Jesus (Jaysus) H Christ will you please take some time to understand who will or won't erect a hard border in Northern Ireland.
Nobody will. End of story.
I mean Phil, I think your presence on here is interesting enough in that it gives us an insight into the mind of people such as yourself, of whom I think there are many.
But when your posts are so devoid of understanding, and exhibit such transparent ignorance, it is difficult to take you seriously.
As one final effort, although god knows why I persist, I will point you in the direction of the answer which is WTO MFN.
All yours now - good luck!
You are far too blinkered and legalistic to see the woods for the trees.
Yes WTO dispute mechanisms exist. They are not a compulsion though. Even if a dispute is raised, even if it is legitimate, if Ireland chooses to continue to keep an open border then they will keep an open border. The WTO can not unilaterally erect a border, even if its rules say there should be one.
To date there have been over 577 WTO disputes brought forward and nearly half of them have never been resolved. There are 177 disputes still "in consultations" (many dating back to the WTO's foundation in 1995, there are 30 where its been escalated to seeking a panel but the panel still hasn't been composed (again some dating back to 1995), 31 where a panel has been composed but still no resolution yet (some dating back to 2005).
Even if a dispute is resolved, it could take decades before it goes through all the processes and even then there is no compulsion on Ireland to act. There will however be immense pressure on the EU to make this go away - and the way to do that is to strike a deal with the UK as if the UK has a deal then MFN rules don't apply in the same way. And to get a deal, means dropping the backstop.
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
Jesus (Jaysus) H Christ will you please take some time to understand who will or won't erect a hard border in Northern Ireland.
Nobody will. End of story.
I mean Phil, I think your presence on here is interesting enough in that it gives us an insight into the mind of people such as yourself, of whom I think there are many.
But when your posts are so devoid of understanding, and exhibit such transparent ignorance, it is difficult to take you seriously.
As one final effort, although god knows why I persist, I will point you in the direction of the answer which is WTO MFN.
All yours now - good luck!
You are far too blinkered and legalistic to see the woods for the trees.
Yes WTO dispute mechanisms exist. They are not a compulsion though. Even if a dispute is raised, even if it is legitimate, if Ireland chooses to continue to keep an open border then they will keep an open border. The WTO can not unilaterally erect a border, even if its rules say there should be one.
To date there have been over 577 WTO disputes brought forward and nearly half of them have never been resolved. There are 177 disputes still "in consultations" (many dating back to the WTO's foundation in 1995, there are 30 where its been escalated to seeking a panel but the panel still hasn't been composed (again some dating back to 1995), 31 where a panel has been composed but still no resolution yet (some dating back to 2005).
Even if a dispute is resolved, it could take decades before it goes through all the processes and even then there is no compulsion on Ireland to act. There will however be immense pressure on the EU to make this go away - and the way to do that is to strike a deal with the UK as if the UK has a deal then MFN rules don't apply in the same way. And to get a deal, means dropping the backstop.
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
Unilateral free trade: what's not to like?
Where does your leverage to do trade deals come from if they get free access to your market for nothing?
But if a no deal scenario happens then Ireland will break its obligations before it erects a border. If the UK doesn't come to heel then the only way to get out of the mess will be a deal which means no backstop.
I agree that the Irish are not going to put up any barriers when we go to No Deal. They would be mad to. But that is not going to help the UK.
Yes it does help the UK as (so long as we don't fold) it gives us immense leverage. The only way to solve the problem - and it will be a problem for the EU - will be to get a deal. Only way to get a deal is to get both sides to agree. We wont agree if there is a backstop.
The EU will need the Irish border issue dealing with us in that scenario more than us. The integrity of the UK will be intact but the integrity of the Single Market won't be. A standstill transition minus the backstop is a fudge that will kick the can down the road and remove the immediate headache for the EU while concentrating minds on both sides to find a real solution.
“If we don’t fold” is doing a hell of a lot of work in that scenario given what No Deal means for us.
Not necessarily. If we're going to fold (which May has already tried to do), it is likely to be before a No Deal scenario comes into effect.
After a No Deal politicians will have already been committed enough to walk away not just from May's deal but to all other alternatives such as an extension. They will have chosen (via inaction if nothing else) to follow through with No Deal.
At that point there will have to be some dramatic change surely to cause us to fold then, when we didn't beforehand.
The dramatic change will be experiencing the consequences of No Deal, rather than just talking about it. Of course, if it is not as bad for the UK as many expect then it is likely it will not be as bad for the RoI either. It seems to me that our one hope is that Jacob Rees Mogg's words are right and his actions were unnecessary.
"The change would make legally binding a series of assurances by Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker, presidents of the European Council and commission, that the backstop would not lock Britain into a permanent customs union with the EU."
Seems way too good to be true. If those legally binding changes came then surely Labour would have to vote it through.
Of course it's way too good to be true, it's some bad bullshit made up by a credulous Tory MP for journalists too lazy to go fack check by reading Martin Selmayr's Twitter.
Also, Labour want a permanent customs union with the EU, so why would they be brought round by an assurance the backstop isn't one? That makes zero sense.
Wasn't Trimble in the OUP. Aren't they Remainers? (I believe he's a Tory peer now).
Yes, he's a remainer. He hopes that having the backstop ruled illegal will make Brexit legally impossible.
It would make the current deal illegal. No deal, not so much...
OK. So if Gina Miller now asks the court to rule that No Deal would breach the Good Friday Agreement, where would that leave us?
Lord knows. I trust those highlighting any adverse economic effects of Brexit are off setting the boon to the legal profession.
FWIW I would say that the GFA is not a part of the substantive law of the UK in the same was as EU law is under the European Communities Act and therefore still falls within the Royal prerogative with the consequence that any alleged breach would not be justiciable but you are talking to the man who thought the CJEU couldn't possibly allow the UK to unilaterally withdraw the article 50 notice.
A treaty passed by Parliament is domestic law automatically.
"The change would make legally binding a series of assurances by Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker, presidents of the European Council and commission, that the backstop would not lock Britain into a permanent customs union with the EU."
Seems way too good to be true. If those legally binding changes came then surely Labour would have to vote it through.
Of course it's way too good to be true, it's some bad bullshit made up by a credulous Tory MP for journalists too lazy to go fack check by reading Martin Selmayr's Twitter.
Also, Labour want a permanent customs union with the EU, so why would they be brought round by an assurance the backstop isn't one? That makes zero sense.
That's just because he doesn't understand how parliament works. How can assurances be given before the text of the changes are known.
It does, however, confirm that the EU are inching towards considering changes to the backstop.
"The change would make legally binding a series of assurances by Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker, presidents of the European Council and commission, that the backstop would not lock Britain into a permanent customs union with the EU."
Seems way too good to be true. If those legally binding changes came then surely Labour would have to vote it through.
Of course it's way too good to be true, it's some bad bullshit made up by a credulous Tory MP for journalists too lazy to go fack check by reading Martin Selmayr's Twitter.
