Tezza at PMQs yesterday was insistent on controlling our borders.*
*terms and exclusions apply, apparently...
For immigration, yes. But since we have the Common Travel Area, and have done for many decades. that is completely irrelevant to Ireland. I can't think of a single person who has suggested that we shouldn't recognise EU standards on goods, so there's nothing to check (except whether people are smuggling guns'n'booze'n'fags of course, but that's no different to now).
You’re sounding positively HYUFD-ish.
I'm just baffled by the extraordinary contortions which people are adopting to make the Irish border an issue, when it clearly isn't. To repeat my question, why on earth would the UK want to put up border checks? There will literally be nothing to check if we have a trade agreement, and even in a no-deal WTO scenario, it wouldn't be worth doing physical checks since tariffs could be collected by a self-declaratory system and we're not going to exclude EU-compliant goods in any conceivable scenario.
I appreciate that most people going on about the border are purely using it as a crude attempt to undermine Brexit or attack Theresa May, but even allowing for that, it's such a completely feeble argument that I'm astonished anyone can keep a straight face when deploying it. There are plenty of other, much more difficult issues to worry about.
This may or not be in hand but what are the Intrastat rules going to be? Are there going to be any? What about temporary movement of goods? Are we going to reintroduce carnets? The only two times I used a carnet to move goods back and forth to France (pre single market) I came unstuck with a problem with the documents that took hours to sort out.
I see that satire truly is dead. @tyson claims he doesn't do personal attacks, and Jon Lansman says he is standing as General Sec of the Labour Party in order to help Jeremy Corbyn sweep away the old machine politics.
Lansman wants to transform Labour into a member led organisation.
UNITE do not want this they want Unions to hold sway.
Whose side are PB Tories on given Jennie Formby or JL are the only 2 games in town.
Who cares. We're too busy enjoying the sight of the Deputy Leader explaining why he should keep the £1/2 million quid he's trousered from a man whose parents had Hitler at their wedding.
Surely he can not be blamed for who his parents invited to their wedding ?
Yep. Using who his parents invited to their wedding against him in unfair; he had no choice in that, and he has had to live with that stigma for his entire life.
Yet if you are in that unfortunate position, you may at time have to unfairly disassociate yourself from such views. Sadly, at times Moseley appears to have done the opposite.
Tezza at PMQs yesterday was insistent on controlling our borders.*
*terms and exclusions apply, apparently...
For immigration, yes. But since we have the Common Travel Area, and have done for many decades. that is completely irrelevant to Ireland. I can't think of a single person who has suggested that we shouldn't recognise EU standards on goods, so there's nothing to check (except whether people are smuggling guns'n'booze'n'fags of course, but that's no different to now).
You’re sounding positively HYUFD-ish.
I'm just baffled by the extraordinary contortions which people are adopting to make the Irish border an issue, when it clearly isn't. To repeat my question, why on earth would the UK want to put up border checks? There will literally be nothing to check if we have a trade agreement, and even in a no-deal WTO scenario, it wouldn't be worth doing physical checks since tariffs could be collected by a self-declaratory system and we're not going to exclude EU-compliant goods in any conceivable scenario.
I appreciate that most people going on about the border are purely using it as a crude attempt to undermine Brexit or attack Theresa May, but even allowing for that, it's such a completely feeble argument that I'm astonished anyone can keep a straight face when deploying it. There are plenty of other, much more difficult issues to worry about.
There is no need for the UK to put up checks. The EU is obliged to under WTO rules in the absence of an agreement and will also need to ensure the integrity of the single market and the customs union. Checks on either side of the border will create chaos. And after the UK has scored a quick win by pointing the finger at the EU the queues will still be there.
It is, of course, open to the UK at any time to define exactly what kind of relationship it wants with the EU, how it intends to achieve it and what that means for the Irish border. Up to now, it has chosen not to do so. Maybe that will change tomorrow.
Imagine a Remainer designed remote controlled lift door.
It would always be shut because control means closed.
Like the EU - it would be useless.
Given I socialise most with techies, and the vast majorities are remainers, then the chances are that leavers would be arguing about how many people should be allowed in the lift, whilst the remainers just get on with the job, using expertise from around the world to produce a brilliant lift that can be exported around the world.
Max Moseley response to the story of that now infamous party is another classic Streisand effect. I doubt 99% of people would have any recollection of this by now.
Tezza at PMQs yesterday was insistent on controlling our borders.*
*terms and exclusions apply, apparently...
For immigration, yes. But since we have the Common Travel Area, and have done for many decades. that is completely irrelevant to Ireland. I can't think of a single person who has suggested that we shouldn't recognise EU standards on goods, so there's nothing to check (except whether people are smuggling guns'n'booze'n'fags of course, but that's no different to now).
You’re sounding positively HYUFD-ish.
I'm just baffled by the extraordinary contortions which people are adopting to make the Irish border an issue, when it clearly isn't. To repeat my question, why on earth would the UK want to put up border checks? There will literally be nothing to check if we have a trade agreement, and even in a no-deal WTO scenario, it wouldn't be worth doing physical checks since tariffs could be collected by a self-declaratory system and we're not going to exclude EU-compliant goods in any conceivable scenario.
I appreciate that most people going on about the border are purely using it as a crude attempt to undermine Brexit or attack Theresa May, but even allowing for that, it's such a completely feeble argument that I'm astonished anyone can keep a straight face when deploying it. There are plenty of other, much more difficult issues to worry about.
There is no need for the UK to put up checks. The EU is obliged to under WTO rules in the absence of an agreement and will also need to ensure the integrity of the single market and the customs union. Checks on either side of the border will create chaos. And after the UK has scored a quick win by pointing the finger at the EU the queues will still be there.
It is, of course, open to the UK at any time to define exactly what kind of relationship it wants with the EU, how it intends to achieve it and what that means for the Irish border. Up to now, it has chosen not to do so. Maybe that will change tomorrow.
Would not checks in Larne or Belfast on goods coming from the U.K. create “chaos” under the EU’s plan C as, in their world view, checks in Newry or Enniskillen would?
This may or not be in hand but what are the Intrastat rules going to be? Are there going to be any? What about temporary movement of goods? Are we going to reintroduce carnets? The only two times I used a carnet to move goods back and forth to France (pre single market) I came unstuck with a problem with the documents that took hours to sort out.
Ah, 'carnets'! I remember them well - what a nightmare!
You can still have all that guff without physical checks. You just get importers and exporters to make declarations online. Of course there will failures to comply. So what? What does it matter? What evil would we be trying to avert that made it worthwhile even spending the money on physical controls, let alone risking awakening Irish dogs that we'd much rather leave sleeping? I just don't see why people assume that the existence of customs regulations means that it follows, as night follows day, that you have to enforce them with physical border checks. Clearly it doesn't follow at all, as indeed is proven by customs excise duties being payable at the Irish border.
The UK clearly realises this, but our EU friends either don't, or more likely are pretending not to. I don't find the pretence convincing.
Tezza at PMQs yesterday was insistent on controlling our borders.*
*terms and exclusions apply, apparently...
For immigration, yes. But since we have the Common Travel Area, and have done for many decades. that is completely irrelevant to Ireland. I can't think of a single person who has suggested that we shouldn't recognise EU standards on goods, so there's nothing to check (except whether people are smuggling guns'n'booze'n'fags of course, but that's no different to now).
Borders are two way. We can recognise EU standards, but if we pursue regulatory divergence, then the EU will want to ensure that stuff that does not meet their standards - see chlorinated chicken, for example - does not enter the single market. That will involve checks. There's no way round that in the absence of an agreement. At some stage, perhaps, the UK may start to explain what it does want and how it believes it can be achieved. But we are not there yet.
There is no need for the UK to put up checks. The EU is obliged to under WTO rules in the absence of an agreement and will also need to ensure the integrity of the single market and the customs union. Checks on either side of the border will create chaos. And after the UK has scored a quick win by pointing the finger at the EU the queues will still be there.
It is, of course, open to the UK at any time to define exactly what kind of relationship it wants with the EU, how it intends to achieve it and what that means for the Irish border. Up to now, it has chosen not to do so. Maybe that will change tomorrow.
The EU is not obliged under WTO rules, as I've pointed out many times. In any case WTO default (Most Favoured Nation) rules wouldn't apply anyway if we have a trade agreement. This is another non-argument.
The Corbyn revolution is over. In the same vein as Danny in Withnail & I announcing that clearly the 60s are over as they are now selling hippie wigs in Woolworths.
Tezza at PMQs yesterday was insistent on controlling our borders.*
*terms and exclusions apply, apparently...
For immigration, yes. But since we have the Common Travel Area, and have done for many decades. that is completely irrelevant to Ireland. I can't think of a single person who has suggested that we shouldn't recognise EU standards on goods, so there's nothing to check (except whether people are smuggling guns'n'booze'n'fags of course, but that's no different to now).
You’re sounding positively HYUFD-ish.
I'm just baffled by the extraordinary contortions which people are adopting to make the Irish border an issue, when it clearly isn't. To repeat my question, why on earth would the UK want to put up border checks? There will literally be nothing to check if we have a trade agreement, and even in a no-deal WTO scenario, it wouldn't be worth doing physical checks since tariffs could be collected by a self-declaratory system and we're not going to exclude EU-compliant goods in any conceivable scenario.
I appreciate that most people going on about the border are purely using it as a crude attempt to undermine Brexit or attack Theresa May, but even allowing for that, it's such a completely feeble argument that I'm astonished anyone can keep a straight face when deploying it. There are plenty of other, much more difficult issues to worry about.
There is no need for the UK to put up checks. The EU is obliged to under WTO rules in the absence of an agreement and will also need to ensure the integrity of the single market and the customs union. Checks on either side of the border will create chaos. And after the UK has scored a quick win by pointing the finger at the EU the queues will still be there.
It is, of course, open to the UK at any time to define exactly what kind of relationship it wants with the EU, how it intends to achieve it and what that means for the Irish border. Up to now, it has chosen not to do so. Maybe that will change tomorrow.
Would not checks in Larne or Belfast on goods coming from the U.K. create “chaos” under the EU’s plan C as, in their world view, checks in Newry or Enniskillen would?
Quite possibly. But the EU believes that it is an internal matter for the UK to decide whether such checks would be needed. That would only be the case if the UK maintains its current red lines.
Tezza at PMQs yesterday was insistent on controlling our borders.*
*terms and exclusions apply, apparently...
