You are here: Home | Forum | UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most of the discussions, articles and other free features. By joining our Virgin Media community you will have full access to all discussions, be able to view and post threads, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own images/photos, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please join our community today.
If the EU can cope with a newly created 900+km border, then they can cope with a smaller NI one. It's for THEM to deal with. We can ship out whatever we want, whether the EU accepts something is up to them.
Denmark has to accept products with lower standards from WITHIN the EU.
The Withdrawal Agreement has NOTHING to do with "long term" or the future. That is the subject for a potential FUTURE agreement, which has not been set out and negotiations cannot even start until after we've left the EU.
Article 50.2
The WA is optional.
A "Withdrawal" cannot have any ongoing conditions. That goes with the definition of the term. Be interesting to be able point all this out to certain quarters, so they can use it. Not likely to be that many of them around here. The problem is that there is no Leave equivalent of Gina Miller.
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.
Not at all - you seem to be saying we have to stick by what he said, but he didn’t stick by what he said - you focus on one point, not his lack of consistency.
__________________ There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it. If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
Services: 1 Gbps; Hub 4 MM; ASUS RT-AX88U; Ultimate VOLT. BT Infinity2; Devolo 1200AV
Posts: 11,955
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
Not at all - you seem to be saying we have to stick by what he said, but he didn’t stick by what he said - you focus on one point, not his lack of consistency.
My somewhat subtle point was that with Cameron saying the choice was between remaining and "leaving altogether", those Remainers saying that "No Deal" was not on the ballot paper are clutching at straws.
"leaving altogether" means LEAVE and that was on the ballot paper.
Cameron's lack of consistency has nothing to do with the Leave/Remain argument.
My somewhat subtle point was that with Cameron saying the choice was between remaining and "leaving altogether", those Remainers saying that "No Deal" was not on the ballot paper are clutching at straws.
"leaving altogether" means LEAVE and that was on the ballot paper.
Cameron's lack of consistency has nothing to do with the Leave/Remain argument.
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.
__________________
Unifi Express + BT Whole Home WiFi | VM 1Gbps
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.
Quite possibly they've woken to the fact that the only way out is a no deal.
__________________ There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it. If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
My somewhat subtle point was that with Cameron saying the choice was between remaining and "leaving altogether", those Remainers saying that "No Deal" was not on the ballot paper are clutching at straws.
"leaving altogether" means LEAVE and that was on the ballot paper.
Cameron's lack of consistency has nothing to do with the Leave/Remain argument.
OK - so only his statements that support what you want count? Very "well balanced" view...
__________________ There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it. If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
I'm just popping down to hell for a bag of party ice.
__________________
To be or not to be, woke is the question Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer. The slings and arrows of outrageous wokedome, Or to take arms against a sea of wokies. And by opposing end them.
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)
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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 ----------
Quote:
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.
Join CF
You are here: 