Also, Labour want a permanent customs union with the EU, so why would they be brought round by an assurance the backstop isn't one? That makes zero sense.
Wait - he asked the MPs whether assurances would help, then went out of the meeting and tweeted that he wasn't considering giving reassurances anyway? How to win friends and influence people ...
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).
If neither the UK nor the EU are enforcing the border then both would be "forced" to act. Except that there's very little in the way of forcing involved.
Yes the UK can take the chance. We just need to decide the risk is worth it. The UK has ignored supranationally imposed rules when it has suited us, eg Blair suddenly going from determining that the UK needed a UNSC resolution authorising Iraq to determining that it wasn't needed afterall.
What matters is not the words say but the realpolitik and the realpolitik of the situation is that even in a no deal scenario there is nobody who can or will enforce a hard border.
Jesus (Jaysus) H Christ will you please take some time to understand who will or won't erect a hard border in Northern Ireland.
Nobody will. End of story.
I mean Phil, I think your presence on here is interesting enough in that it gives us an insight into the mind of people such as yourself, of whom I think there are many.
But when your posts are so devoid of understanding, and exhibit such transparent ignorance, it is difficult to take you seriously.
As one final effort, although god knows why I persist, I will point you in the direction of the answer which is WTO MFN.
All yours now - good luck!
You are far too blinkered and legalistic to see the woods for the trees.
Yes WTO dispute mechanisms exist. They are not a compulsion though. Even if a dispute is raised, even if it is legitimate, if Ireland chooses to continue to keep an open border then they will keep an open border. The WTO can not unilaterally erect a border, even if its rules say there should be one.
To date there have been over 577 WTO disputes brought forward and nearly half of them have never been resolved. There are 177 disputes still "in consultations" (many dating back to the WTO's foundation in 1995, there are 30 where its been escalated to seeking a panel but the panel still hasn't been composed (again some dating back to 1995), 31 where a panel has been composed but still no resolution yet (some dating back to 2005).
Even if a dispute is resolved, it could take decades before it goes through all the processes and even then there is no compulsion on Ireland to act. There will however be immense pressure on the EU to make this go away - and the way to do that is to strike a deal with the UK as if the UK has a deal then MFN rules don't apply in the same way. And to get a deal, means dropping the backstop.
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
Unilateral free trade: what's not to like?
Where does your leverage to do trade deals come from if they get free access to your market for nothing?
There are still discussions to be had about non-tariff barriers, but that's beside the point. Tariff abolition is a good thing in and of itself. Tariffs are a tax on your own consumers.
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).
Nope. All the UK would have to do would be to show it had procedures in place of its own choosing to ensure it met WTO requirements. The WTO does not dictate what those procedures are. Their only interest is the ends not the means. It also, crucially, does not dictate that the same systems have to be in place at all entry points, just that the overall effect is the same. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the UK to argue that the checks it would have regarding the Irish border would not be suitable for other non land borders. As long as the UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.
There are still discussions to be had about non-tariff barriers, but that's beside the point. Tariff abolition is a good thing in and of itself. Tariffs are a tax on your own consumers.
Only to the extent that there is no domestic or tariff free alternative, otherwise they are a price cut for importers.
That's just because he doesn't understand how parliament works. How can assurances be given before the text of the changes are known.
It does, however, confirm that the EU are inching towards considering changes to the backstop.
That's what I love about the most deranged brexiteers. The EU's frequent, loud, continual absolute public insistence the the Withdrawal Agreement will not be renegotiated is the final and clinching proof that Any Second Now they're going to fold, for no reason whatsoever, and save them.
Selmayr's only saying what we already know: there are no assurances about the backstop they could give that could possibly change the parliamentary maths. So they won't.
So, the suggested solution is to ask the EU to break international rules in a very egregious manner, simply because the courts are rubbish. And with divergence hugely extending the grey market between the RoI and UK into the bargain, in fact, unless you are also suggesting checks at Ireland/EU sea and air borders, the grey market would extend all the way into and across the EU.
It's possible. It's even possible to cover the legality, but not the grey market side, by citing peace requirements at the WTO. But to designate the EU the bad guys for resisting the attempted blackmail. Cloud cuckoo.
Yes that is the [temporary] solution. The permanent solution is a comprehensive trade deal, trusted trader schemes and customs self-declarations.
It isn't attempted blackmail. The backstop proposal is attemtped blackmail. The UK voted to diverge and the EU is trying to prevent divergence via the backstop.
There are solutions available that deal with how we diverge and how it is dealt with. But only both parties seeking a mutually successful solution will lead to one. If one party insists to compel the other to follow its rules then that must be fought.
That's just because he doesn't understand how parliament works. How can assurances be given before the text of the changes are known.
It does, however, confirm that the EU are inching towards considering changes to the backstop.
That's what I love about the most deranged brexiteers. The EU's frequent, loud, continual absolute public insistence the the Withdrawal Agreement will not be renegotiated is the final and clinching proof that Any Second Now they're going to fold, for no reason whatsoever, and save them.
Selmayr's only saying what we already know: there are no assurances about the backstop they could give that could possibly change the parliamentary maths. So they won't.
Ignoring your dickheadedness, yesterday the stance was "no changes" now it's "we can deliver if you can". The mere fact that they are entertaining hypotheticals is a change. Only blinkered remainers who think the EU can do no wrong can't see it.
"The change would make legally binding a series of assurances by Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker, presidents of the European Council and commission, that the backstop would not lock Britain into a permanent customs union with the EU."
Seems way too good to be true. If those legally binding changes came then surely Labour would have to vote it through.
Of course it's way too good to be true, it's some bad bullshit made up by a credulous Tory MP for journalists too lazy to go fack check by reading Martin Selmayr's Twitter.
Also, Labour want a permanent customs union with the EU, so why would they be brought round by an assurance the backstop isn't one? That makes zero sense.
I really, really f**king hate Martin Selmayr - an absolute fanatic, and a bully-boy.
He’s the worst of all of them by a long shot: the spawn of Satan.
I’d sell my shirt and live in a cave before I gave into him.
Jesus (Jaysus) H Christ will you please take some time to understand who will or won't erect a hard border in Northern Ireland.
Nobody will. End of story.
I mean Phil, I think your presence on here is interesting enough in that it gives us an insight into the mind of people such as yourself, of whom I think there are many.
But when your posts are so devoid of understanding, and exhibit such transparent ignorance, it is difficult to take you seriously.
As one final effort, although god knows why I persist, I will point you in the direction of the answer which is WTO MFN.
All yours now - good luck!
You are far too blinkered and legalistic to see the woods for the trees.
Yes WTO dispute mechanisms exist. They are not a compulsion though. Even if a dispute is raised, even if it is legitimate, if Ireland chooses to continue to keep an open border then they will keep an open border. The WTO can not unilaterally erect a border, even if its rules say there should be one.
To date there have been over 577 WTO disputes brought forward and nearly half of them have never been resolved. There are 177 disputes still "in consultations" (many dating back to the WTO's foundation in 1995, there are 30 where its been escalated to seeking a panel but the panel still hasn't been composed (again some dating back to 1995), 31 where a panel has been composed but still no resolution yet (some dating back to 2005).