For immigration, yes. But since we have the Common Travel Area, and have done for many decades. that is completely irrelevant to Ireland. I can't think of a single person who has suggested that we shouldn't recognise EU standards on goods, so there's nothing to check (except whether people are smuggling guns'n'booze'n'fags of course, but that's no different to now).
You’re sounding positively HYUFD-ish.
I'm just baffled by the extraordinary contortions which people are adopting to make the Irish border an issue, when it clearly isn't. To repeat my question, why on earth would the UK want to put up border checks? There will literally be nothing to check if we have a trade agreement, and even in a no-deal WTO scenario, it wouldn't be worth doing physical checks since tariffs could be collected by a self-declaratory system and we're not going to exclude EU-compliant goods in any conceivable scenario.
I appreciate that most people going on about the border are purely using it as a crude attempt to undermine Brexit or attack Theresa May, but even allowing for that, it's such a completely feeble argument that I'm astonished anyone can keep a straight face when deploying it. There are plenty of other, much more difficult issues to worry about.
There is no need for the UK to put up checks. The EU is obliged to under WTO rules in the absence of an agreement and will also need to ensure the integrity of the single market and the customs union.
Has the EU made any preparations for this scenario? Or are they being as complacent as the British government?
Tezza at PMQs yesterday was insistent on controlling our borders.*
*terms and exclusions apply, apparently...
For immigration, yes. But since we have the Common Travel Area, and have done for many decades. that is completely irrelevant to Ireland. I can't think of a single person who has suggested that we shouldn't recognise EU standards on goods, so there's nothing to check (except whether people are smuggling guns'n'booze'n'fags of course, but that's no different to now).
Borders are two way. We can recognise EU standards, but if we pursue regulatory divergence, then the EU will want to ensure that stuff that does not meet their standards - see chlorinated chicken, for example - does not enter the single market. That will involve checks. There's no way round that in the absence of an agreement. At some stage, perhaps, the UK may start to explain what it does want and how it believes it can be achieved. But we are not there yet.
'The EU will want' is exactly right. It is entirely in their control. Of course it's barmy, but if they seriously think that a few chicken-smugglers in a tiny state on the edge of the EU with limited transport links to the rest of the EU are such a danger to the integrity of the Single Market that they have to physically inspect vans and lorries, that's up to them. It's their choice, it is not a universal law of nature.
I see that satire truly is dead. @tyson claims he doesn't do personal attacks, and Jon Lansman says he is standing as General Sec of the Labour Party in order to help Jeremy Corbyn sweep away the old machine politics.
Lansman wants to transform Labour into a member led organisation.
UNITE do not want this they want Unions to hold sway.
Whose side are PB Tories on given Jennie Formby or JL are the only 2 games in town.
Who cares. We're too busy enjoying the sight of the Deputy Leader explaining why he should keep the £1/2 million quid he's trousered from a man whose parents had Hitler at their wedding.
Surely he can not be blamed for who his parents invited to their wedding ?
Yep. Using who his parents invited to their wedding against him in unfair; he had no choice in that, and he has had to live with that stigma for his entire life.
Yet if you are in that unfortunate position, you may at time have to unfairly disassociate yourself from such views. Sadly, at times Moseley appears to have done the opposite.
I really do not know , what views he holds .If you are correct that seems a fair criticism .Regarding using parents or close family members , it would be similarly unfair to be critical of our current royal family because of the meetings the abdicated King, Duke of Windsor had with Hitler , and his alleged sympathies with that regime in the 1930s .
There is no need for the UK to put up checks. The EU is obliged to under WTO rules in the absence of an agreement and will also need to ensure the integrity of the single market and the customs union. Checks on either side of the border will create chaos. And after the UK has scored a quick win by pointing the finger at the EU the queues will still be there.
It is, of course, open to the UK at any time to define exactly what kind of relationship it wants with the EU, how it intends to achieve it and what that means for the Irish border. Up to now, it has chosen not to do so. Maybe that will change tomorrow.
The EU is not obliged under WTO rules, as I've pointed out many times. In any case WTO default (Most Favoured Nation) rules wouldn't apply anyway if we have a trade agreement. This is another non-argument.
In the absence of an agreement the EU is obliged to treat the UK EU border in the same way as it treats other borders with countries that are not covered by agreements. If it doesn't it risks WTO action. That means what happens at the Polish Russian frontier on the EU side would have to happen on the UK Ireland frontier.
Of course, should there be an agreement between the EU and the UK that is no longer the case; and if it is all as easy as you believe the UK will no doubt demonstrate this and everything will be fine.
There is an inherent contradiction which makes people throw up their hands in frustration: we Brexited to take back control. But for the Irish border, we don't want to take back control so won't take back control even though in theory we could take back control.
To use that never-ending Cake analogy.
We Brexited to take back control - We shall have Cake. In all areas we wish we shall exercise control - We shall Eat the Cake For the Irish border we don't want to exercise control as much as we could - We shall demonstrate self control in not eating that Piece of Cake.
What we don't know is what flavour the Cake is, how large it is and whether it tastes good.
It's a pain being on a diet. All I can think about is food.
Tezza at PMQs yesterday was insistent on controlling our borders.*
*terms and exclusions apply, apparently...
For immigration, yes. But since we have the Common Travel Area, and have done for many decades. that is completely irrelevant to Ireland. I can't think of a single person who has suggested that we shouldn't recognise EU standards on goods, so there's nothing to check (except whether people are smuggling guns'n'booze'n'fags of course, but that's no different to now).
Borders are two way. We can recognise EU standards, but if we pursue regulatory divergence, then the EU will want to ensure that stuff that does not meet their standards - see chlorinated chicken, for example - does not enter the single market. That will involve checks. There's no way round that in the absence of an agreement. At some stage, perhaps, the UK may start to explain what it does want and how it believes it can be achieved. But we are not there yet.
'The EU will want' is exactly right. It is entirely in their control. Of course it's barmy, but if they seriously think that a few chicken-smugglers in a tiny state on the edge of the EU with limited transport links to the rest of the EU are such a danger to the integrity of the Single Market that they have to physically inspect vans and lorries, that's up to them. It's their choice, it is not a universal law of nature.
What if....nasty people realise that the NI route is a soft target for smuggling.
I mean today maybe not but what about managed divergence? Your small time chicken smugglers might get muscled out.
Tezza at PMQs yesterday was insistent on controlling our borders.*
*terms and exclusions apply, apparently...
For immigration, yes. But since we have the Common Travel Area, and have done for many decades. that is completely irrelevant to Ireland. I can't think of a single person who has suggested that we shouldn't recognise EU standards on goods, so there's nothing to check (except whether people are smuggling guns'n'booze'n'fags of course, but that's no different to now).
Borders are two way. We can recognise EU standards, but if we pursue regulatory divergence, then the EU will want to ensure that stuff that does not meet their standards - see chlorinated chicken, for example - does not enter the single market. That will involve checks. There's no way round that in the absence of an agreement. At some stage, perhaps, the UK may start to explain what it does want and how it believes it can be achieved. But we are not there yet.
'The EU will want' is exactly right. It is entirely in their control. Of course it's barmy, but if they seriously think that a few chicken-smugglers in a tiny state on the edge of the EU with limited transport links to the rest of the EU are such a danger to the integrity of the Single Market that they have to physically inspect vans and lorries, that's up to them. It's their choice, it is not a universal law of nature.
Why is it barmy to want to preserve the integrity of the single market and the customs union? Ireland is an integral part of the EU. Chlorinated chicken and worse appearing on the shelves of Irish supermarkets is just as pernicious as it appearing on the shelves of supermarkets in France, Italy or Greece.
There is no need for the UK to put up checks. The EU is obliged to under WTO rules in the absence of an agreement and will also need to ensure the integrity of the single market and the customs union. Checks on either side of the border will create chaos. And after the UK has scored a quick win by pointing the finger at the EU the queues will still be there.
It is, of course, open to the UK at any time to define exactly what kind of relationship it wants with the EU, how it intends to achieve it and what that means for the Irish border. Up to now, it has chosen not to do so. Maybe that will change tomorrow.
The EU is not obliged under WTO rules, as I've pointed out many times. In any case WTO default (Most Favoured Nation) rules wouldn't apply anyway if we have a trade agreement. This is another non-argument.
In the absence of an agreement the EU is obliged to treat the UK EU border in the same way as it treats other borders with countries that are not covered by agreements. If it doesn't it risks WTO action. In such circumstances. That means what happens at the Polish Russian frontier on the EU side would have to happen on the UK Ireland frontier.
Of course, should there be an agreement between the EU and the UK that is no longer the case; and if it is all as easy as you believe the UK will no doubt demonstrate this and everything will be fine.
You keep posting this, and I keep asking for any evidence that it means that all border checks have to be identical. I haven't found any such evidence: have you? In any case the problem immediately vanishes if we have an agreement, which is what we are trying to get. So where is the problem? It's absolutely feeble as an argument.
Not Tom Watson's best day, what with his pal Mosley still of interest to the media and Leveson 2 being canned. One can't help but wonder what coverage the BBC would have entertained us with had Mosley been donating to the Tories.
Not Tom Watson's best day, what with his pal Mosley still of interest to the media and Leveson 2 being canned. One can't help but wonder what coverage the BBC would have entertained us with had Mosley been donating to the Tories.
I give you the case of Toby Young as evidence...and all he was guilty was being an offensive knob on twitter.
There is no need for the UK to put up checks. The EU is obliged to under WTO rules in the absence of an agreement and will also need to ensure the integrity of the single market and the customs union. Checks on either side of the border will create chaos. And after the UK has scored a quick win by pointing the finger at the EU the queues will still be there.
It is, of course, open to the UK at any time to define exactly what kind of relationship it wants with the EU, how it intends to achieve it and what that means for the Irish border. Up to now, it has chosen not to do so. Maybe that will change tomorrow.
The EU is not obliged under WTO rules, as I've pointed out many times. In any case WTO default (Most Favoured Nation) rules wouldn't apply anyway if we have a trade agreement. This is another non-argument.
In the absence of an agreement the EU is obliged to treat the UK EU border in the same way as it treats other borders with countries that are not covered by agreements. If it doesn't it risks WTO action. In such circumstances. That means what happens at the Polish Russian frontier on the EU side would have to happen on the UK Ireland frontier.
Of course, should there be an agreement between the EU and the UK that is no longer the case; and if it is all as easy as you believe the UK will no doubt demonstrate this and everything will be fine.
You keep posting this, and I keep asking for any evidence that it means that all border checks have to be identical. I haven't found any such evidence: have you? In any case the problem immediately vanishes if we have an agreement, which is what we are trying to get. So where is the problem? It's absolutely feeble as an argument.
