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.
This is the sort of thing why I argue the licence fee is totally broken. The BBC while wed to the telly tax can't compete with the shifts happening in the modern world of content creation.
Murdoch has seen the tectonic plates shifting, and the Sky under new ownership are in an even better position to adapt with the times.
Netflix and Amazon are providing some great content.
BBC is just an old boys network, ancient relic, pushing shedloads of money to arsewipes for a crap product.
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.
Apparently he now has more US bonds than either China or Japan. That’s a lot of money, even for him.
But is he buying or just holding?
Personally, I have moved my own investments into a defensive position, with a good chunk in cash. At some point this year there will be a Brexit panic dip and I want to take advantage. 2 years ago I did that, and made a tidy profit by buying back a few months later in the summer.
I wasn't particularly expecting a US buying opportunity. I can see the US overheating with all the stimulus from cashpiles coming onshore and consumer tax cuts. Maybe that is what Buffett anticipates.
Leonard's biggest challenge is keeping on-side the circa 30% of SLAB's support base which favours independence - he's still relatively unknown outside political circles:
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.
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.
Apparently he now has more US bonds than either China or Japan. That’s a lot of money, even for him.
But is he buying or just holding?
Personally, I have moved my own investments into a defensive position, with a good chunk in cash. At some point this year there will be a Brexit panic dip and I want to take advantage. 2 years ago I did that, and made a tidy profit by buying back a few months later in the summer.
I wasn't particularly expecting a US buying opportunity. I can see the US overheating with all the stimulus from cashpiles coming onshore and consumer tax cuts. Maybe that is what Buffett anticipates.
Why not go in for horse-racing? It's great fun, and probably as profitable.
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.
You halfwits just don't get it, the EU is not going to take one for the UK, they understand the fact that you are either in or out of the club. They will happily man the borders and charge the UK the cost on any goods that they wish to send across it. Not hard to understand.
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.
Apparently he now has more US bonds than either China or Japan. That’s a lot of money, even for him.
But is he buying or just holding?
Personally, I have moved my own investments into a defensive position, with a good chunk in cash. At some point this year there will be a Brexit panic dip and I want to take advantage. 2 years ago I did that, and made a tidy profit by buying back a few months later in the summer.
I wasn't particularly expecting a US buying opportunity. I can see the US overheating with all the stimulus from cashpiles coming onshore and consumer tax cuts. Maybe that is what Buffett anticipates.
I was under the impression that US equities were still a buy, especially the tech stocks. One of the problems with something like Hathaway is that it gets harder and harder to find investments that can actually make a difference.
Apart from tedious goings-on in north London of little or no interest to anyone, where are we tonight ? In truth, not much further forward than yesterday.
The vitriol against Barnier and the EU notwithstanding (and that's good for domestic politics but that's all) where is the solution ? The nearest approximation to the post-EU situation around currently are the border of Gibraltar and Spain and (I believe) the borders between the Spanish enclaves in North Africa and Morocco.
There are a few other oddities such as the shores of Lake Maggiore with Italian and Swiss bits.
If we don't want the paraphernalia of a "hard" border, somebody needs to see if the much-vaunted technology really can cut the mustard. It's not the same as collecting the Congestion Charge or the toll at Dartford. I imagine all sorts of bureaucracy could be conducted on line and verified electronically or via scanner but I'm not wholly convinced.
The conundrum is we want a border to show we've left the EU but we don't want a border because it interferes with the free flow of commerce and trade. I also think IF we got a "soft" or frictionless border the default expectation will be an FTA with the EU which I imagine is what we want but whether that's what the EU wants is less clear.
Domestically, talking tough to Europe does no Prime Minister any harm even if it's not in the country's longer term benefits. Perhaps it deflects from the public's reaction to the news EU migrants arriving post-Transition (when Freedom of Movement still applies) will be granted indefinite leave to stay.
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.
While I'm sure they appreciate any support for their position (or people staying out of it), as an outsider it doesn't seem like there would be any advantage to us in taking a different stance re Catalonia is there, even if we merely wanted to annoy them?
