Brexit (Old)

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

It doesn’t automatically trap us in a customs union forever, but if the backstop as currently conceived is triggered, it does trap us in one until the EU agrees we can leave. Unlike Article 50, under which we have the right to walk away, the backstop within the withdrawal agreement surrenders that right. Given the many things various EU members might want to extract concessions over - fishing access, Gibraltar, to name but two - it is intolerable for us to allow ourselves to be trapped in such a way. The backstop is such an insane idea that I have trouble believing May ever believed it would get past Parliament. In fact I find it easier to believe that she brought it back so that parliament could reject it and (hopefully) strengthen her hand to gain a better deal from the EU.

Wasn't the back stop Mrs Mays idea, tbh I've not read it but the little I've managed to learn after filtering out the bs the fanatics peddle, it seems to me that being in it is the cake and eat it situation we were told we couldn't have, no extra payments, no free movement, no new laws and complete unfettered access to and as part of the customs union tariff free for our goods and more importantly services. I must have misunderstood it what with being so bored of the whole thing and a bit of a thicko but I can't believe the EU agreed to this let alone as some would believe came up with it, seems to me it goes against all the principles they claim to hold so dear, plus I bet there's a way out of it to, it was claimed by some that we couldn't get out after golden brown signed us up to Lisbon treaty, when not only could we there was a specific mechanism to enable it

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Emotive language to inflame things.

I’m part of a relationship, not a slave to it.

With a Customs Union, we wouldn't have a say over the setting of product rules or tariffs. Doesn't sound like a "relationship".


The Customs Union agreement with Turkey is basically a long list of EU directives, rules, and regulations that Turkey has to apply.

The EU-Turkey CU provides frictionless trade for certain goods, a model which may seem attractive for the UK’s Brexit negotiators. However, some of its features – a common external tariff, regulatory alignment without participation in the decision-making, interpretative jurisdiction of the ECJ – are unlikely to be welcomed by some cabinet members.

---------- Post added at 05:15 ---------- Previous post was at 04:59 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Wasn't the back stop Mrs Mays idea, tbh I've not read it but the little I've managed to learn after filtering out the bs the fanatics peddle, it seems to me that being in it is the cake and eat it situation we were told we couldn't have, no extra payments, no free movement, no new laws and complete unfettered access to and as part of the customs union tariff free for our goods and more importantly services. I must have misunderstood it what with being so bored of the whole thing and a bit of a thicko but I can't believe the EU agreed to this let alone as some would believe came up with it, seems to me it goes against all the principles they claim to hold so dear, plus I bet there's a way out of it to, it was claimed by some that we couldn't get out after golden brown signed us up to Lisbon treaty, when not only could we there was a specific mechanism to enable it

Link

The EU originally proposed a backstop that would mean Northern Ireland staying in the EU customs union, large parts of the single market and the EU VAT system.
Its chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, continually emphasised that this backstop could only apply to Northern Ireland.

Goods coming into Northern Ireland from elsewhere in the UK would have to be checked to make sure they met EU standards.

Why? That doesn't happen at the moment with any EU country. Goods can be shipped into Germany from China, and then onto France with no checks. The Chinese manufacturers often(depending on product type) self-certify that they meet EU regs. The regs only apply to goods that are marketed and sold. They don't apply for goods merely being present. There are examples of goods being produced in the EU that don't meet EU regs. Obvious example is the horsemeat-beef scandal. Meat from EU countries was horsemeat, not beef.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

<SNIP>

Brexit is truly an exceptional act of British Nationalism removing the objectivity of normally rational people over a huge number of issues.

Where did we lose democracy in jfman's observation? (Rhetorical question).

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

[/COLOR]
Link

Now why didn't you copy and paste the entire article or at least the part where it said Mrs May rejected that continually and came up with her own version of the backstop

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Where did we lose democracy in jfman's observation? (Rhetorical question).

I’m unsure what you mean by your rhetorical question. However, as a number of people have made clear Brexit is about ideology and not economics. Which is fine, but it doesn’t make it any more rational than extreme Communism.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Now why didn't you copy and paste the entire article or at least the part where it said Mrs May rejected that continually and came up with her own version of the backstop

The principle of a backstop was still originally the EU's idea and at their insistence.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m unsure what you mean by your rhetorical question. However, as a number of people have made clear Brexit is about ideology and not economics. Which is fine, but it doesn’t make it any more rational than extreme Communism.

Both make the country poorer, less international and more bureaucratic so a fair comparison.

---------- Post added at 07:52 ---------- Previous post was at 07:47 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Wasn't the back stop Mrs Mays idea, tbh I've not read it but the little I've managed to learn after filtering out the bs the fanatics peddle, it seems to me that being in it is the cake and eat it situation we were told we couldn't have, no extra payments, no free movement, no new laws and complete unfettered access to and as part of the customs union tariff free for our goods and more importantly services. I must have misunderstood it what with being so bored of the whole thing and a bit of a thicko but I can't believe the EU agreed to this let alone as some would believe came up with it, seems to me it goes against all the principles they claim to hold so dear, plus I bet there's a way out of it to, it was claimed by some that we couldn't get out after golden brown signed us up to Lisbon treaty, when not only could we there was a specific mechanism to enable it

A sovereign nation cannot be held in a backstop against its will. That's an ERG myth.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Both make the country poorer, less international and more bureaucratic so a fair comparison.

---------- Post added at 07:52 ---------- Previous post was at 07:47 ----------


A sovereign nation cannot be held in a backstop against its will. That's an ERG myth.

A sovereign nation that believes in the rule of law and respect for international treaties can.