They may not have to be identical. Like you, I do not know. But they would have to be non-discriminatory - in other words, they would have to have the same overall effect. As for an agreement: of course, if there is one then this problem goes away. But there is only going to be one if the UK comes up with some solutions. It has so far failed to do so.
Can't help but chuckle at Tony Blair pleading with the EU to reform itself to help persuade the UK to stay in. I'm not sure whether he's been following recent events, but if he has, he should have noticed that the EU does not seem of a mind to do much compromising at all.
Tezza at PMQs yesterday was insistent on controlling our borders.*
*terms and exclusions apply, apparently...
For immigration, yes. But since we have the Common Travel Area, and have done for many decades. that is completely irrelevant to Ireland. I can't think of a single person who has suggested that we shouldn't recognise EU standards on goods, so there's nothing to check (except whether people are smuggling guns'n'booze'n'fags of course, but that's no different to now).
Borders are two way. We can recognise EU standards, but if we pursue regulatory divergence, then the EU will want to ensure that stuff that does not meet their standards - see chlorinated chicken, for example - does not enter the single market. That will involve checks. There's no way round that in the absence of an agreement. At some stage, perhaps, the UK may start to explain what it does want and how it believes it can be achieved. But we are not there yet.
'The EU will want' is exactly right. It is entirely in their control. Of course it's barmy, but if they seriously think that a few chicken-smugglers in a tiny state on the edge of the EU with limited transport links to the rest of the EU are such a danger to the integrity of the Single Market that they have to physically inspect vans and lorries, that's up to them. It's their choice, it is not a universal law of nature.
What if....nasty people realise that the NI route is a soft target for smuggling.
I mean today maybe not but what about managed divergence? Your small time chicken smugglers might get muscled out.
What then?
Ireland is not a gateway to the EU, it is an integral part of the EU. Turning a blind eye to any old smuggling of goods into the Republic is literally exactly the same as turning a blind eye to smuggling goods into Germany or the Netherlands. And that is not going to happen.
This may or not be in hand but what are the Intrastat rules going to be? Are there going to be any? What about temporary movement of goods? Are we going to reintroduce carnets? The only two times I used a carnet to move goods back and forth to France (pre single market) I came unstuck with a problem with the documents that took hours to sort out.
Ah, 'carnets'! I remember them well - what a nightmare!
You can still have all that guff without physical checks. You just get importers and exporters to make declarations online. Of course there will failures to comply. So what? What does it matter? What evil would we be trying to avert that made it worthwhile even spending the money on physical controls, let alone risking awakening Irish dogs that we'd much rather leave sleeping? I just don't see why people assume that the existence of customs regulations means that it follows, as night follows day, that you have to enforce them with physical border checks. Clearly it doesn't follow at all, as indeed is proven by customs excise duties being payable at the Irish border.
The UK clearly realises this, but our EU friends either don't, or more likely are pretending not to. I don't find the pretence convincing.
How do you enforce them then? Why fill any form in if there is no enforcement? They either serve a purpose or they don't. If there is no purpose to be served then you don't need forms. If there is a purpose they need enforcing. Even the most stubborn jobs worth couldn't justify a form that served no purpose. I certainly wouldn't have used a carnet if I knew there was not going to be a check. As mentioned each of the 2 times I used them (for demo equipment) I came unstuck in customs and had to talk my way out of it.
What about Intrastat? What is the plan for Vat? Do we have one?
Can't help but chuckle at Tony Blair pleading with the EU to reform itself to help persuade the UK to stay in. I'm not sure whether he's been following recent events, but if he has, he should have noticed that the EU does seem of a mind to do much compromising at all.
If Blair had simply implemented the transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 the EU allowed member states to put in place for 7 years there would be no need now for pleading with the EU for a special compromise for the UK
Mr. Garner, when I took the dog for a walk in the early afternoon the windchill factor made it -11. Snow overflowed into one of my wellies, which was less than super (only a tiny bit, thankfully).
There is no need for the UK to put up checks. The EU is obliged to under WTO rules in the absence of an agreement and will also need to ensure the integrity of the single market and the customs union. Checks on either side of the border will create chaos. And after the UK has scored a quick win by pointing the finger at the EU the queues will still be there.
It is, of course, open to the UK at any time to define exactly what kind of relationship it wants with the EU, how it intends to achieve it and what that means for the Irish border. Up to now, it has chosen not to do so. Maybe that will change tomorrow.
The EU is not obliged under WTO rules, as I've pointed out many times. In any case WTO default (Most Favoured Nation) rules wouldn't apply anyway if we have a trade agreement. This is another non-argument.
In the absence of an agreement the EU is obliged to treat the UK EU border in the same way as it treats other borders with countries that are not covered by agreements. If it doesn't it risks WTO action. In such circumstances. That means what happens at the Polish Russian frontier on the EU side would have to happen on the UK Ireland frontier.
Of course, should there be an agreement between the EU and the UK that is no longer the case; and if it is all as easy as you believe the UK will no doubt demonstrate this and everything will be fine.
You keep posting this, and I keep asking for any evidence that it means that all border checks have to be identical. I haven't found any such evidence: have you? In any case the problem immediately vanishes if we have an agreement, which is what we are trying to get. So where is the problem? It's absolutely feeble as an argument.
They may not have to be identical. Like you, I do not know. But they would have to be non-discriminatory - in other words, they would have to have the same overall effect. As for an agreement: of course, if there is one then this problem goes away. But there is only going to be one if the UK comes up with some solutions. It has so far failed to do so.
Indeed but “ if you don’t, or we don’t agree, hand over part of your country to our admin- without the consent of its population” - is ( being generous) not exactly smart PR is it, or likely to engender a cooperative atmosphere.
Why is it barmy to want to preserve the integrity of the single market and the customs union? Ireland is an integral part of the EU. Chlorinated chicken and worse appearing on the shelves of Irish supermarkets is just as pernicious as it appearing on the shelves of supermarkets in France, Italy or Greece.
Untaxed cigarettes get smuggled across the border today and sold in Irish pubs and markets. This is a huge problem for Ireland, but no-one suggests that there have to be physical border checks to prevent it. So why would the risk of stray chickens suddenly pose such a threat that physical checks were needed?
This may or not be in hand but what are the Intrastat rules going to be? Are there going to be any? What about temporary movement of goods? Are we going to reintroduce carnets? The only two times I used a carnet to move goods back and forth to France (pre single market) I came unstuck with a problem with the documents that took hours to sort out.
Ah, 'carnets'! I remember them well - what a nightmare!
You can still have all that guff without physical checks. You just get importers and exporters to make declarations online. Of course there will failures to comply. So what? What does it matter? What evil would we be trying to avert that made it worthwhile even spending the money on physical controls, let alone risking awakening Irish dogs that we'd much rather leave sleeping? I just don't see why people assume that the existence of customs regulations means that it follows, as night follows day, that you have to enforce them with physical border checks. Clearly it doesn't follow at all, as indeed is proven by customs excise duties being payable at the Irish border.
The UK clearly realises this, but our EU friends either don't, or more likely are pretending not to. I don't find the pretence convincing.
How do you enforce them then? Why fill any form in if there is no enforcement? They either serve a purpose or they don't. If there is no purpose to be served then you don't need forms. If there is a purpose they need enforcing. Even the most stubborn jobs worth couldn't justify a form that served no purpose. I certainly wouldn't have used a carnet if I knew there was not going to be a check. As mentioned each of the 2 times I used them (for demo equipment) I came unstuck in customs and had to talk my way out of it.
What about Intrastat? What is the plan for Vat? Do we have one?
I didn't say there would be no enforcement, just proportional enforcement. Enforcement is not synonymous with physical checks at the border, as is shown by excise duties. How are those enforced?
Imagine a Remainer designed remote controlled lift door.
It would always be shut because control means closed.
Like the EU - it would be useless.
Given I socialise most with techies, and the vast majorities are remainers, then the chances are that leavers would be arguing about how many people should be allowed in the lift, whilst the remainers just get on with the job, using expertise from around the world to produce a brilliant lift that can be exported around the world.
As jokes go, that is remarkably close to simply describing how things would be.
Why is it barmy to want to preserve the integrity of the single market and the customs union? Ireland is an integral part of the EU. Chlorinated chicken and worse appearing on the shelves of Irish supermarkets is just as pernicious as it appearing on the shelves of supermarkets in France, Italy or Greece.
Untaxed cigarettes get smuggled across the border today and sold in Irish pubs and markets. This is a huge problem for Ireland, but no-one suggests that there have to be physical border checks to prevent it. So why would the risk of stray chickens suddenly pose such a threat that physical checks were needed?
Because cigarettes are one item and one problem. If you open up the border to smuggling opportunities of many kinds you create the risk of a much bigger problem that will affect a much wider pool of producers and consumers.
There is no need for the UK to put up checks. The EU is obliged to under WTO rules in the absence of an agreement and will also need to ensure the integrity of the single market and the customs union. Checks on either side of the border will create chaos. And after the UK has scored a quick win by pointing the finger at the EU the queues will still be there.
It is, of course, open to the UK at any time to define exactly what kind of relationship it wants with the EU, how it intends to achieve it and what that means for the Irish border. Up to now, it has chosen not to do so. Maybe that will change tomorrow.
The EU is not obliged under WTO rules, as I've pointed out many times. In any case WTO default (Most Favoured Nation) rules wouldn't apply anyway if we have a trade agreement. This is another non-argument.
In the absence of an agreement the EU is obliged to treat the UK EU border in the same way as it treats other borders with countries that are not covered by agreements. If it doesn't it risks WTO action. In such circumstances. That means what happens at the Polish Russian frontier on the EU side would have to happen on the UK Ireland frontier.
Of course, should there be an agreement between the EU and the UK that is no longer the case; and if it is all as easy as you believe the UK will no doubt demonstrate this and everything will be fine.
You argument.
They may not have to be identical. Like you, I do not know. But they would have to be non-discriminatory - in other words, they would have to have the same overall effect. As for an agreement: of course, if there is one then this problem goes away. But there is only going to be one if the UK comes up with some solutions. It has so far failed to do so.
Indeed but “ if you don’t, or we don’t agree, hand over part of your country to our admin- without the consent of its population” - is ( being generous) not exactly smart PR is it, or likely to engender a cooperative atmosphere.
What the hell were they thinking?????