Even if a dispute is resolved, it could take decades before it goes through all the processes and even then there is no compulsion on Ireland to act. There will however be immense pressure on the EU to make this go away - and the way to do that is to strike a deal with the UK as if the UK has a deal then MFN rules don't apply in the same way. And to get a deal, means dropping the backstop.
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
Unilateral free trade: what's not to like?
The utter destruction of our food industry for starters
"The change would make legally binding a series of assurances by Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker, presidents of the European Council and commission, that the backstop would not lock Britain into a permanent customs union with the EU."
Seems way too good to be true. If those legally binding changes came then surely Labour would have to vote it through.
Of course it's way too good to be true, it's some bad bullshit made up by a credulous Tory MP for journalists too lazy to go fack check by reading Martin Selmayr's Twitter.
Also, Labour want a permanent customs union with the EU, so why would they be brought round by an assurance the backstop isn't one? That makes zero sense.
I really, really f**king hate Martin Selmayr - an absolute fanatic, and a bully-boy.
He’s the worst of all of them by a long shot: the spawn of Satan.
I’d sell my shirt and live in a cave before I gave into him.
If you’d never seen a photograph of him, would you still hate him so much?
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).
Nope. All the UK would have to do would be to show it had procedures in place of its own choosing to ensure it met WTO requirements. The WTO does not dictate what those procedures are. Their only interest is the ends not the means. It also, crucially, does not dictate that the same systems have to be in place at all entry points, just that the overall effect is the same. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the UK to argue that the checks it would have regarding the Irish border would not be suitable for other non land borders. As long as the UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.
"All the UK would have to do..."
Yep that's all. Two years trying to square this circle and yet it turns out it's a piece of piss to solve. I would be interested in the details of this trifle of sovereignty. And so would Theresa May and Sammy Wilson.
Ignoring your dickheadedness, yesterday the stance was "no changes" now it's "we can deliver if you can". The mere fact that they are entertaining hypotheticals is a change. Only blinkered remainers who think the EU can do no wrong can't see it.
You're the one missing something very important here. Selmayr's talking "assurances". May's backstop will not be changed. This is just about presentation, massaging the egos of Tory MPs to gull them into acquiescence.
This is about nothing more than selling May's backstop to her own party.
That's just because he doesn't understand how parliament works. How can assurances be given before the text of the changes are known.
It does, however, confirm that the EU are inching towards considering changes to the backstop.
That's what I love about the most deranged brexiteers. The EU's frequent, loud, continual absolute public insistence the the Withdrawal Agreement will not be renegotiated is the final and clinching proof that Any Second Now they're going to fold, for no reason whatsoever, and save them.
If we do fail it will be because some of the German British people acted as a fifth column to stab us in the back just as the EU was ready to back down.
"The change would make legally binding a series of assurances by Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker, presidents of the European Council and commission, that the backstop would not lock Britain into a permanent customs union with the EU."
Seems way too good to be true. If those legally binding changes came then surely Labour would have to vote it through.
Of course it's way too good to be true, it's some bad bullshit made up by a credulous Tory MP for journalists too lazy to go fack check by reading Martin Selmayr's Twitter.
Also, Labour want a permanent customs union with the EU, so why would they be brought round by an assurance the backstop isn't one? That makes zero sense.
I really, really f**king hate Martin Selmayr - an absolute fanatic, and a bully-boy.
He’s the worst of all of them by a long shot: the spawn of Satan.
I’d sell my shirt and live in a cave before I gave into him.
No, it's business. Tbh, it's almost reminiscent of the scene where Sonny speaks out of turn leading to Don Corleone getting shot. They are testing the waters, which is a good thing.
"The change would make legally binding a series of assurances by Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker, presidents of the European Council and commission, that the backstop would not lock Britain into a permanent customs union with the EU."
Seems way too good to be true. If those legally binding changes came then surely Labour would have to vote it through.
Of course it's way too good to be true, it's some bad bullshit made up by a credulous Tory MP for journalists too lazy to go fack check by reading Martin Selmayr's Twitter.
Also, Labour want a permanent customs union with the EU, so why would they be brought round by an assurance the backstop isn't one? That makes zero sense.
I really, really f**king hate Martin Selmayr - an absolute fanatic, and a bully-boy.
He’s the worst of all of them by a long shot: the spawn of Satan.
I’d sell my shirt and live in a cave before I gave into him.
If you’d never seen a photograph of him, would you still hate him so much?
I really, really f**king hate Martin Selmayr - an absolute fanatic, and a bully-boy.
He’s the worst of all of them by a long shot: the spawn of Satan.
I’d sell my shirt and live in a cave before I gave into him.
A simple the simple truth: you hate him because he's winning.
Selmayr's problem is that he's a very bad winner. The rest of the EU is trying very hard to hide their glee at having the UK up shit creek, whereas Selmayr is openly bragging about how he has locked away all the paddles.
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).
Nope. All the UK would have to do would be to show it had procedures in place of its own choosing to ensure it met WTO requirements. The WTO does not dictate what those procedures are. Their only interest is the ends not the means. It also, crucially, does not dictate that the same systems have to be in place at all entry points, just that the overall effect is the same. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the UK to argue that the checks it would have regarding the Irish border would not be suitable for other non land borders. As long as the UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.
"All the UK would have to do..."
Yep that's all. Two years trying to square this circle and yet it turns out it's a piece of piss to solve. I would be interested in the details of this trifle of sovereignty. And so would Theresa May and Sammy Wilson.
Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.
"The change would make legally binding a series of assurances by Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker, presidents of the European Council and commission, that the backstop would not lock Britain into a permanent customs union with the EU."
Seems way too good to be true. If those legally binding changes came then surely Labour would have to vote it through.
Of course it's way too good to be true, it's some bad bullshit made up by a credulous Tory MP for journalists too lazy to go fack check by reading Martin Selmayr's Twitter.
Also, Labour want a permanent customs union with the EU, so why would they be brought round by an assurance the backstop isn't one? That makes zero sense.
I really, really f**king hate Martin Selmayr - an absolute fanatic, and a bully-boy.
He’s the worst of all of them by a long shot: the spawn of Satan.
I’d sell my shirt and live in a cave before I gave into him.
That's just because he doesn't understand how parliament works. How can assurances be given before the text of the changes are known.
It does, however, confirm that the EU are inching towards considering changes to the backstop.
That's what I love about the most deranged brexiteers. The EU's frequent, loud, continual absolute public insistence the the Withdrawal Agreement will not be renegotiated is the final and clinching proof that Any Second Now they're going to fold, for no reason whatsoever, and save them.
If we do fail it will be because some of the German British people acted as a fifth column to stab us in the back just as the EU was ready to back down.
Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.
Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.
Quick reminder that the UK voted to leave the EU.
We've done this all to ourselves.
Yes we voted to leave the EU.