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.
You halfwits just don't get it, the EU is not going to take one for the UK, they understand the fact that you are either in or out of the club. They will happily man the borders and charge the UK the cost on any goods that they wish to send across it. Not hard to understand.
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.
Ireland changed its constitution to ratify the Good Friday Agreement. That's a big deal, and not just a matter of technicalities of border controls. Brexit undermines that settlement and it's up to the UK to come up with solutions.
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.
Ireland changed its constitution to ratify the Good Friday Agreement. That's a big deal, and not just a matter of technicalities of border controls. Brexit undermines that settlement and it's up to the UK to come up with solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
Leonard's biggest challenge is keeping on-side the circa 30% of SLAB's support base which favours independence - he's still relatively unknown outside political circles:
he is also proving to be even crappier than expected and he was expected to be totally crap.
Parties can still manage surprisingly high vote shares even while their leaders are crap, of course. I'd say that applied pretty obviously to both Labour and the Tories in 2017 (people can indeed say Corbyn ran a good campaign and was rewarded, but his leadership had been characterised by a lot of crap up to then).
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.
You halfwits just don't get it, the EU is not going to take one for the UK, they understand the fact that you are either in or out of the club. They will happily man the borders and charge the UK the cost on any goods that they wish to send across it. Not hard to understand.
+1 Agreed - if they do help us out at all here it will be an act of charity.
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.
Ireland changed its constitution to ratify the Good Friday Agreement. That's a big deal, and not just a matter of technicalities of border controls. Brexit undermines that settlement and it's up to the UK to come up with solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
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.
Ireland changed its constitution to ratify the Good Friday Agreement. That's a big deal, and not just a matter of technicalities of border controls. Brexit undermines that settlement and it's up to the UK to come up with solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
I don't think the fundamental basis is that the UK and Ireland are both EU members. There may be references to the EU in it, but it doesn't underpin the agreement.
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.
Ireland changed its constitution to ratify the Good Friday Agreement. That's a big deal, and not just a matter of technicalities of border controls. Brexit undermines that settlement and it's up to the UK to come up with solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
Hang on, you say it undermines the settlement of the GFA, then you say the issues are more fundamental than what the GFA actually requires or not? Surely what is actually required or not in the agreement is pretty gosh darned fundamental, otherwise people are claiming falsely that specific actions undermine the agreement when they are not even a part of it. If things beyond the agreement are criticial, that's a fair point, but you cannot cry out 'Ireland has ratified GFA, Brexit undermines that' then claim not doing something not even in the agreement (or so it has been questioned, I have no idea what is in it) undermines the GFA settlement.
I have no doubt this is all fiendishly complicated, and the febrile nature of politics in NI make it all very sensitive indeed, but even if being non-EU causes many difficult issues, if the GFA does not require a specific thing, then it cannot be an undermining of that settlement to not do that thing, even if it would indeed make things more difficult.
Things being difficult and undermining the GFA settlement are surely not equivalent terms if the settlement does not require specific things.
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.
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.
Ireland changed its constitution to ratify the Good Friday Agreement. That's a big deal, and not just a matter of technicalities of border controls. Brexit undermines that settlement and it's up to the UK to come up with solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
A pretty much direct 15 minute drive that crosses the border four times.
Yes that is pretty amazing - I never realised there is a bit of Ireland you can only get to by driving through the UK (or wading across the FInn River). That is one crazy border!
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.
Ireland changed its constitution to ratify the Good Friday Agreement. That's a big deal, and not just a matter of technicalities of border controls. Brexit undermines that settlement and it's up to the UK to come up with solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
Is it? Where specifically?
In the preamble:
"Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"
For comparison, the preamble to another famous treaty contains this line:
"Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"
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.
You halfwits just don't get it, the EU is not going to take one for the UK, they understand the fact that you are either in or out of the club. They will happily man the borders and charge the UK the cost on any goods that they wish to send across it. Not hard to understand.