They were thinking there is 13 months until the UK leaves the European Union and so far the UK has come up with nothing concrete about anything. We need to get a move on. If we produce something it can be the basis for negotiation.
This may or not be in hand but what are the Intrastat rules going to be? Are there going to be any? What about temporary movement of goods? Are we going to reintroduce carnets? The only two times I used a carnet to move goods back and forth to France (pre single market) I came unstuck with a problem with the documents that took hours to sort out.
Ah, 'carnets'! I remember them well - what a nightmare!
You can still have all that guff without physical checks. You just get importers and exporters to make declarations online. Of course there will failures to comply. So what? What does it matter? What evil would we be trying to avert that made it worthwhile even spending the money on physical controls, let alone risking awakening Irish dogs that we'd much rather leave sleeping? I just don't see why people assume that the existence of customs regulations means that it follows, as night follows day, that you have to enforce them with physical border checks. Clearly it doesn't follow at all, as indeed is proven by customs excise duties being payable at the Irish border.
The UK clearly realises this, but our EU friends either don't, or more likely are pretending not to. I don't find the pretence convincing.
How do you enforce them then? Why fill any form in if there is no enforcement? They either serve a purpose or they don't. If there is no purpose to be served then you don't need forms. If there is a purpose they need enforcing. Even the most stubborn jobs worth couldn't justify a form that served no purpose. I certainly wouldn't have used a carnet if I knew there was not going to be a check. As mentioned each of the 2 times I used them (for demo equipment) I came unstuck in customs and had to talk my way out of it.
What about Intrastat? What is the plan for Vat? Do we have one?
I didn't say there would be no enforcement, just proportional enforcement. Enforcement is not synonymous with physical checks at the border, as is shown by excise duties. How are those enforced?
But no border checks means no enforcement. if you are relying on electronic enforcement you are only checking those that fill in the form (and a jobs worth rap on the knuckles for those that tick the wrong box (you can tell I'm still annoyed about that x2!). The smugglers won't fill in the form and what a waste of so much time for all of us that follow the rules and fill in the appalling forms.
There is no need for the UK to put up checks. The EU is obliged to under WTO rules in the absence of an agreement and will also need to ensure the integrity of the single market and the customs union. Checks on either side of the border will create chaos. And after the UK has scored a quick win by pointing the finger at the EU the queues will still be there.
It is, of course, open to the UK at any time to define exactly what kind of relationship it wants with the EU, how it intends to achieve it and what that means for the Irish border. Up to now, it has chosen not to do so. Maybe that will change tomorrow.
The EU is not obliged under WTO rules, as I've pointed out many times. In any case WTO default (Most Favoured Nation) rules wouldn't apply anyway if we have a trade agreement. This is another non-argument.
In the absence of an agreement the EU is obliged to treat the UK EU border in the same way as it treats other borders with countries that are not covered by agreements. If it doesn't it risks WTO action. In such circumstances. That means what happens at the Polish Russian frontier on the EU side would have to happen on the UK Ireland frontier.
Of course, should there be an agreement between the EU and the UK that is no longer the case; and if it is all as easy as you believe the UK will no doubt demonstrate this and everything will be fine.
You argument.
They may not have to be identical. Like you, I do not know. But they would have to be non-discriminatory - in other words, they would have to have the same overall effect. As for an agreement: of course, if there is one then this problem goes away. But there is only going to be one if the UK comes up with some solutions. It has so far failed to do so.
Indeed but “ if you don’t, or we don’t agree, hand over part of your country to our admin- without the consent of its population” - is ( being generous) not exactly smart PR is it, or likely to engender a cooperative atmosphere.
What the hell were they thinking?????
They were thinking there is 13 months until the UK leaves the European Union and so far the UK has come up with nothing concrete about anything. We need to get a move on. If we produce something it can be the basis for negotiation.
I think it’s sort of fair to attack people’s posting styles and political philosophies. People may disagree. I called you pompous because you are ever so pompous....I think called out Cyclefree for the same, and for being long winded.....she’s never forgiven me for it i think. But also I’ve said you are both hyper intelligent. I’ve called out SeanT for being a narcissist.....or maybe I’ve equated animal cruelty with paedophilia, or Brexit with rascism for polemic effect....I certainly havent called anyone here individually a paedo or racist. I don’t know anyone personally to make that remark.
And I really do not mind being called a dickhead or whatever. It’s the personal stuff based on things that I have disclosed about myself that I am just trying to put an end to, mainly because I regret disclosing them in the first place.
@Floater.....honest, I never deliberately ignore anyone here......it’s just time, and how often I look at threads......
There is no need for the UK to put up checks. The EU is obliged to under WTO rules in the absence of an agreement and will also need to ensure the integrity of the single market and the customs union. Checks on either side of the border will create chaos. And after the UK has scored a quick win by pointing the finger at the EU the queues will still be there.
It is, of course, open to the UK at any time to define exactly what kind of relationship it wants with the EU, how it intends to achieve it and what that means for the Irish border. Up to now, it has chosen not to do so. Maybe that will change tomorrow.
The EU is not obliged under WTO rules, as I've pointed out many times. In any case WTO default (Most Favoured Nation) rules wouldn't apply anyway if we have a trade agreement. This is another non-argument.
In the absence of an agreement the EU is obliged to treat the UK EU border in the same way as it treats other borders with countries that are not covered by agreements. If it doesn't it risks WTO action. In such circumstances. That means what happens at the Polish Russian frontier on the EU side would have to happen on the UK Ireland frontier.
Of course, should there be an agreement between the EU and the UK that is no longer the case; and if it is all as easy as you believe the UK will no doubt demonstrate this and everything will be fine.
You argument.
They may not have to be identical. Like you, I do not know. But they would have to be non-discriminatory - in other words, they would have to have the same overall effect. As for an agreement: of course, if there is one then this problem goes away. But there is only going to be one if the UK comes up with some solutions. It has so far failed to do so.
Indeed but “ if you don’t, or we don’t agree, hand over part of your country to our admin- without the consent of its population” - is ( being generous) not exactly smart PR is it, or likely to engender a cooperative atmosphere.
What the hell were they thinking?????
They were thinking there is 13 months until the UK leaves the European Union and so far the UK has come up with nothing concrete about anything. We need to get a move on. If we produce something it can be the basis for negotiation.
I thought that the EU wouldn't negotiate on the future trading relationship until the withdrawal agreement is agreed?
I see that satire truly is dead. @tyson claims he doesn't do personal attacks, and Jon Lansman says he is standing as General Sec of the Labour Party in order to help Jeremy Corbyn sweep away the old machine politics.
Lansman wants to transform Labour into a member led organisation.
UNITE do not want this they want Unions to hold sway.
Whose side are PB Tories on given Jennie Formby or JL are the only 2 games in town.
Who cares. We're too busy enjoying the sight of the Deputy Leader explaining why he should keep the £1/2 million quid he's trousered from a man whose parents had Hitler at their wedding.
Surely he can not be blamed for who his parents invited to their wedding ?
I wasn't blaming him. I was setting out certain facts which are entirely factually correct. But you are of course right. He can't be blamed for who his parents invited to their wedding. Anymore than Daily Mail journalists today can be blamed for what a long-dead owner of the newspaper thought and said 80 years ago.
But it was the Deputy Leader who raised Rothermere's actions 80 years ago, quite unnecessarily, when trying to justify what he had done. So he is now being hoist by his own petard. If those actions are relevant now then the actions of Mosley's parents and Mosley himself - even 40 or 50 years ago, who seems at times to have shared his father's views, at least judging by some of the stuff that is coming out - are just as relevant.
There is no need for the UK to put up checks. The EU is obliged to under WTO rules in the absence of an agreement and will also need to ensure the integrity of the single market and the customs union. Checks on either side of the border will create chaos. And after the UK has scored a quick win by pointing the finger at the EU the queues will still be there.
It is, of course, open to the UK at any time to define exactly what kind of relationship it wants with the EU, how it intends to achieve it and what that means for the Irish border. Up to now, it has chosen not to do so. Maybe that will change tomorrow.
The EU is not obliged under WTO rules, as I've pointed out many times. In any case WTO default (Most Favoured Nation) rules wouldn't apply anyway if we have a trade agreement. This is another non-argument.
In the absence of an agreement the EU is obliged to treat the UK EU border in the same way as it treats other borders with countries that are not covered by agreements. If it doesn't it risks WTO action. In such circumstances. That means what happens at the Polish Russian frontier on the EU side would have to happen on the UK Ireland frontier.
Of course, should there be an agreement between the EU and the UK that is no longer the case; and if it is all as easy as you believe the UK will no doubt demonstrate this and everything will be fine.
You argument.
They so.
Indeed but “ if you don’t, or we don’t agree, hand over part of your country to our admin- without the consent of its population” - is ( being generous) not exactly smart PR is it, or likely to engender a cooperative atmosphere.
What the hell were they thinking?????
They were thinking there is 13 months until the UK leaves the European Union and so far the UK has come up with nothing concrete about anything. We need to get a move on. If we produce something it can be the basis for negotiation.
Ok, but they’ve done it in a cack handed fashion.
I am not so sure. I think they may well have done it with an end in mind. They are more likely to get what they want if they are also able to give the UK government some small wins that can be flourished at the time a final deal is done. The whole thing looks very choreographed to me. After all, this is not the first time the EU has done a big negotiation.
Why is it barmy to want to preserve the integrity of the single market and the customs union? Ireland is an integral part of the EU. Chlorinated chicken and worse appearing on the shelves of Irish supermarkets is just as pernicious as it appearing on the shelves of supermarkets in France, Italy or Greece.
Untaxed cigarettes get smuggled across the border today and sold in Irish pubs and markets. This is a huge problem for Ireland, but no-one suggests that there have to be physical border checks to prevent it. So why would the risk of stray chickens suddenly pose such a threat that physical checks were needed?
Because cigarettes are one item and one problem. If you open up the border to smuggling opportunities of many kinds you create the risk of a much bigger problem that will affect a much wider pool of producers and consumers.
You are getting desperate! What are these 'smuggling opportunities' if there are no tariffs, as we hope? Perhaps some electrical retailer might risk buying a dozen non-EU-compliant vacuum cleaners in Belfast and selling them in Dublin. Hardly the end of the world - the UK is not going to diverge much anyway - and it's the kind of thing you can police by trading standards officers and VAT inspections. And any consumer could quite legally drive to Belfast and buy the vacuum cleaner themselves, and stock up on a nice load of cheap salmonella-free American chickens whilst he's about it. There simply isn't any massive danger that justifies intrusive enforcement at the border.