End of story. We didn't vote to remain tied indefinitely into an EU via a backstop.
Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.
Quick reminder that the UK voted to leave the EU.
We've done this all to ourselves.
Yes we voted to leave the EU.
End of story. We didn't vote to remain tied indefinitely into an EU via a backstop.
"The change would make legally binding a series of assurances by Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker, presidents of the European Council and commission, that the backstop would not lock Britain into a permanent customs union with the EU."
Seems way too good to be true. If those legally binding changes came then surely Labour would have to vote it through.
Of course it's way too good to be true, it's some bad bullshit made up by a credulous Tory MP for journalists too lazy to go fack check by reading Martin Selmayr's Twitter.
Also, Labour want a permanent customs union with the EU, so why would they be brought round by an assurance the backstop isn't one? That makes zero sense.
I really, really f**king hate Martin Selmayr - an absolute fanatic, and a bully-boy.
He’s the worst of all of them by a long shot: the spawn of Satan.
I’d sell my shirt and live in a cave before I gave into him.
If you’d never seen a photograph of him, would you still hate him so much?
Does it explicitly prevent changes in arrangements between the UK and Ireland? I only remember clauses about a borde rpoll being necessary if it was thought there was a majority for joining Ireland.
Changes to the GFA need to be approved by a border poll too.
Silly question: what is a 'border poll'. Is it this districts which border on the border, on both sides, and how far back does a 'district' go. Presumably also the poll is carried out on both sides of the border.
It's not a silly question. In fact it's quite a sensible one. The term "border poll" has a special meaning in Northern Ireland. In 1973 there was a NI referendum on whether NI should remain part of the UK or leave it and join the Republic of Ireland. It was referred to as the "border poll". The term sounds anodyne to English ears, who imagine it to be a technical question about customs posts or smuggling booze, ho ho. To people in Northern Ireland the meaning is very different. I have heard the term bandied around a lot recently but I do not know which meaning is being used.
Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.
Quick reminder that the UK voted to leave the EU.
We've done this all to ourselves.
Yes we voted to leave the EU.
End of story. We didn't vote to remain tied indefinitely into an EU via a backstop.
So, what's the problem then? We leave, No Deal.
Almost as if someone realises that such a move would be an absolute fucking catastrophe.
Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.
Quick reminder that the UK voted to leave the EU.
We've done this all to ourselves.
Yes we voted to leave the EU.
End of story. We didn't vote to remain tied indefinitely into an EU via a backstop.
So, what's the problem then? We leave, No Deal.
If need be yes. It will be a shame but not a problem.
Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.
Quick reminder that the UK voted to leave the EU.
We've done this all to ourselves.
Yes we voted to leave the EU.
End of story. We didn't vote to remain tied indefinitely into an EU via a backstop.
So, what's the problem then? We leave, No Deal.
Almost as if someone realises that such a move would be an absolute fucking catastrophe.
Says the same people who said leaving the EU would be a catastrophe.
That's just because he doesn't understand how parliament works. How can assurances be given before the text of the changes are known.
It does, however, confirm that the EU are inching towards considering changes to the backstop.
That's what I love about the most deranged brexiteers. The EU's frequent, loud, continual absolute public insistence the the Withdrawal Agreement will not be renegotiated is the final and clinching proof that Any Second Now they're going to fold, for no reason whatsoever, and save them.
If we do fail it will be because some of the German British people acted as a fifth column to stab us in the back just as the EU was ready to back down.
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).
Nope. All the UK would have to do would be to show it had procedures in place of its own choosing to ensure it met WTO requirements. The WTO does not dictate what those procedures are. Their only interest is the ends not the means. It also, crucially, does not dictate that the same systems have to be in place at all entry points, just that the overall effect is the same. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the UK to argue that the checks it would have regarding the Irish border would not be suitable for other non land borders. As long as the UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.
"All the UK would have to do..."
Yep that's all. Two years trying to square this circle and yet it turns out it's a piece of piss to solve. I would be interested in the details of this trifle of sovereignty. And so would Theresa May and Sammy Wilson.
We haven't spent two years trying to square this circle. We have spent two years trying to deal with fuckwits who use this as an excuse to undermine Brexit. It is not a solution to the issue at hand because people like you and the rest of the Remainers along with your friends in the EU have decided that they do not want this solution. And as one half of the negotiation we cannot just ignore the EU. Hence the unnecessary backstop.
What would be acceptable to the WTO is immaterial as long as those trying to undermine Brexit continue to claim there must be a backstop. This is politics, not trade rules.
Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution
I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'
Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.
Quick reminder that the UK voted to leave the EU.
We've done this all to ourselves.
Yes we voted to leave the EU.
End of story. We didn't vote to remain tied indefinitely into an EU via a backstop.
This is typical Little Englander thinking. The EU doesn't want us tied permanently into a customs union. They think that's cherry picking.
Yet Brexiter dolts are so scared of their own shadows that they don't even have the confidence to think we can negotiate a trade deal. Which of course is the reason we voted to leave in the first place.
Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.
Quick reminder that the UK voted to leave the EU.
We've done this all to ourselves.
Yes we voted to leave the EU.
End of story. We didn't vote to remain tied indefinitely into an EU via a backstop.
So, what's the problem then? We leave, No Deal.
Almost as if someone realises that such a move would be an absolute fucking catastrophe.
Says the same people who said leaving the EU would be a catastrophe.
Just because the people who run every single industry in the UK are quite clear that No Deal would be an unmitigated disaster, we choose to listen to them rather than Philip Thompson, Internet Gammon?
Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution
I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).
Nope. All the UK would have to do would be to show it had procedures in place of its own choosing to ensure it met WTO requirements. The WTO does not dictate what those procedures are. Their only interest is the ends not the means. It also, crucially, does not dictate that the same systems have to be in place at all entry points, just that the overall effect is the same. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the UK to argue that the checks it would have regarding the Irish border would not be suitable for other non land borders. As long as the UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.
"All the UK would have to do..."
Yep that's all. Two years trying to square this circle and yet it turns out it's a piece of piss to solve. I would be interested in the details of this trifle of sovereignty. And so would Theresa May and Sammy Wilson.
We haven't spent two years trying to square this circle. We have spent two years trying to deal with fuckwits who use this as an excuse to undermine Brexit. It is not a solution to the issue at hand because people like you and the rest of the Remainers along with your friends in the EU have decided that they do not want this solution. And as one half of the negotiation we cannot just ignore the EU. Hence the unnecessary backstop.
What would be acceptable to the WTO is immaterial as long as those trying to undermine Brexit continue to claim there must be a backstop. This is politics, not trade rules.
Always someone else's fault, eh, Richard?
Brexiter geniuses couldn't even wargame likely scenarios following a leave vote.
We are leaving but dear god you lot are so stupid you really don't deserve to.
Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution
I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'
She said that the withdrawal agreement will not be renegotiated.
That doesn't sound like a door being left open to me.
"The change would make legally binding a series of assurances by Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker, presidents of the European Council and commission, that the backstop would not lock Britain into a permanent customs union with the EU."