The backstop, once entered, would apply until both sides agreed to end it. At a time when the EU had everything to gain from withholding agreement until it had extracted maximum concessions in trade negotiations, such a position would be intolerable.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Wasn't the back stop Mrs Mays idea, tbh I've not read it but the little I've managed to learn after filtering out the bs the fanatics peddle, it seems to me that being in it is the cake and eat it situation we were told we couldn't have, no extra payments, no free movement, no new laws and complete unfettered access to and as part of the customs union tariff free for our goods and more importantly services. I must have misunderstood it what with being so bored of the whole thing and a bit of a thicko but I can't believe the EU agreed to this let alone as some would believe came up with it, seems to me it goes against all the principles they claim to hold so dear, plus I bet there's a way out of it to, it was claimed by some that we couldn't get out after golden brown signed us up to Lisbon treaty, when not only could we there was a specific mechanism to enable it

The backstop for Ireland was the EU idea to prevent a hard border/keep us in the customs union/carve up N.Ireland away from the UK depending on how you view it. The application of the backstop for the entire UK has our idea to avoid splitting off N.Ireland from the union and is a concession/cunning ruse from the EU. I think in theory it does sort of split the four freedoms but it's not proper single market membership so at least symbolical means they didn't concede on that.

The pro-backstop argument is that it'll be easy to get out of because it's not ideal for the EU either. The anti-backstop argument is, I guess, that the EU's ability to stop us leaving gives them additional leverage.

[ianch99]

Oh dear, this Government can't even bribe someone properly:

Nissan was offered secret state aid to cope with Brexit, minister concedes

The business secretary has been forced to admit the existence of a previously secret package of state aid to Nissan that could have been worth up to £80m had the carmaker gone ahead with plans to manufacture a new model X-Trail in Sunderland after Brexit.

Greg Clark released a letter dated October 2016 in which he pledged tens of millions of taxpayer support and promised the Japanese company it would not be “adversely affected” after the UK left the EU.

Yet, at the time the commitments were first made, Downing Street had said “there was no special deal for Nissan” and Clark refused six times to answer a question about what was on offer when interviewed on the BBC. He even appeared to suggest no money was involved. Asked on BBC One’s Question Time about the deal, he said: “There’s no chequebook. I don’t have a chequebook.”

As this seems to be true, lying to the public (repeatedly) would, in the past, be seen as a certain case for resigning. No more it seems.

The Tory party is a long way from the One Nation Conservatism of its roots. It has become a grubby shadow of its former self.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Both make the country poorer, less international and more bureaucratic so a fair comparison.

---------- Post added at 07:52 ---------- Previous post was at 07:47 ----------


A sovereign nation cannot be held in a backstop against its will. That's an ERG myth.

4. The objective of the Withdrawal Agreement is not to establish a permanent relationship
between the Union and the United Kingdom. The provisions of this Protocol are therefore intended
to apply only temporarily, taking into account the commitments of the Parties set out in Article
2(1). The provisions of this Protocol shall apply unless and until they are superseded, in whole or in
part, by a subsequent agreement.

IE The backstop remains until the EU signs up to a subsequent agreement which has to deal with the alleged issues. If they don't agree with any proposals, then the backstop remains. All the EU has to do is say that they used their "best endeavours" to reach a subsequent agreement.

171. In the case of any disputes concerning either the obligation to use best
endeavours to agree a future relationship that supersedes the Protocol, or the
obligation to review whether the Protocol remains necessary in the light of its
objectives, the dispute resolution process agreed as part of the Withdrawal
Agreement will apply. This means that after the implementation period, dispute
would be resolved by an independent arbitration panel.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by ianch99

The Tory party is a long way from the One Nation Conservatism of its roots. It has become a grubby shadow of its former self.

Its a long way from Benjamin Disraeli's political philosophy.

[heero_yuy]

Quote from The Sun:


Goods shipped to Britain from the EU are to be waved through 20 UK ports without checks in a No Deal to avoid huge jams – HMRC has declared.

In official advice released today, HM Revenue & Customs said that “for a temporary period” it would allow “most” shipments into the country before companies have even informed them they’ve arrived.

Exporters would have just over 24 hours to then fill in an electronic declaration.

At last some sanity amongst all the scaremongering. One wonders why anybody would want to do extra checks over and above what is currently done for illegals and smuggling?

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/stat...18256933273600

The United States might be taking 'Ireland's side' over the backstop:

NEW: Ministers’ private concern over US Congress siding with Dublin. Specifically Cabinet sources point to impact on any US-UK trade deal should UK be seen to renege on commitments to Dublin.

In particular the Democratic Party takeover of the key Ways and Means Committee, the House of Representatives Committee with most influence over trade policy, that has in the past demanded trade deals be renegotiated, and in particular key Irish American Congressmen

Another Irish American member of the Committee @RepBrendanBoyle told Sky News “we’re v sensitive about anything that could possibly threaten the GFA, so specifically that the backstop was removed- the thing that was guaranteeing that there would be no return to a hard border“

Rep Boyle raised without prompting UK-US trade deal: “If you renege, or you go back that does not affect just this current issue, but all future issues. You lose your credibility..we’re going to be looking at US-UK trade deal, so we’ll remember how good one’s credibility is.”

[jfman]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

At last some sanity amongst all the scaremongering. One wonders why anybody would want to do extra checks over and above what is currently done for illegals and smuggling?

Because it’s the most effective way to ensure tariffs are correctly applied?

Far from sanity this is an admission we aren’t prepared and are willing to have no control over our borders for a period.