There is no need for the UK to put up checks. The EU is obliged to under WTO rules in the absence of an agreement and will also need to ensure the integrity of the single market and the customs union. Checks on either side of the border will create chaos. And after the UK has scored a quick win by pointing the finger at the EU the queues will still be there.
It is, of course, open to the UK at any time to define exactly what kind of relationship it wants with the EU, how it intends to achieve it and what that means for the Irish border. Up to now, it has chosen not to do so. Maybe that will change tomorrow.
The EU is not obliged under WTO rules, as I've pointed out many times. In any case WTO default (Most Favoured Nation) rules wouldn't apply anyway if we have a trade agreement. This is another non-argument.
I am agnostic on the workability of customs checks at the Irish border if we really can't accept regulatory conformance with the EU. But I think it completely unrealistic to blame the other side for wanting to enforce the border when we disclaim responsibility for managing the border on our side. There isn't a country in the world that doesn't enforce its borders. The whole point of Brexit is to create borders and barriers.
Add into the mix that most people on either side of the border think with some justification that the border is a Unionist plot.
Bottom line we can go on about non-arguments. The EU will most likely go nuclear on the WTO option if we go down this route. We need to take the border a lot more seriously than the government has done so far.
I think it’s sort of fair to attack people’s posting styles and political philosophies. People may disagree. I called you pompous because you are ever so pompous....I think called out Cyclefree for the same, and for being long winded.....she’s never forgiven me for it i think. But also I’ve said you are both hyper intelligent. I’ve called out SeanT for being a narcissist.....or maybe I’ve equated animal cruelty with paedophilia, or Brexit with rascism for polemic effect....I certainly havent called anyone here individually a paedo or racist. I don’t know anyone personally to make that remark.
And I really do not mind being called a dickhead or whatever. It’s the personal stuff based on things that I have disclosed about myself that I am just trying to put an end to, mainly because I regret disclosing them in the first place.
@Floater.....honest, I never deliberately ignore anyone here......it’s just time, and how often I look at threads......
I never realised you had attacked me. So I have never not forgiven you because I didn't realise I had anything to forgive.
The last time you said anything about me was to congratulate me for a rather frustrated summary of current politics which used a lot of swear words.
But you are of course forgiven, dear Tyson. Any man who has time for Italy in his heart is OK by me.
I'm not really interested in personal attacks. Rather tiresome, I find.
Why is it barmy to want to preserve the integrity of the single market and the customs union? Ireland is an integral part of the EU. Chlorinated chicken and worse appearing on the shelves of Irish supermarkets is just as pernicious as it appearing on the shelves of supermarkets in France, Italy or Greece.
Untaxed cigarettes get smuggled across the border today and sold in Irish pubs and markets. This is a huge problem for Ireland, but no-one suggests that there have to be physical border checks to prevent it. So why would the risk of stray chickens suddenly pose such a threat that physical checks were needed?
Because cigarettes are one item and one problem. If you open up the border to smuggling opportunities of many kinds you create the risk of a much bigger problem that will affect a much wider pool of producers and consumers.
You are getting desperate! What are these 'smuggling opportunities' if there are no tariffs, as we hope? Perhaps some electrical retailer might risk buying a dozen non-EU-compliant vacuum cleaners in Belfast and selling them in Dublin. Hardly the end of the world - the UK is not going to diverge much anyway - and it's the kind of thing you can police by trading standards officers and VAT inspections. And any consumer could quite legally drive to Belfast and buy the vacuum cleaner themselves. There simply isn't any massive danger that justifies intrusive enforcement at the border.
Then everything is going to be fine! The UK will demonstrate this and everyone will be happy.
Tariffs are but one barrier to entry, of course. Standards are another. That's why an agreement on regulatory alignment is necessary. Again, the EU is waiting for the UK to come up with some suggestions.
There is no need for the UK to put up checks. The EU is obliged to under WTO rules in the absence of an agreement and will also need to ensure the integrity of the single market and the customs union. Checks on either side of the border will create chaos. And after the UK has scored a quick win by pointing the finger at the EU the queues will still be there.
It is, of course, open to the UK at any time to define exactly what kind of relationship it wants with the EU, how it intends to achieve it and what that means for the Irish border. Up to now, it has chosen not to do so. Maybe that will change tomorrow.
The EU is not obliged under WTO rules, as I've pointed out many times. In any case WTO default (Most Favoured Nation) rules wouldn't apply anyway if we have a trade agreement. This is another non-argument.
In the absence of an agreement the EU is obliged to treat the UK EU border in the same way as it treats other borders with countries that are not covered by agreements. If it doesn't it risks WTO action. In such circumstances. That means what happens at the Polish Russian frontier on the EU side would have to happen on the UK Ireland frontier.
Of course, should there be an agreement between the EU and the UK that is no longer the case; and if it is all as easy as you believe the UK will no doubt demonstrate this and everything will be fine.
You argument.
They so.
Indeed but “ if you don’t, or we don’t agree, hand over part of your country to our admin- without the consent of its population” - is ( being generous) not exactly smart PR is it, or likely to engender a cooperative atmosphere.
What the hell were they thinking?????
They were thinking there is 13 months until the UK leaves the European Union and so far the UK has come up with nothing concrete about anything. We need to get a move on. If we produce something it can be the basis for negotiation.
I thought that the EU wouldn't negotiate on the future trading relationship until the withdrawal agreement is agreed?
The UK and the EU agreed that. The row of the summer never happened, remember.
Bottom line we can go on about non-arguments. The EU will most likely go nuclear on the WTO option if we go down this route. We need to take the border a lot more seriously than the government has done so far.
Perhaps. But are they preparing for it?
We are constantly told (rightly) that HMG's passive behaviour over putting customs infrastructure in place is a sign they expect a deal to be agreed or are stupid.
But does not the same apply to the EU over Northern Ireland?
Edit - incidentally does the EU draft mention Gibraltar, where very similar problems apply?
I see that satire truly is dead. @tyson claims he doesn't do personal attacks, and Jon Lansman says he is standing as General Sec of the Labour Party in order to help Jeremy Corbyn sweep away the old machine politics.
Lansman wants to transform Labour into a member led organisation.
UNITE do not want this they want Unions to hold sway.
Whose side are PB Tories on given Jennie Formby or JL are the only 2 games in town.
Who cares. We're too busy enjoying the sight of the Deputy Leader explaining why he should keep the £1/2 million quid he's trousered from a man whose parents had Hitler at their wedding.
Surely he can not be blamed for who his parents invited to their wedding ?
Yep. Using who his parents invited to their wedding against him in unfair; he had no choice in that, and he has had to live with that stigma for his entire life.
Yet if you are in that unfortunate position, you may at time have to unfairly disassociate yourself from such views. Sadly, at times Moseley appears to have done the opposite.
I really do not know , what views he holds .If you are correct that seems a fair criticism .Regarding using parents or close family members , it would be similarly unfair to be critical of our current royal family because of the meetings the abdicated King, Duke of Windsor had with Hitler , and his alleged sympathies with that regime in the 1930s .
I doubt many of us can *guarantee* that our extended family from the 1920s did not hold views that we would now call extreme. My maternal grandfather died when I was about two, and I have no idea what views he held. I know my paternal grandfather served in DEMS in the war, but what views did he hold before that? Yet alone grand-uncles and grand-aunts (even the one who is still alive, and a good friend).
I'd like to think they were good, upstanding and moral members of society during the 1930s, and have some evidence towards that. But I cannot guarantee it. And given the numbers of people who were brownshirts, or Communists on the other side, then vast numbers of us would have had relatives with such views. In fact, many of us might have relatives who were on both sides.
We can only be criticised for the way we live our lives, not the way relatives lived theirs in the past.
There is no need for the UK to put up checks. The EU is obliged to under WTO rules in the absence of an agreement and will also need to ensure the integrity of the single market and the customs union. Checks on either side of the border will create chaos. And after the UK has scored a quick win by pointing the finger at the EU the queues will still be there.
It is, of course, open to the UK at any time to define exactly what kind of relationship it wants with the EU, how it intends to achieve it and what that means for the Irish border. Up to now, it has chosen not to do so. Maybe that will change tomorrow.
The EU is not obliged under WTO rules, as I've pointed out many times. In any case WTO default (Most Favoured Nation) rules wouldn't apply anyway if we have a trade agreement. This is another non-argument.
I am agnostic on the workability of customs checks at the Irish border if we really can't accept regulatory conformance with the EU. But I think it completely unrealistic to blame the other side for wanting to enforce the border when we disclaim responsibility for managing the border on our side. There isn't a country in the world that doesn't enforce its borders. The whole point of Brexit is to create borders and barriers.
Add into the mix that most people on either side of the border think with some justification that the border is a Unionist plot.
Bottom line we can go on about non-arguments. The EU will most likely go nuclear on the WTO option if we go down this route. We need to take the border a lot more seriously than the government has done so far.
Or indeed than just about every PB Brexiter has done.
The amount of hand waving away by them of this critical issue would make a Romanian car wash worker proud.
Deliveroo is one business I don't get. It seems a very expensive way to get a takeaway from a crap chain restaurant, but then I wasn't effected by the KFC closures nor care if Nando runs out of chicken / Jamie Italian chain goes bust (other than obviously people losing work).
When I get fish and chips on a Sunday, I walk one and a half miles to the shop, then either walk or get a minicab back. Deliveroo would save me the walk there and cost me the same as the cab back. Whether there is enough demand to sustain them and their various rivals is open to doubt but I can see the attraction. I'd use them myself but walking to the fish and chip shop is the only exercise I get.
My understanding though is deliveroo isn't for random takeways, justEat is the system that connects those to the customer. Deliveroo business model is about getting food from chain restaurants, that don't do takeaway, to consumers at home.
I don't really get this. If I want a good takeaway there are plenty of options and vice versa for restaurants, but then I dont really see what is so attractive of the likes of about nandos.
But then I also don't get Snapchat, fornite or fidget spinners...
Someone told me that a lot of Trump's base had done their conkers on fidget spinners -- by trying to pull themselves up and do the entrepreneurial thing as preached on TV, and importing vast numbers of fidget spinners to resell, only to find the whole fad was over in about 10 minutes and they'd got a garage full of the things with no hope of recouping their outlay.
Bottom line we can go on about non-arguments. The EU will most likely go nuclear on the WTO option if we go down this route. We need to take the border a lot more seriously than the government has done so far.
Perhaps. But are they preparing for it?