Seems way too good to be true. If those legally binding changes came then surely Labour would have to vote it through.
Of course it's way too good to be true, it's some bad bullshit made up by a credulous Tory MP for journalists too lazy to go fack check by reading Martin Selmayr's Twitter.
Also, Labour want a permanent customs union with the EU, so why would they be brought round by an assurance the backstop isn't one? That makes zero sense.
I really, really f**king hate Martin Selmayr - an absolute fanatic, and a bully-boy.
He’s the worst of all of them by a long shot: the spawn of Satan.
I’d sell my shirt and live in a cave before I gave into him.
Don't worry. She'll start sleeping thru in about 18 months.
(I was about to ask why you were so ratty, then "oh"...)
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).
Nope. All the UK would have to do would be to show it had procedures in place of its own choosing to ensure it met WTO requirements. The WTO does not dictate what those procedures are. Their only interest is the ends not the means. It also, crucially, does not dictate that the same systems have to be in place at all entry points, just that the overall effect is the same. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the UK to argue that the checks it would have regarding the Irish border would not be suitable for other non land borders. As long as the UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.
"All the UK would have to do..."
Yep that's all. Two years trying to square this circle and yet it turns out it's a piece of piss to solve. I would be interested in the details of this trifle of sovereignty. And so would Theresa May and Sammy Wilson.
We haven't spent two years trying to square this circle. We have spent two years trying to deal with fuckwits who use this as an excuse to undermine Brexit. It is not a solution to the issue at hand because people like you and the rest of the Remainers along with your friends in the EU have decided that they do not want this solution. And as one half of the negotiation we cannot just ignore the EU. Hence the unnecessary backstop.
What would be acceptable to the WTO is immaterial as long as those trying to undermine Brexit continue to claim there must be a backstop. This is politics, not trade rules.
Always someone else's fault, eh, Richard?
Brexiter geniuses couldn't even wargame likely scenarios following a leave vote.
We are leaving but dear god you lot are so stupid you really don't deserve to.
Ah. The old subject switch to generalised insults when you have been proved, once again, to be talking bollocks. It took you less time to get there this time than usual. Maybe you are learning something.
We’re clearly now fucked. She has successfully counted down the clock. It’s now a question of how we prefer to be fucked.
Economically... No deal. Democratically... Simple Revoke. Psychologically... Delay A blend of Psychologically, Economically and Democratically... The deal.
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).
Nope. All the UK would have to do would be to show it had procedures in place of its own choosing to ensure it met WTO requirements. The WTO does not dictate what those procedures are. Their only interest is the ends not the means. It also, crucially, does not dictate that the same systems have to be in place at all entry points, just that the overall effect is the same. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the UK to argue that the checks it would have regarding the Irish border would not be suitable for other non land borders. As long as the UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.
"All the UK would have to do..."
Yep that's all. Two years trying to square this circle and yet it turns out it's a piece of piss to solve. I would be interested in the details of this trifle of sovereignty. And so would Theresa May and Sammy Wilson.
We haven't spent two years trying to square this circle. We have spent two years trying to deal with fuckwits who use this as an excuse to undermine Brexit. It is not a solution to the issue at hand because people like you and the rest of the Remainers along with your friends in the EU have decided that they do not want this solution. And as one half of the negotiation we cannot just ignore the EU. Hence the unnecessary backstop.
What would be acceptable to the WTO is immaterial as long as those trying to undermine Brexit continue to claim there must be a backstop. This is politics, not trade rules.
Always someone else's fault, eh, Richard?
Brexiter geniuses couldn't even wargame likely scenarios following a leave vote.
We are leaving but dear god you lot are so stupid you really don't deserve to.
Ah. The old subject switch to generalised insults when you have been proved, once again, to be talking bollocks. It took you less time to get there this time than usual. Maybe you are learning something.
Absolute rubbish. You were the one bleating on about the big boy who stole your sweets.
So fine tell me - what is this fantasy agreement or assurance that is all that we'd have to do.
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).
Nope. All the UK would have to do would be to show it had procedures in place of its own choosing to ensure it met WTO requirements. The WTO does not dictate what those procedures are. Their only interest is the ends not the means. It also, crucially, does not dictate that the same systems have to be in place at all entry points, just that the overall effect is the same. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the UK to argue that the checks it would have regarding the Irish border would not be suitable for other non land borders. As long as the UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.
"All the UK would have to do..."
Yep that's all. Two years trying to square this circle and yet it turns out it's a piece of piss to solve. I would be interested in the details of this trifle of sovereignty. And so would Theresa May and Sammy Wilson.
Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.
Then leave. Man up, grow a pair, and walk proudly to independence. Stop blaming others and asking for extensions. Take what you need, go on your way, and stop crying your heart out...
(...and if you can do it by the 29th then that would be great... )
Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution
I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'
Nein Nein Nein emergency which service do you require?
Evening all. I was at a residential investment conference today. There were speeches from John Healy, Oliver Letwin and Kit Malthouse.
The conversation regularly turned to Brexit. We had an instant poll, what delegates through would happen on 29th March. May’s deal, another deal, no deal exit, revocation, moves towards a second referendum or just a delay in making a final decision. I know it was not scientific, and there were only 150 people participating but delay won by 60%.
We’re clearly now fucked. She has successfully counted down the clock. It’s now a question of how we prefer to be fucked.
Economically... No deal. Democratically... Simple Revoke. Psychologically... Delay A blend of Psychologically, Economically and Democratically... The deal.
Where do you get off?
How do we prefer to be f....ed.? Astride the Irish border.
May's backstop will not be changed. This is just about presentation, massaging the egos of Tory MPs to gull them into acquiescence.
This is about nothing more than selling May's backstop to her own party.
The backstop will not be meaningfully changed, I agree, but I think that this 'phase' is not so much about selling the deal back home, it is about keeping the deal alive at all costs. This was what the Brady amendment did. Kept the deal alive. If she can get it (the deal) into the end game, there at the death, it is IMO going through. So she must, by hook or by crook, prevent it being buried again in take two of the Meaningless Vote.
Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution
I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'
I think the EU will agree to any sort of statement that doesn't change the WA or set a limit on the backstop. And in the end I think TM will propose something on those lines - solemn binding undertaking etc. She may get it through, by the tried and trusted mechanism of delay until the alternative seems to be No Deal. If not, perhaps the pro-Remain ministers will finally revolt.
Evening all. I was at a residential investment conference today. There were speeches from John Healy, Oliver Letwin and Kit Malthouse.
The conversation regularly turned to Brexit. We had an instant poll, what delegates through would happen on 29th March. May’s deal, another deal, no deal exit, revocation, moves towards a second referendum or just a delay in making a final decision. I know it was not scientific, and there were only 150 people participating but delay won by 60%.
This may be so. And may be where we end up. But. Does a residential investment conference constitute a representative sample?
Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution
I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'
A creative solution. Step forward May. Oh dear.