Are you suggesting that they are our enemies?
I am suggesting that they are practical, you do not want to be in their club then the rules are different. Like all clubs members have different access and privileges to non members. It has to have some attraction or you will soon have no members. They absolutely must and will kick the UK in the nuts, big time or else they are as stupid as the UK government and all signs so far point to them understanding the realities.
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.
Ireland changed its constitution to ratify the Good Friday Agreement. That's a big deal, and not just a matter of technicalities of border controls. Brexit undermines that settlement and it's up to the UK to come up with solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
Is it? Where specifically?
One of those unwritten things perhaps (though apparently it is the preamble)? Because an agreement between 2 member states on an issue relating only to those 2 member states could only ever apply on the assumption that the state of play at the time of signing would continue on forevermore with no alterations. That's why any treaty we signed prior to joining the EU no longer applies to any of the parties involved.
In all seriousness, if the whole thing is indeed predicated on both sides being EU members, then it would be a damn stupid document if it does not state that in big bold letters very clearly. But is the whole thing undermined if a few words are changed? Diplomats know that people and nations change over time, and would want the flexibility to try to ensure it can still be adhered to even should one or both sides change unexpectedly?
Edit: heck, remove the words about being partners in the EU and how is it even undermined? It's still all about cooperation and close relationships.
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.
Ireland changed its constitution to ratify the Good Friday Agreement. That's a big deal, and not just a matter of technicalities of border controls. Brexit undermines that settlement and it's up to the UK to come up with solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
Is it? Where specifically?
Irish nationalists and the Dublin government, with whom many remainers are making common cause, prefer to focus on hazy concepts like the spirit of the accord and loose interpretations of its passages on identity, rather than more concrete provisions on sovereignty....
.....In the constitutional clauses that form the core of the document, the signatories acknowledged that “the present wish of a majority of the people in Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland’s status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people”.
The current threat to that principle comes, not from implementing Brexit, but from the idea that Northern Ireland might stay in the Customs Union or the Single Market while the rest of the UK leaves.
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.
Ireland changed its constitution to ratify the Good Friday Agreement. That's a big deal, and not just a matter of technicalities of border controls. Brexit undermines that settlement and it's up to the UK to come up with solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
Is it? Where specifically?
In the preamble:
"Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"
For comparison, the preamble to another famous treaty contains this line:
"Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"
I’m not sure how that statement leads you to the conclusion that EU membership underpins the treaty.
Leonard's biggest challenge is keeping on-side the circa 30% of SLAB's support base which favours independence - he's still relatively unknown outside political circles:
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.
Ireland changed its constitution to ratify the Good Friday Agreement. That's a big deal, and not just a matter of technicalities of border controls. Brexit undermines that settlement and it's up to the UK to come up with solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
Is it? Where specifically?
Irish nationalists and the Dublin government, with whom many remainers are making common cause, prefer to focus on hazy concepts like the spirit of the accord and loose interpretations of its passages on identity, rather than more concrete provisions on sovereignty....
.....In the constitutional clauses that form the core of the document, the signatories acknowledged that “the present wish of a majority of the people in Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland’s status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people”.
The current threat to that principle comes, not from implementing Brexit, but from the idea that Northern Ireland might stay in the Customs Union or the Single Market while the rest of the UK leaves.
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.
Ireland changed its constitution to ratify the Good Friday Agreement. That's a big deal, and not just a matter of technicalities of border controls. Brexit undermines that settlement and it's up to the UK to come up with solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
Is it? Where specifically?
In the preamble:
"Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"
For comparison, the preamble to another famous treaty contains this line:
"Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"
I’m not sure how that statement leads you to the conclusion that EU membership underpins the treaty.
How can you "develop still further" the relationship "as partners in the European Union" if one party is no longer in the EU?
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.
Ireland changed its constitution to ratify the Good Friday Agreement. That's a big deal, and not just a matter of technicalities of border controls. Brexit undermines that settlement and it's up to the UK to come up with solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
Is it? Where specifically?