We are constantly told (rightly) that HMG's passive behaviour over putting customs infrastructure in place is a sign they expect a deal to be agreed or are stupid.
But does not the same apply to the EU over Northern Ireland?
Edit - incidentally does the EU draft mention Gibraltar, where very similar problems apply?
The Gibraltar border is a Spain/UK matter and is not being dealt with at EU level.
Max Moseley response to the story of that now infamous party is another classic Streisand effect. I doubt 99% of people would have any recollection of this by now.
Was that the one with the five German-speaking dominatrices and the torture chamber?
Imagine a Remainer designed remote controlled lift door.
It would always be shut because control means closed.
Like the EU - it would be useless.
Given I socialise most with techies, and the vast majorities are remainers, then the chances are that leavers would be arguing about how many people should be allowed in the lift, whilst the remainers just get on with the job, using expertise from around the world to produce a brilliant lift that can be exported around the world.
As jokes go, that is remarkably close to simply describing how things would be.
Leavers would be on the Golgafrincham B ark, arguing about the colour of the lift.
Anyone who knows the story realises how well this analogy works out for everyone involved.
Bottom line we can go on about non-arguments. The EU will most likely go nuclear on the WTO option if we go down this route. We need to take the border a lot more seriously than the government has done so far.
Perhaps. But are they preparing for it?
We are constantly told (rightly) that HMG's passive behaviour over putting customs infrastructure in place is a sign they expect a deal to be agreed or are stupid.
But does not the same apply to the EU over Northern Ireland?
Edit - incidentally does the EU draft mention Gibraltar, where very similar problems apply?
Sorry, you were talking about Ireland, as should have been clear from the context. I am not aware of the Irish preparing for border control. The point is, they really, really don't want it. They are taking a risk by being hardline. Their thinking is that if they don't push the issue they get border controls that will bed in and can never be removed. If they push too far they will also get border controls, absent agreement. But they have a chance of removing those controls when there is an agreement, which there eventually will be.
Edit to your edit. I didn't notice any references to Gibraltar and the Cyprus bases in the draft, except that the agreement applies to those territories as well. I think Spain has to agree.
Deliveroo is one business I don't get. It seems a very expensive way to get a takeaway from a crap chain restaurant, but then I wasn't effected by the KFC closures nor care if Nando runs out of chicken / Jamie Italian chain goes bust (other than obviously people losing work).
When I get fish and chips on a Sunday, I walk one and a half miles to the shop, then either walk or get a minicab back. Deliveroo would save me the walk there and cost me the same as the cab back. Whether there is enough demand to sustain them and their various rivals is open to doubt but I can see the attraction. I'd use them myself but walking to the fish and chip shop is the only exercise I get.
My understanding though is deliveroo isn't for random takeways, justEat is the system that connects those to the customer. Deliveroo business model is about getting food from chain restaurants, that don't do takeaway, to consumers at home.
I don't really get this. If I want a good takeaway there are plenty of options and vice versa for restaurants, but then I dont really see what is so attractive of the likes of about nandos.
But then I also don't get Snapchat, fornite or fidget spinners...
Someone told me that a lot of Trump's base had done their conkers on fidget spinners -- by trying to pull themselves up and do the entrepreneurial thing as preached on TV, and importing vast numbers of fidget spinners to resell, only to find the whole fad was over in about 10 minutes and they'd got a garage full of the things with no hope of recouping their outlay.
Sounds Fake News to me....
On the flip side, all those V for Vendetta masks seen at anti-capitalist rallies. The #1 supplier of those in the UK is a guy who was running a failing fancy dress shop, saw what was going on and managed to corner the market. He said those protests were the best thing that ever happened to his business.
Max Moseley response to the story of that now infamous party is another classic Streisand effect. I doubt 99% of people would have any recollection of this by now.
Was that the one with the five German-speaking dominatrices and the torture chamber?
I don't know if they were German speaking, my hearing aid wasn't working properly.
US steel and aluminium imports face big tariffs, Trump says
President Donald Trump has said he will sign off on steep tariffs on steel and aluminium imports next week, hitting producers like Canada and China.
Flanked by US metals executives at the White House, he said a 25% tariff would be slapped on steel products, and a 10% tariff would be imposed on aluminium.
Deliveroo is one business I don't get. It seems a very expensive way to get a takeaway from a crap chain restaurant, but then I wasn't effected by the KFC closures nor care if Nando runs out of chicken / Jamie Italian chain goes bust (other than obviously people losing work).
When I get fish and chips on a Sunday, I walk one and a half miles to the shop, then either walk or get a minicab back. Deliveroo would save me the walk there and cost me the same as the cab back. Whether there is enough demand to sustain them and their various rivals is open to doubt but I can see the attraction. I'd use them myself but walking to the fish and chip shop is the only exercise I get.
My understanding though is deliveroo isn't for random takeways, justEat is the system that connects those to the customer. Deliveroo business model is about getting food from chain restaurants, that don't do takeaway, to consumers at home.
I don't really get this. If I want a good takeaway there are plenty of options and vice versa for restaurants, but then I dont really see what is so attractive of the likes of about nandos.
But then I also don't get Snapchat, fornite or fidget spinners...
Someone told me that a lot of Trump's base had done their conkers on fidget spinners -- by trying to pull themselves up and do the entrepreneurial thing as preached on TV, and importing vast numbers of fidget spinners to resell, only to find the whole fad was over in about 10 minutes and they'd got a garage full of the things with no hope of recouping their outlay.
Sounds Fake News to me....
On the flip side, all those V for Vendetta masks seen at anti-capitalist rallies. The #1 supplier of those in the UK is a guy who was running a failing fancy dress shop, saw what was going on and managed to corner the market. He said those protests were the best thing that ever happened to his business.
So he made a stack of cash out of the anti capitalist rallies......??
Max Moseley response to the story of that now infamous party is another classic Streisand effect. I doubt 99% of people would have any recollection of this by now.
Was that the one with the five German-speaking dominatrices and the torture chamber?
Deliveroo is one business I don't get. It seems a very expensive way to get a takeaway from a crap chain restaurant, but then I wasn't effected by the KFC closures nor care if Nando runs out of chicken / Jamie Italian chain goes bust (other than obviously people losing work).
When I get fish and chips on a Sunday, I walk one and a half miles to the shop, then either walk or get a minicab back. Deliveroo would save me the walk there and cost me the same as the cab back. Whether there is enough demand to sustain them and their various rivals is open to doubt but I can see the attraction. I'd use them myself but walking to the fish and chip shop is the only exercise I get.
My understanding though is deliveroo isn't for random takeways, justEat is the system that connects those to the customer. Deliveroo business model is about getting food from chain restaurants, that don't do takeaway, to consumers at home.
I don't really get this. If I want a good takeaway there are plenty of options and vice versa for restaurants, but then I dont really see what is so attractive of the likes of about nandos.
But then I also don't get Snapchat, fornite or fidget spinners...
Someone told me that a lot of Trump's base had done their conkers on fidget spinners -- by trying to pull themselves up and do the entrepreneurial thing as preached on TV, and importing vast numbers of fidget spinners to resell, only to find the whole fad was over in about 10 minutes and they'd got a garage full of the things with no hope of recouping their outlay.
Sounds Fake News to me....
On the flip side, all those V for Vendetta masks seen at anti-capitalist rallies. The #1 supplier of those in the UK is a guy who was running a failing fancy dress shop, saw what was going on and managed to corner the market. He said those protests were the best thing that ever happened to his business.
So he made a stack of cash out of the anti capitalist rallies......??
Deliveroo is one business I don't get. It seems a very expensive way to get a takeaway from a crap chain restaurant, but then I wasn't effected by the KFC closures nor care if Nando runs out of chicken / Jamie Italian chain goes bust (other than obviously people losing work).
When I get fish and chips on a Sunday, I walk one and a half miles to the shop, then either walk or get a minicab back. Deliveroo would save me the walk there and cost me the same as the cab back. Whether there is enough demand to sustain them and their various rivals is open to doubt but I can see the attraction. I'd use them myself but walking to the fish and chip shop is the only exercise I get.
My understanding though is deliveroo isn't for random takeways, justEat is the system that connects those to the customer. Deliveroo business model is about getting food from chain restaurants, that don't do takeaway, to consumers at home.
I don't really get this. If I want a good takeaway there are plenty of options and vice versa for restaurants, but then I dont really see what is so attractive of the likes of about nandos.
But then I also don't get Snapchat, fornite or fidget spinners...
Someone told me that a lot of Trump's base had done their conkers on fidget spinners -- by trying to pull themselves up and do the entrepreneurial thing as preached on TV, and importing vast numbers of fidget spinners to resell, only to find the whole fad was over in about 10 minutes and they'd got a garage full of the things with no hope of recouping their outlay.
Sounds Fake News to me....
On the flip side, all those V for Vendetta masks seen at anti-capitalist rallies. The #1 supplier of those in the UK is a guy who was running a failing fancy dress shop, saw what was going on and managed to corner the market. He said those protests were the best thing that ever happened to his business.
So he made a stack of cash out of the anti capitalist rallies......??
Ironic isn't it...
That he could save others from capitalism, but not himself?
I see that satire truly is dead. @tyson claims he doesn't do personal attacks, and Jon Lansman says he is standing as General Sec of the Labour Party in order to help Jeremy Corbyn sweep away the old machine politics.
Lansman wants to transform Labour into a member led organisation.
UNITE do not want this they want Unions to hold sway.
Whose side are PB Tories on given Jennie Formby or JL are the only 2 games in town.
Who cares. We're too busy enjoying the sight of the Deputy Leader explaining why he should keep the £1/2 million quid he's trousered from a man whose parents had Hitler at their wedding.
Surely he can not be blamed for who his parents invited to their wedding ?
Yep. Using who his parents invited to their wedding against him in unfair; he had no choice in that, and he has had to live with that stigma for his entire life.
Yet if you are in that unfortunate position, you may at time have to unfairly disassociate yourself from such views. Sadly, at times Moseley appears to have done the opposite.
I really do not know , what views he holds .If you are correct that seems a fair criticism .Regarding using parents or close family members , it would be similarly unfair to be critical of our current royal family because of the meetings the abdicated King, Duke of Windsor had with Hitler , and his alleged sympathies with that regime in the 1930s .
I doubt many of us can *guarantee* that our extended family from the 1920s did not hold views that we would now call extreme. My maternal grandfather died when I was about two, and I have no idea what views he held. I know my paternal grandfather served in DEMS in the war, but what views did he hold before that? Yet alone grand-uncles and grand-aunts (even the one who is still alive, and a good friend).