Rather predictable response. It is Merkel saying it tonight, not TM
I really, really f**king hate Martin Selmayr - an absolute fanatic, and a bully-boy.
He’s the worst of all of them by a long shot: the spawn of Satan.
I’d sell my shirt and live in a cave before I gave into him.
A simple the simple truth: you hate him because he's winning.
Not sure he will be winning if him and Provo Leo end up with a hard Brexit.
, a united Ireland would quickly become a reality.
No it wouldn't - we hear/heard the same nonsense about Scottish independence.
The difference is that maintaining sovereighty over Northern Ireland under 'no deal' would be as much a matter of state capacity as of public opinion. If the UK can't administer its own customs territory, where does it leave the union?
Evening all. I was at a residential investment conference today. There were speeches from John Healy, Oliver Letwin and Kit Malthouse.
The conversation regularly turned to Brexit. We had an instant poll, what delegates through would happen on 29th March. May’s deal, another deal, no deal exit, revocation, moves towards a second referendum or just a delay in making a final decision. I know it was not scientific, and there were only 150 people participating but delay won by 60%.
Pedantry alert. Do you mean won with 60% (60% of the vote) or won by 60 percentage points (ie its vote exceeded second place by 60)
Evening all. I was at a residential investment conference today. There were speeches from John Healy, Oliver Letwin and Kit Malthouse.
The conversation regularly turned to Brexit. We had an instant poll, what delegates through would happen on 29th March. May’s deal, another deal, no deal exit, revocation, moves towards a second referendum or just a delay in making a final decision. I know it was not scientific, and there were only 150 people participating but delay won by 60%.
This may be so. And may be where we end up. But. Does a residential investment conference constitute a representative sample?
No of course not, that is what I meant when I said it wasn’t scientific.
Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution
I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'
She said that the withdrawal agreement will not be renegotiated.
That doesn't sound like a door being left open to me.
She did not mention the agreement but even so, minds are being focussed and Trimble challenge today is very interesting.
Maybe we all need to keep open minds as no one can have a clue of the outcome, as I admitted earlier
Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution
I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'
A creative solution. Step forward May. Oh dear.
Rather predictable response. It is Merkel saying it tonight, not TM
Predictable because it is grounded in bitter truth. We would have more luck getting imagination out of a dead goat than Theresa May.
I really, really f**king hate Martin Selmayr - an absolute fanatic, and a bully-boy.
He’s the worst of all of them by a long shot: the spawn of Satan.
I’d sell my shirt and live in a cave before I gave into him.
A simple the simple truth: you hate him because he's winning.
Not sure he will be winning if him and Provo Leo end up with a hard Brexit.
, a united Ireland would quickly become a reality.
No it wouldn't - we hear/heard the same nonsense about Scottish independence.
The difference is that maintaining sovereighty over Northern Ireland under 'no deal' would be as much a matter of state capacity as of public opinion. If the UK can't administer its own customs territory, where does it leave the union?
In Ulster - the same place as it has been since 1690.
Fake news about Dublin pretending to threaten to build a border isn't changing anything that the last 330 years haven't budged.
Evening all. I was at a residential investment conference today. There were speeches from John Healy, Oliver Letwin and Kit Malthouse.
The conversation regularly turned to Brexit. We had an instant poll, what delegates through would happen on 29th March. May’s deal, another deal, no deal exit, revocation, moves towards a second referendum or just a delay in making a final decision. I know it was not scientific, and there were only 150 people participating but delay won by 60%.
Pedantry alert. Do you mean won with 60% (60% of the vote) or won by 60 percentage points (or its vote exceeded second place by 60)
Evening all. I was at a residential investment conference today. There were speeches from John Healy, Oliver Letwin and Kit Malthouse.
The conversation regularly turned to Brexit. We had an instant poll, what delegates through would happen on 29th March. May’s deal, another deal, no deal exit, revocation, moves towards a second referendum or just a delay in making a final decision. I know it was not scientific, and there were only 150 people participating but delay won by 60%.
This may be so. And may be where we end up. But. Does a residential investment conference constitute a representative sample?
No of course not, that is what I meant when I said it wasn’t scientific.
Sorry. That came across not in the way intended. Apologies.
Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution
I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'
She said that the withdrawal agreement will not be renegotiated.
That doesn't sound like a door being left open to me.
She did not mention the agreement but even so, minds are being focussed and Trimble challenge today is very interesting.
Maybe we all need to keep open minds as no one can have a clue of the outcome, as I admitted earlier
We need to keep open minds. No one predicted how badly May would have performed and how readily she would take us to the brink to save her own neck. One can but only imagine where she will take us next.
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).
Nope. All the UK would have to do would be to show it had procedures in place of its own choosing to ensure it met WTO requirements. The WTO does not dictate what those procedures are. Their only interest is the ends not the means. It also, crucially, does not dictate that the same systems have to be in place at all entry points, just that the overall effect is the same. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the UK to argue that the checks it would have regarding the Irish border would not be suitable for other non land borders. As long as the UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.
The WTO issue is not that it could instruct us to create a border in Northern Ireland.
It is that if we deliberately go out of our way not to collect tariffs, then we will have cases brought against us by (for example) Argentinian beef farmers who would claim that we allowed beef from Ireland in tariff free despite the absence of an FTA, and therefore its farmers should get the same treatment.
This is why there is all the discussion about the "technology" solution. I.e., a system for tracking goods coming in from the Republic of Ireland, and ensuring that tariffs are paid and that standards are met.
It is not beyond the wit of man to design and implement such a system. It is not even beyond the wit of man to have it in place in two years time*.
The issue is merely one about whether the EU is being sincere or not in its desire for a technological solution.
It seems to me that if they are, then the backstop is no issue, because it will go soon enough. And if they are not sincere, then we are well within our rights to withdraw from the treaty.
* Of course, government IT projects don't have the best record for being completed on time, or budget. But that's a different issue.
Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution
I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'
Nein Nein Nein emergency which service do you require?
Nuisance caller TM again FFS
The situation is cominng to a head for everyone and if you think Germany is not worried you only need to look at their economy together with the Eurozonne. Saner heads in the EU will be working towards a compromise but many here actually seek a no deal out of revenge for voting to leave or self harm
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).
Nope. All the UK would have to do would be to show it had procedures in place of its own choosing to ensure it met WTO requirements. The WTO does not dictate what those procedures are. Their only interest is the ends not the means. It also, crucially, does not dictate that the same systems have to be in place at all entry points, just that the overall effect is the same. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the UK to argue that the checks it would have regarding the Irish border would not be suitable for other non land borders. As long as the UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.
The WTO issue is not that it could instruct us to create a border in Northern Ireland.
It is that if we deliberately go out of our way not to collect tariffs, then we will have cases brought against us by (for example) Argentinian beef farmers who would claim that we allowed beef from Ireland in tariff free despite the absence of an FTA, and therefore its farmers should get the same treatment.
This is why there is all the discussion about the "technology" solution. I.e., a system for tracking goods coming in from the Republic of Ireland, and ensuring that tariffs are paid and that standards are met.
