding a no deal brexit.

hard border, soft border, 100 miles of concrete wall with guard posts and razor wire, line scuffed in the sand . . . all the same in the end, we'll trade or we won't.

Pretty sure I can survive without

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Carth

I have no qualms regarding a no deal brexit.

hard border, soft border, 100 miles of concrete wall with guard posts and razor wire, line scuffed in the sand . . . all the same in the end, we'll trade or we won't.

Pretty sure I can survive without

Except what you've described breaks the Good Friday Agreement. If so, they should have addressed this in 2016 not 2020.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Except what you've described breaks the Good Friday Agreement. If so, they should have addressed this in 2016 not 2020.

ok . . . so what agreement does 'no border' break?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Carth

ok . . . so what agreement does 'no border' break?

Good Friday Agreement requires no borders.
WTO if no deal means borders.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Good Friday Agreement requires no borders.
WTO if no deal means borders.

I love this conundrum. Everyone loses and shit creek looks like paradise!

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Mick

But Germany still broke International law and it would do so if it meant upholding their constitution.

The outrage from the Remainers is non-existent when other countries breach international treaties/laws because you’re hypocrites. I’m fed up of you all defending the EU, when it is the one acting in total disgrace towards Britain over the years. The fact, you hold the EU in such high regard when it is corrupt to the core. The fact it is Undemocratic but pretends to be so.

To be fair, I wasn't even aware of this case until today so I was unable to express any outrage. I agree that the German courts vs. the ECJ could result in Germany being in a position to break the Eurozone agreements. Luckily for everyone, the further clarifications sent by the ECB were accepted by German as passing the subsidiarity tests they initially failed and a bullet was dodged. The UK can still dodge a bullet too...

Luckily in terms of corruption, the EU and Western Europe states are the least corrupt region in the world with 14 of the top 20 countries in the Corruption Perceptions Index. Always room for improvement though - https://www.transparency.org/en/news...-europe-and-eu

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

T Boris’ strategy for trying to prove that he won’t cave in (that highly contentious piece of legislation) is high risk, but it is meant to create a lot of noise, as it has in fact done.

And more importantly, to distract from the Track and Trace failings.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Carth

ok . . . so what agreement does 'no border' break?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Good Friday Agreement requires no borders.
WTO if no deal means borders.

Still not sure I understand.

The Good Friday agreement says we don't need a border, but that isn't a trade deal is it?

A WTO means we will need a border if there's no deal with the EU.

A deal with the EU means we won't need a border, and therefore won't need one if we strike other deals elsewhere . . but we do need a border in it's no deal . . . is that right?

The deal with Japan (and others) . . was there a fuss about borders?

Should I just treble my daily alcohol intake and forget it all?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Carth

Still not sure I understand.

The Good Friday agreement says we don't need a border, but that isn't a trade deal is it?

A WTO means we will need a border if there's no deal with the EU.

A deal with the EU means we won't need a border, and therefore won't need one if we strike other deals elsewhere . . but we do need a border in it's no deal . . . is that right?

The deal with Japan (and others) . . was there a fuss about borders?

Should I just treble my daily alcohol intake and forget it all?

Nope, I can't recommend increasing consumption that much. But pull up a chair, pour yourself a moderate glass and watch it all unfurl.

We have a border with Japan.
We don't have one with the Republic of Ireland as enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement, which is not a trade deal. Which is fine and dandy at the moment but if we can't strike a trade deal with the EU then we enter that dilemma I outlined earlier:
- Good Friday Agreement requires no borders.
- WTO if no deal means borders.

The current situation is a bit like leaving the task you hate to do the most until the last possible moment whereas you know the sensible thing to do is to get it out of the way early on.

[Carth]

aaah, so if we struck some kind of deal with the Republic of Ireland as a separate entity - if that's at all possible to the EU masters - everything would be fine

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

To be fair, I wasn't even aware of this case until today so I was unable to express any outrage. I agree that the German courts vs. the ECJ could result in Germany being in a position to break the Eurozone agreements. Luckily for everyone, the further clarifications sent by the ECB were accepted by German as passing the subsidiarity tests they initially failed and a bullet was dodged. The UK can still dodge a bullet too...

Luckily in terms of corruption, the EU and Western Europe states are the least corrupt region in the world with 14 of the top 20 countries in the Corruption Perceptions Index. Always room for improvement though - https://www.transparency.org/en/news...-europe-and-eu

I was only aware of it at midnight last night and didn't have time to research the voracity of the claims. Not that it's mine or anyone's responsibility here to fact check these things. Thanks for clarifying the situation in Germany.

---------- Post added at 17:39 ---------- Previous post was at 17:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

aaah, so if we struck some kind of deal with the Republic of Ireland as a separate entity - if that's at all possible to the EU masters - everything would be fine

Trading blocs with a single market can't strike side deals as the single market would cease to be um, a single market.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Trading blocs with a single market can't strike side deals as the single market would cease to be um, a single market.

Rules & Regulations, always getting in the damn way

Originally Posted by jonbxx

To be fair, I wasn't even aware of this case until today so I was unable to express any outrage. I agree that the German courts vs. the ECJ could result in Germany being in a position to break the Eurozone agreements. Luckily for everyone, the further clarifications sent by the ECB were accepted by German as passing the subsidiarity tests they initially failed and a bullet was dodged. The UK can still dodge a bullet too...

Luckily in terms of corruption, the EU and Western Europe states are the least corrupt region in the world with 14 of the top 20 countries in the Corruption Perceptions Index. Always room for improvement though - https://www.transparency.org/en/news...-europe-and-eu

I do not want the UK to dodge a bullet, I do not care if it means breaching international law, it if means stopping the corrupted EU from getting it's grips on Northern Ireland.

The EU is corrupt to the core and nothing you say changes this or any stupid index system. I have a pair of eyes, it is corrupt!

The EU pretends to be a Democratic Entity = Corrupt.

Just look at the European Commission Presidential Election last year, how the current and new president, Ursula Von Der Leyen, wasn't even on the ballot = Corrupt.

It breaches International law itself, is in current breach of the Withdrawal Act, given it is not acting in good faith in negotiations when it has a legal requirement to do so. A legal standard itself upholds with but fails to follow itself = Corrupt.

The EU insists that Democratic processes are asked again, to ensure it gets the result it wants = Corrupt.

Thankfully the UK stood up to this totally corrupted democratic system by a totally corrupted entity.

I will keep on saying it until you and the other Remainers in this thread get it. Germany broke international law, "broke" is past tense, it does not say in the article, that it was going to break, it "broke" it cannot undo what it has done, so as the Spectator asked in the article, why was Germany not punished by the corrupted EU for breaking International law, stop trying to sugar coat it or pretend it didn't happen when it did.

When a legal expert, a barrister has certainly explained in the Spectator that the case was that Germany, with its supposed high commitment to international law, found as a matter of principle that it can overturn international law (this can only mean break it), if an international law obligation asked Germany to do something which was a fundamental breach of its constitution.

---------- Post added at 19:01 ---------- Previous post was at 18:52 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

And more importantly, to distract from the Track and Trace failings.

That is what the pathetic EU's Barnier accused him off yesterday. Mouth piece for the EU yet again I see, you're a disgrace Andrew.