I'd like to think they were good, upstanding and moral members of society during the 1930s, and have some evidence towards that. But I cannot guarantee it. And given the numbers of people who were brownshirts, or Communists on the other side, then vast numbers of us would have had relatives with such views. In fact, many of us might have relatives who were on both sides.
We can only be criticised for the way we live our lives, not the way relatives lived theirs in the past.
JJ Good post .The last paragraph is very well put.
Bottom line we can go on about non-arguments. The EU will most likely go nuclear on the WTO option if we go down this route. We need to take the border a lot more seriously than the government has done so far.
Perhaps. But are they preparing for it?
We are constantly told (rightly) that HMG's passive behaviour over putting customs infrastructure in place is a sign they expect a deal to be agreed or are stupid.
But does not the same apply to the EU over Northern Ireland?
Edit - incidentally does the EU draft mention Gibraltar, where very similar problems apply?
The Gibraltar border is a Spain/UK matter and is not being dealt with at EU level.
That is interesting considering Gibraltar for all EU matters is considered a part of the UK, as is Northern Ireland.
So why is Gibraltar given special status and not the six counties?
Is it just because Barnier is a third rate nobody who was over promoted as maire of an Alpine commune?
Or is it because the EU are totally lost and confused? The sense of shock at how hated they were - that a majority of people in their second most important state wanted out despite knowing it could cause major damage - was palpable. They are pretending that all is well again but they do not look convincing.
Max Moseley response to the story of that now infamous party is another classic Streisand effect. I doubt 99% of people would have any recollection of this by now.
Was that the one with the five German-speaking dominatrices and the torture chamber?
I don't know if they were German speaking, my hearing aid wasn't working properly.
Ha ha. It came up in the court case, as the NotW had described the event as a “Sick Nazi Orgy”. So for three days, all the papers reported the legal discussions in court of exactly how the party went down, in much more detail than was ever published at the time. The ultimate Streisand effect.
In the end the court found for Mosley, awarded him damages and started his vendetta against the press. If the NotW had left the ‘N-word’ out of their story they’d probably have won, but given who his father was and the clear German theme of the party they couldn’t resist it.
And the EU seem obsessed with putting up a border.
Ireland and the U.K had a customs border and customs controls but with freedom of movement and no passport controls from 1923 to 1992. There were also random checks on the NI and Republic border.
I remember my father being asked several times to open our car boot as we arrived or left on the ferry to/From Irelamd but no one asked for a passport or ID.
Maybe they were simpler times - but it worked just fine. There were no troubles of any scale for forty years of that period either.
Why can we not make work what worked for 70 years work again? An Irish solution to a problem created by the EU.
Bottom line we can go on about non-arguments. The EU will most likely go nuclear on the WTO option if we go down this route. We need to take the border a lot more seriously than the government has done so far.
Perhaps. But are they preparing for it?
We are constantly told (rightly) that HMG's passive behaviour over putting customs infrastructure in place is a sign they expect a deal to be agreed or are stupid.
But does not the same apply to the EU over Northern Ireland?
Edit - incidentally does the EU draft mention Gibraltar, where very similar problems apply?
The Gibraltar border is a Spain/UK matter and is not being dealt with at EU level.
That is interesting considering Gibraltar for all EU matters is considered a part of the UK, as is Northern Ireland.
So why is Gibraltar given special status and not the six counties?
Is it just because Barnier is a third rate nobody who was over promoted as maire of an Alpine commune?
Or is it because the EU are totally lost and confused? The sense of shock at how hated they were - that a majority of people in their second most important state wanted out despite knowing it could cause major damage - was palpable. They are pretending that all is well again but they do not look convincing.
No, it's because Gibraltar is not a part of the UK, whereas Northern Ireland is.
Bottom line we can go on about non-arguments. The EU will most likely go nuclear on the WTO option if we go down this route. We need to take the border a lot more seriously than the government has done so far.
Perhaps. But are they preparing for it?
We are constantly told (rightly) that HMG's passive behaviour over putting customs infrastructure in place is a sign they expect a deal to be agreed or are stupid.
But does not the same apply to the EU over Northern Ireland?
Edit - incidentally does the EU draft mention Gibraltar, where very similar problems apply?
The Gibraltar border is a Spain/UK matter and is not being dealt with at EU level.
That is interesting considering Gibraltar for all EU matters is considered a part of the UK, as is Northern Ireland.
So why is Gibraltar given special status and not the six counties?
Is it just because Barnier is a third rate nobody who was over promoted as maire of an Alpine commune?
Or is it because the EU are totally lost and confused? The sense of shock at how hated they were - that a majority of people in their second most important state wanted out despite knowing it could cause major damage - was palpable. They are pretending that all is well again but they do not look convincing.
I had a quick glance at the draft withdrawal agreement. Gibraltar was listed as one of the territories the WA applies to. Maybe it's listed because it is a draft subject to Spanish approval,or possibly the inclusion was a mistake. The EU are prepared to treat Northern Ireland separately in quite radical ways. The stumbling blocks are the DUP and UK government concerns about sovereignty.
I am curious about your antipathy towards Barnier. He is tactless by EU standards and somewhat arrogant, but he is a functionary. His job is to implement the policy set him by the EU27, albeit his deputy Sabine Weyand does most of the work. Barnier is a colossus compared with any of the UK politicians involved with Brexit, although some of the civil servants are OK.
Bottom line we can go on about non-arguments. The EU will most likely go nuclear on the WTO option if we go down this route. We need to take the border a lot more seriously than the government has done so far.
Perhaps. But are they preparing for it?
We are constantly told (rightly) that HMG's passive behaviour over putting customs infrastructure in place is a sign they expect a deal to be agreed or are stupid.
But does not the same apply to the EU over Northern Ireland?
Edit - incidentally does the EU draft mention Gibraltar, where very similar problems apply?
The Gibraltar border is a Spain/UK matter and is not being dealt with at EU level.
That is interesting considering Gibraltar for all EU matters is considered a part of the UK, as is Northern Ireland.
So why is Gibraltar given special status and not the six counties?
Is it just because Barnier is a third rate nobody who was over promoted as maire of an Alpine commune?
Or is it because the EU are totally lost and confused? The sense of shock at how hated they were - that a majority of people in their second most important state wanted out despite knowing it could cause major damage - was palpable. They are pretending that all is well again but they do not look convincing.
I had a quick glance at the draft withdrawal agreement. Gibraltar was listed as one of the territories the WA applies to. Maybe it's listed because it is a draft subject to Spanish approval,or possibly the inclusion was a mistake. The EU are prepared to treat Northern Ireland separately in quite radical ways. The stumbling blocks are the DUP and UK government concerns about sovereignty.
I am curious about your antipathy towards Barnier. He is tactless by EU standards and somewhat arrogant, but he is a functionary. His job is to implement the policy set him by the EU27, albeit his deputy Sabine Weyand does most of the work. Barnier is a colossus compared with any of the UK politicians involved with Brexit, although some of the civil servants are OK.
Spain has a veto over any agreement reached between the UK and the EU as it might apply to Gibraltar because while being a British territory Gibraltar is not a part of the UK. The EU has no skin in the game so is happy to give the Spanish the final say. It is looking after its member states' interests.
And the EU seem obsessed with putting up a border.
Ireland and the U.K had a customs border and customs controls but with freedom of movement and no passport controls from 1923 to 1992. There were also random checks on the NI and Republic border.
I remember my father being asked several times to open our car boot as we arrived or left on the ferry to/From Irelamd but no one asked for a passport or ID.
Maybe they were simpler times - but it worked just fine. There were no troubles of any scale for forty years of that period either.
Why can we not make work what worked for 70 years work again? An Irish solution to a problem created by the EU.
Because rightly or wrongly few people who cross that border or live near to it do think it worked, and was certainly inferior to what they have.
And the EU seem obsessed with putting up a border.
Ireland and the U.K had a customs border and customs controls but with freedom of movement and no passport controls from 1923 to 1992. There were also random checks on the NI and Republic border.
I remember my father being asked several times to open our car boot as we arrived or left on the ferry to/From Irelamd but no one asked for a passport or ID.
Maybe they were simpler times - but it worked just fine. There were no troubles of any scale for forty years of that period either.
Why can we not make work what worked for 70 years work again? An Irish solution to a problem created by the EU.
Prior to 1975 neither country was in the EU, after 1975 both are. From 2019 one is one isn't.
Bottom line we can go on about non-arguments. The EU will most likely go nuclear on the WTO option if we go down this route. We need to take the border a lot more seriously than the government has done so far.
Perhaps. But are they preparing for it?
We are constantly told (rightly) that HMG's passive behaviour over putting customs infrastructure in place is a sign they expect a deal to be agreed or are stupid.
But does not the same apply to the EU over Northern Ireland?
Edit - incidentally does the EU draft mention Gibraltar, where very similar problems apply?
Apparenly, yes - I posted a report yesterday that Dublin is actively preparing, and the Dutch and French are recruiting extra customs staff.
I do think it's a pleasant surprise that Spain is not taking the opportunity to extract concessions over Gibraltar. Past Spanish governments exerted pressure on much slighter pretexts.
Bottom line we can go on about non-arguments. The EU will most likely go nuclear on the WTO option if we go down this route. We need to take the border a lot more seriously than the government has done so far.
Perhaps. But are they preparing for it?
We are constantly told (rightly) that HMG's passive behaviour over putting customs infrastructure in place is a sign they expect a deal to be agreed or are stupid.
But does not the same apply to the EU over Northern Ireland?
Edit - incidentally does the EU draft mention Gibraltar, where very similar problems apply?
Apparenly, yes - I posted a report yesterday that Dublin is actively preparing, and the Dutch and French are recruiting extra customs staff.
I do think it's a pleasant surprise that Spain is not taking the opportunity to extract concessions over Gibraltar. Past Spanish governments exerted pressure on much slighter pretexts.
Spain has bigger fish to fry in Catalonia, and is grateful for the British government's support.
O/T according to David Smith, this will be the first fiscal year since 2001/02 that the budget deficit has fallen below 2% of GDP. Cutting it from 10% to 2% of GDP, while halving unemployment, and achieving growth of 2% p.a. Is pretty good. Admittedly, that may just mean that the public finances have been restored in order to enable a future Labour government to go on a spending spree.
US steel and aluminium imports face big tariffs, Trump says
President Donald Trump has said he will sign off on steep tariffs on steel and aluminium imports next week, hitting producers like Canada and China.