It is not beyond the wit of man to design and implement such a system. It is not even beyond the wit of man to have it in place in two years time.
There's no ROI for it (pun intendend). The UK would be better off declaring Northern Ireland a seperate customs territory and negotiating special status with the EU for it.
Evening all. I was at a residential investment conference today. There were speeches from John Healy, Oliver Letwin and Kit Malthouse.
The conversation regularly turned to Brexit. We had an instant poll, what delegates through would happen on 29th March. May’s deal, another deal, no deal exit, revocation, moves towards a second referendum or just a delay in making a final decision. I know it was not scientific, and there were only 150 people participating but delay won by 60%.
Pedantry alert. Do you mean won with 60% (60% of the vote) or won by 60 percentage points (or its vote exceeded second place by 60)
Apologies I meant 60 % of the vote.
No need to apologise: I was being a pedantic arse. It's basically my schtick...
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).
Nope. All the UK would have to do would be to show it had procedures in place of its own choosing to ensure it met WTO requirements. The WTO does not dictate what those procedures are. Their only interest is the ends not the means. It also, crucially, does not dictate that the same systems have to be in place at all entry points, just that the overall effect is the same. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the UK to argue that the checks it would have regarding the Irish border would not be suitable for other non land borders. As long as the UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.
The WTO issue is not that it could instruct us to create a border in Northern Ireland.
It is that if we deliberately go out of our way not to collect tariffs, then we will have cases brought against us by (for example) Argentinian beef farmers who would claim that we allowed beef from Ireland in tariff free despite the absence of an FTA, and therefore its farmers should get the same treatment.
This is why there is all the discussion about the "technology" solution. I.e., a system for tracking goods coming in from the Republic of Ireland, and ensuring that tariffs are paid and that standards are met.
It is not beyond the wit of man to design and implement such a system. It is not even beyond the wit of man to have it in place in two years time*.
The issue is merely one about whether the EU is being sincere or not in its desire for a technological solution.
It seems to me that if they are, then the backstop is no issue, because it will go soon enough. And if they are not sincere, then we are well within our rights to withdraw from the treaty.
* Of course, government IT projects don't have the best record for being completed on time, or budget. But that's a different issue.
Exactly. Except your last point because I really can't believe that they want us in the customs union and would somehow try not to achieve something technological. But that last is only my view.
Evening all. I was at a residential investment conference today. There were speeches from John Healy, Oliver Letwin and Kit Malthouse.
The conversation regularly turned to Brexit. We had an instant poll, what delegates through would happen on 29th March. May’s deal, another deal, no deal exit, revocation, moves towards a second referendum or just a delay in making a final decision. I know it was not scientific, and there were only 150 people participating but delay won by 60%.
This may be so. And may be where we end up. But. Does a residential investment conference constitute a representative sample?
No of course not, that is what I meant when I said it wasn’t scientific.
Sorry. That came across not in the way intended. Apologies.
What I was implying, but didn't, was that we are in a dangerous place right now. The captains of industry, experts, a great many PBers, and most politicians (off the record) are coming around to the conclusion that a delay is all but inevitable. Probably even if a Deal passes Parliament. The public in general, however, are blissfully unaware.
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).
Nope. All the UK would have to do would be to show it had procedures in place of its own choosing to ensure it met WTO requirements. The WTO does not dictate what those procedures are. Their only interest is the ends not the means. It also, crucially, does not dictate that the same systems have to be in place at all entry points, just that the overall effect is the same. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the UK to argue that the checks it would have regarding the Irish border would not be suitable for other non land borders. As long as the UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.
The WTO issue is not that it could instruct us to create a border in Northern Ireland.
It is that if we deliberately go out of our way not to collect tariffs, then we will have cases brought against us by (for example) Argentinian beef farmers who would claim that we allowed beef from Ireland in tariff free despite the absence of an FTA, and therefore its farmers should get the same treatment.
This is why there is all the discussion about the "technology" solution. I.e., a system for tracking goods coming in from the Republic of Ireland, and ensuring that tariffs are paid and that standards are met.
It is not beyond the wit of man to design and implement such a system. It is not even beyond the wit of man to have it in place in two years time*.
The issue is merely one about whether the EU is being sincere or not in its desire for a technological solution.
It seems to me that if they are, then the backstop is no issue, because it will go soon enough. And if they are not sincere, then we are well within our rights to withdraw from the treaty.
* Of course, government IT projects don't have the best record for being completed on time, or budget. But that's a different issue.
Indeed. This is exactly the point I have been trying to make to Topping but he seems to be incapable of understanding it.
Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution
I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'
She said that the withdrawal agreement will not be renegotiated.
That doesn't sound like a door being left open to me.
She did not mention the agreement but even so, minds are being focussed and Trimble challenge today is very interesting.
Maybe we all need to keep open minds as no one can have a clue of the outcome, as I admitted earlier
We need to keep open minds. No one predicted how badly May would have performed and how readily she would take us to the brink to save her own neck. One can but only imagine where she will take us next.
The strange thing is that the polls remain positive for her as Corbyn's ratings collapse
That's a very good question, and that is the Patrick Minford argument.
But let me give you a counter. South Korea is the country in the world with the greatest number of FTAs (as measured by market size, rather than by number of countries).
It has FTAs with China, Japan, the US, and the EU. No-one else has deals with more than two of that list.
Why has it been successful at signing FTAs where other free trade nations (like for example New Zealand) have been poor?
Because South Korea's regular tariff schedule is among the most onerous in the world. Simply, if you want to sell into Korea you need to overcome their high tariffs, and therefore countries which normally shy from such agreements (such as the US) have entered into deals with them.
The issue with unilateral free trade is that it is hard to pressure others to increase market access for your firms.
Evening all. I was at a residential investment conference today. There were speeches from John Healy, Oliver Letwin and Kit Malthouse.
The conversation regularly turned to Brexit. We had an instant poll, what delegates through would happen on 29th March. May’s deal, another deal, no deal exit, revocation, moves towards a second referendum or just a delay in making a final decision. I know it was not scientific, and there were only 150 people participating but delay won by 60%.
This may be so. And may be where we end up. But. Does a residential investment conference constitute a representative sample?
No of course not, that is what I meant when I said it wasn’t scientific.
Sorry. That came across not in the way intended. Apologies.
What I was implying, but didn't, was that we are in a dangerous place right now. The captains of industry, experts, a great many PBers, and most politicians (off the record) are coming around to the conclusion that a delay is all but inevitable. Probably even if a Deal passes Parliament. The public in general, however, are blissfully unaware.
Agreed. I can’t believe May and her ministers are still saying we can Brexit on 29th March. There isn’t time, whatever the final resolution is. Even no deal would require more time surely.
Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution
I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'
She said that the withdrawal agreement will not be renegotiated.
That doesn't sound like a door being left open to me.
She did not mention the agreement but even so, minds are being focussed and Trimble challenge today is very interesting.
Maybe we all need to keep open minds as no one can have a clue of the outcome, as I admitted earlier
We need to keep open minds. No one predicted how badly May would have performed and how readily she would take us to the brink to save her own neck. One can but only imagine where she will take us next.
The strange thing is that the polls remain positive for her as Corbyn's ratings collapse
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).
Nope. All the UK would have to do would be to show it had procedures in place of its own choosing to ensure it met WTO requirements. The WTO does not dictate what those procedures are. Their only interest is the ends not the means. It also, crucially, does not dictate that the same systems have to be in place at all entry points, just that the overall effect is the same. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the UK to argue that the checks it would have regarding the Irish border would not be suitable for other non land borders. As long as the UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.
"All the UK would have to do..."
Yep that's all. Two years trying to square this circle and yet it turns out it's a piece of piss to solve. I would be interested in the details of this trifle of sovereignty. And so would Theresa May and Sammy Wilson.
Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.
Then leave. Man up, grow a pair, and walk proudly to independence. Stop blaming others and asking for extensions. Take what you need, go on your way, and stop crying your heart out...
(...and if you can do it by the 29th then that would be great... )
Where have I asked for an extension or not shown a pair?
I'm OK with leaving without a deal on March 29th. I'm fine with it. Its not ideal, but shit happens.
I also think the EU will see sense before then, but if they don't, so be it!
Comments
https://twitter.com/MartinSelmayr/status/1092409534029746178
Also, Labour want a permanent customs union with the EU, so why would they be brought round by an assurance the backstop isn't one? That makes zero sense.
It does, however, confirm that the EU are inching towards considering changes to the backstop.
Yes the UK can take the chance. We just need to decide the risk is worth it. The UK has ignored supranationally imposed rules when it has suited us, eg Blair suddenly going from determining that the UK needed a UNSC resolution authorising Iraq to determining that it wasn't needed afterall.
What matters is not the words say but the realpolitik and the realpolitik of the situation is that even in a no deal scenario there is nobody who can or will enforce a hard border.
Selmayr's only saying what we already know: there are no assurances about the backstop they could give that could possibly change the parliamentary maths. So they won't.
It isn't attempted blackmail. The backstop proposal is attemtped blackmail. The UK voted to diverge and the EU is trying to prevent divergence via the backstop.
There are solutions available that deal with how we diverge and how it is dealt with. But only both parties seeking a mutually successful solution will lead to one. If one party insists to compel the other to follow its rules then that must be fought.
He’s the worst of all of them by a long shot: the spawn of Satan.
I’d sell my shirt and live in a cave before I gave into him.
Yep that's all. Two years trying to square this circle and yet it turns out it's a piece of piss to solve. I would be interested in the details of this trifle of sovereignty. And so would Theresa May and Sammy Wilson.
This is about nothing more than selling May's backstop to her own party.
GermanBritish people acted as a fifth column to stab us in the back just as the EU was ready to back down.Selmayr's problem is that he's a very bad winner. The rest of the EU is trying very hard to hide their glee at having the UK up shit creek, whereas Selmayr is openly bragging about how he has locked away all the paddles.
We've done this all to ourselves.
End of story. We didn't vote to remain tied indefinitely into an EU via a backstop.
What IS strikingly similar about the 2 women is skin colour.
It's a bit like confusing Nadine Dorries with Meryl Streep.
What would be acceptable to the WTO is immaterial as long as those trying to undermine Brexit continue to claim there must be a backstop. This is politics, not trade rules.
I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'
Yet Brexiter dolts are so scared of their own shadows that they don't even have the confidence to think we can negotiate a trade deal. Which of course is the reason we voted to leave in the first place.
That and the foreigners.
(Sorry, I was thrown. "It"??? )
That's just rude.
Brexiter geniuses couldn't even wargame likely scenarios following a leave vote.
We are leaving but dear god you lot are so stupid you really don't deserve to.
That doesn't sound like a door being left open to me.
Selmayr wants to amputate NI from the UK as its pound of flesh for Brexit. In the event of a No Deal, a united Ireland would quickly become a reality.
That'd be a pretty decisive victory for Selmayr's plan.
(I was about to ask why you were so ratty, then "oh"...)
Economically... No deal.
Democratically... Simple Revoke.
Psychologically... Delay
A blend of Psychologically, Economically and Democratically... The deal.
Where do you get off?
So fine tell me - what is this fantasy agreement or assurance that is all that we'd have to do.
(...and if you can do it by the 29th then that would be great...
Hmmmm...
[shuts door quietly and tiptoes away]
Nuisance caller TM again FFS
Nonsense on stilts backed up by events.
The conversation regularly turned to Brexit. We had an instant poll, what delegates through would happen on 29th March. May’s deal, another deal, no deal exit, revocation, moves towards a second referendum or just a delay in making a final decision. I know it was not scientific, and there were only 150 people participating but delay won by 60%.
Astride the Irish border.
Does a residential investment conference constitute a representative sample?
Maybe we all need to keep open minds as no one can have a clue of the outcome, as I admitted earlier
If Selmayr is trying to do this, then he must have manure for brains.
Fake news about Dublin pretending to threaten to build a border isn't changing anything that the last 330 years haven't budged.
It is that if we deliberately go out of our way not to collect tariffs, then we will have cases brought against us by (for example) Argentinian beef farmers who would claim that we allowed beef from Ireland in tariff free despite the absence of an FTA, and therefore its farmers should get the same treatment.
This is why there is all the discussion about the "technology" solution. I.e., a system for tracking goods coming in from the Republic of Ireland, and ensuring that tariffs are paid and that standards are met.
It is not beyond the wit of man to design and implement such a system. It is not even beyond the wit of man to have it in place in two years time*.
The issue is merely one about whether the EU is being sincere or not in its desire for a technological solution.
It seems to me that if they are, then the backstop is no issue, because it will go soon enough. And if they are not sincere, then we are well within our rights to withdraw from the treaty.
* Of course, government IT projects don't have the best record for being completed on time, or budget. But that's a different issue.
It is not acceptable to the Uk - as shown by the vote.
More fool the EU if they thought May could carry that through parliament.
The public in general, however, are blissfully unaware.
But let me give you a counter. South Korea is the country in the world with the greatest number of FTAs (as measured by market size, rather than by number of countries).
It has FTAs with China, Japan, the US, and the EU. No-one else has deals with more than two of that list.
Why has it been successful at signing FTAs where other free trade nations (like for example New Zealand) have been poor?
Because South Korea's regular tariff schedule is among the most onerous in the world. Simply, if you want to sell into Korea you need to overcome their high tariffs, and therefore countries which normally shy from such agreements (such as the US) have entered into deals with them.
The issue with unilateral free trade is that it is hard to pressure others to increase market access for your firms.
West Ham look value tonight at 8/1.
I’ve had a little tickle.
Really? It’s not acceptable to a bunch of self serving MPs, but that’s a different thing entirely.
I'm OK with leaving without a deal on March 29th. I'm fine with it. Its not ideal, but shit happens.
I also think the EU will see sense before then, but if they don't, so be it!