Flanked by US metals executives at the White House, he said a 25% tariff would be slapped on steel products, and a 10% tariff would be imposed on aluminium.
This will, of course, make American cars more expensive than Canadian or Mexican ones.
To solve this problem, President Trump will be putting tariffs on cars.
What's scary, of course, is that Canada is an ally, and Canadian steel mills are commercial operations, like American ones. There is no way you can argue that the Canadians are attempting to drive US steelmakers out of business as some kind of geopolitical play. It is a reminder that Trump's commitment to free trade is... Non-existant.
O/T according to David Smith, this will be the first fiscal year since 2001/02 that the budget deficit has fallen below 2% of GDP. Cutting it from 10% to 2% of GDP, while halving unemployment, and achieving growth of 2% p.a. Is pretty good. Admittedly, that may just mean that the public finances have been restored in order to enable a future Labour government to go on a spending spree.
The problem is the debt. It should have been falling as a share of GDP for years now. With Buffet buying US bonds like crazy in anticipation of the next downturn how long have we got?
Bottom line we can go on about non-arguments. The EU will most likely go nuclear on the WTO option if we go down this route. We need to take the border a lot more seriously than the government has done so far.
Perhaps. But are they preparing for it?
We are constantly told (rightly) that HMG's passive behaviour over putting customs infrastructure in place is a sign they expect a deal to be agreed or are stupid.
But does not the same apply to the EU over Northern Ireland?
Edit - incidentally does the EU draft mention Gibraltar, where very similar problems apply?
Apparenly, yes - I posted a report yesterday that Dublin is actively preparing, and the Dutch and French are recruiting extra customs staff.
I do think it's a pleasant surprise that Spain is not taking the opportunity to extract concessions over Gibraltar. Past Spanish governments exerted pressure on much slighter pretexts.
O/T according to David Smith, this will be the first fiscal year since 2001/02 that the budget deficit has fallen below 2% of GDP. Cutting it from 10% to 2% of GDP, while halving unemployment, and achieving growth of 2% p.a. Is pretty good. Admittedly, that may just mean that the public finances have been restored in order to enable a future Labour government to go on a spending spree.
The problem is the debt. It should have been falling as a share of GDP for years now. With Buffet buying US bonds like crazy in anticipation of the next downturn how long have we got?
Is he? He was quoted here as advising against leverage and staying in equities, with dips as buying opportunities.
O/T according to David Smith, this will be the first fiscal year since 2001/02 that the budget deficit has fallen below 2% of GDP. Cutting it from 10% to 2% of GDP, while halving unemployment, and achieving growth of 2% p.a. Is pretty good. Admittedly, that may just mean that the public finances have been restored in order to enable a future Labour government to go on a spending spree.
The problem is the debt. It should have been falling as a share of GDP for years now. With Buffet buying US bonds like crazy in anticipation of the next downturn how long have we got?
Is he? He was quoted here as advising against leverage and staying in equities, with dips as buying opportunities.
Comments
Yet if you are in that unfortunate position, you may at time have to unfairly disassociate yourself from such views. Sadly, at times Moseley appears to have done the opposite.
It is, of course, open to the UK at any time to define exactly what kind of relationship it wants with the EU, how it intends to achieve it and what that means for the Irish border. Up to now, it has chosen not to do so. Maybe that will change tomorrow.
You can still have all that guff without physical checks. You just get importers and exporters to make declarations online. Of course there will failures to comply. So what? What does it matter? What evil would we be trying to avert that made it worthwhile even spending the money on physical controls, let alone risking awakening Irish dogs that we'd much rather leave sleeping? I just don't see why people assume that the existence of customs regulations means that it follows, as night follows day, that you have to enforce them with physical border checks. Clearly it doesn't follow at all, as indeed is proven by customs excise duties being payable at the Irish border.
The UK clearly realises this, but our EU friends either don't, or more likely are pretending not to. I don't find the pretence convincing.
https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm
Of course, should there be an agreement between the EU and the UK that is no longer the case; and if it is all as easy as you believe the UK will no doubt demonstrate this and everything will be fine.
We Brexited to take back control - We shall have Cake.
In all areas we wish we shall exercise control - We shall Eat the Cake
For the Irish border we don't want to exercise control as much as we could - We shall demonstrate self control in not eating that Piece of Cake.
What we don't know is what flavour the Cake is, how large it is and whether it tastes good.
It's a pain being on a diet. All I can think about is food.
Later, on July 31 1962, Oswald and his neo-fascists marched in the Jewish quarter in Hackney, East London, chanting “Jews Out”.
Oswald was floored in the ensuing race riot and Max was among dozens arrested.
He was charged with threatening behaviour, but acquitted at magistrates’ court the next day when he argued he was simply defending his father.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5697677/dark-past-of-max-mosley/
I mean today maybe not but what about managed divergence? Your small time chicken smugglers might get muscled out.
What then?
https://goo.gl/maps/ENgmGGJbByG2
What about Intrastat? What is the plan for Vat? Do we have one?
What the hell were they thinking?????
"Just like the plans by IRA terrorists to blow us out of the UK failed, so their plans to keep the UK within the EU will also fail."
Intrastat question?
I think it’s sort of fair to attack people’s posting styles and political philosophies. People may disagree. I called you pompous because you are ever so pompous....I think called out Cyclefree for the same, and for being long winded.....she’s never forgiven me for it i think. But also I’ve said you are both hyper intelligent. I’ve called out SeanT for being a narcissist.....or maybe I’ve equated animal cruelty with paedophilia, or Brexit with rascism for polemic effect....I certainly havent called anyone here individually a paedo or racist. I don’t know anyone personally to make that remark.
And I really do not mind being called a dickhead or whatever. It’s the personal stuff based on things that I have disclosed about myself that I am just trying to put an end to, mainly because I regret disclosing them in the first place.
@Floater.....honest, I never deliberately ignore anyone here......it’s just time, and how often I look at threads......
But it was the Deputy Leader who raised Rothermere's actions 80 years ago, quite unnecessarily, when trying to justify what he had done. So he is now being hoist by his own petard. If those actions are relevant now then the actions of Mosley's parents and Mosley himself - even 40 or 50 years ago, who seems at times to have shared his father's views, at least judging by some of the stuff that is coming out - are just as relevant.
I am agnostic on the workability of customs checks at the Irish border if we really can't accept regulatory conformance with the EU. But I think it completely unrealistic to blame the other side for wanting to enforce the border when we disclaim responsibility for managing the border on our side. There isn't a country in the world that doesn't enforce its borders. The whole point of Brexit is to create borders and barriers.
Add into the mix that most people on either side of the border think with some justification that the border is a Unionist plot.
Bottom line we can go on about non-arguments. The EU will most likely go nuclear on the WTO option if we go down this route. We need to take the border a lot more seriously than the government has done so far.
The last time you said anything about me was to congratulate me for a rather frustrated summary of current politics which used a lot of swear words.
But you are of course forgiven, dear Tyson. Any man who has time for Italy in his heart is OK by me.
I'm not really interested in personal attacks. Rather tiresome, I find.
Tariffs are but one barrier to entry, of course. Standards are another. That's why an agreement on regulatory alignment is necessary. Again, the EU is waiting for the UK to come up with some suggestions.
We are constantly told (rightly) that HMG's passive behaviour over putting customs infrastructure in place is a sign they expect a deal to be agreed or are stupid.
But does not the same apply to the EU over Northern Ireland?
Edit - incidentally does the EU draft mention Gibraltar, where very similar problems apply?
I'd like to think they were good, upstanding and moral members of society during the 1930s, and have some evidence towards that. But I cannot guarantee it. And given the numbers of people who were brownshirts, or Communists on the other side, then vast numbers of us would have had relatives with such views. In fact, many of us might have relatives who were on both sides.
We can only be criticised for the way we live our lives, not the way relatives lived theirs in the past.
The amount of hand waving away by them of this critical issue would make a Romanian car wash worker proud.
Anyone who knows the story realises how well this analogy works out for everyone involved.
Edit to your edit. I didn't notice any references to Gibraltar and the Cyprus bases in the draft, except that the agreement applies to those territories as well. I think Spain has to agree.
On the flip side, all those V for Vendetta masks seen at anti-capitalist rallies. The #1 supplier of those in the UK is a guy who was running a failing fancy dress shop, saw what was going on and managed to corner the market. He said those protests were the best thing that ever happened to his business.
President Donald Trump has said he will sign off on steep tariffs on steel and aluminium imports next week, hitting producers like Canada and China.
Flanked by US metals executives at the White House, he said a 25% tariff would be slapped on steel products, and a 10% tariff would be imposed on aluminium.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43249614
I'll get my coat...
So why is Gibraltar given special status and not the six counties?
Is it just because Barnier is a third rate nobody who was over promoted as maire of an Alpine commune?
Or is it because the EU are totally lost and confused? The sense of shock at how hated they were - that a majority of people in their second most important state wanted out despite knowing it could cause major damage - was palpable. They are pretending that all is well again but they do not look convincing.
In the end the court found for Mosley, awarded him damages and started his vendetta against the press. If the NotW had left the ‘N-word’ out of their story they’d probably have won, but given who his father was and the clear German theme of the party they couldn’t resist it.
I remember my father being asked several times to open our car boot as we arrived or left on the ferry to/From Irelamd but no one asked for a passport or ID.
Maybe they were simpler times - but it worked just fine. There were no troubles of any scale for forty years of that period either.
Why can we not make work what worked for 70 years work again? An Irish solution to a problem created by the EU.
I am curious about your antipathy towards Barnier. He is tactless by EU standards and somewhat arrogant, but he is a functionary. His job is to implement the policy set him by the EU27, albeit his deputy Sabine Weyand does most of the work. Barnier is a colossus compared with any of the UK politicians involved with Brexit, although some of the civil servants are OK.
I do think it's a pleasant surprise that Spain is not taking the opportunity to extract concessions over Gibraltar. Past Spanish governments exerted pressure on much slighter pretexts.
https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/968534387057942529
To solve this problem, President Trump will be putting tariffs on cars.
What's scary, of course, is that Canada is an ally, and Canadian steel mills are commercial operations, like American ones. There is no way you can argue that the Canadians are attempting to drive US steelmakers out of business as some kind of geopolitical play. It is a reminder that Trump's commitment to free trade is... Non-existant.
My favourite bit is:
https://tinyurl.com/y7ghnell
A pretty much direct 15 minute drive that crosses the border four times.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/24/buffett-has-one-big-investing-lesson-in-this-years-annual-letter.html?recirc=taboolainternal