Only one explicit reference in the preamble.
"Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"
The North/South Ministerial Council is also tasked among other things
"to consider the European Union dimension of relevant matters, including the implementation of EU policies and programmes and proposals under consideration in the EU framework. Arrangements to be made to ensure that the views of the Council are taken into account and represented appropriately at relevant EU meetings."
Nothing on border or customs arrangements, presumably as in 1998 Brexit wasn't considered remotely possible.
A pretty much direct 15 minute drive that crosses the border four times.
Yes that is pretty amazing - I never realised there is a bit of Ireland you can only get to by driving through the UK (or wading across the FInn River). That is one crazy border!
Oh, there are places in the world far crazier than that when it comes to borders.
Enclave #51, Dahala Khagrabari, was the world's only third-order enclave before India ceded it to Bangladesh in 2015. It was a piece of India within Bangladesh, within India, within Bangladesh.
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.
Ireland changed its constitution to ratify the Good Friday Agreement. That's a big deal, and not just a matter of technicalities of border controls. Brexit undermines that settlement and it's up to the UK to come up with solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
Is it? Where specifically?
One of those unwritten things perhaps (though apparently it is the preamble)? Because an agreement between 2 member states on an issue relating only to those 2 member states could only ever apply on the assumption that the state of play at the time of signing would continue on forevermore with no alterations. That's why any treaty we signed prior to joining the EU no longer applies to any of the parties involved.
In all seriousness, if the whole thing is indeed predicated on both sides being EU members, then it would be a damn stupid document if it does not state that in big bold letters very clearly. But is the whole thing undermined if a few words are changed? Diplomats know that people and nations change over time, and would want the flexibility to try to ensure it can still be adhered to even should one or both sides change unexpectedly?
Edit: heck, remove the words about being partners in the EU and how is it even undermined? It's still all about cooperation and close relationships.
Just replace European Union with Europe. The opening preamble is just pleasantries. Clauses like what Carlotta posted are what mattered when it was signed.
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.
Ireland changed its constitution to ratify the Good Friday Agreement. That's a big deal, and not just a matter of technicalities of border controls. Brexit undermines that settlement and it's up to the UK to come up with solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
Is it? Where specifically?
In the preamble:
"Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"
For comparison, the preamble to another famous treaty contains this line:
"Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"
I’m not sure how that statement leads you to the conclusion that EU membership underpins the treaty.
How can you "develop still further" the relationship "as partners in the European Union" if one party is no longer in the EU?
Leonard's biggest challenge is keeping on-side the circa 30% of SLAB's support base which favours independence - he's still relatively unknown outside political circles:
he is also proving to be even crappier than expected and he was expected to be totally crap.
Anas would have been better.
Words I thought I'd never say.
Exactly , who could have imagined they could have dredged up an idiot that was going to be worse than Anas. I see North Ayrshire Labour tried to put 12.5% on Council tax today but were thwarted by SNP. Only the other day that Police Scotland were asked to investigate PFI debacle in NA schools as well. Labour are wose than Tories at the moment.
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.
You halfwits just don't get it, the EU is not going to take one for the UK, they understand the fact that you are either in or out of the club. They will happily man the borders and charge the UK the cost on any goods that they wish to send across it. Not hard to understand.
Are you suggesting that they are our enemies?
I am suggesting that they are practical, you do not want to be in their club then the rules are different. Like all clubs members have different access and privileges to non members. It has to have some attraction or you will soon have no members. They absolutely must and will kick the UK in the nuts, big time or else they are as stupid as the UK government and all signs so far point to them understanding the realities.
It is not necessarily more practical for them to kick us in the nuts. Even if we come off worse, they may still come away with a sore foot unnecessarily, it would depend on the issue as to whether kicking was best for them, particularly when in some situations they are claiming no cherry picking is permissible when it is provably not the case as they don't treat every non-EU member the same.
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.
Ireland changed its constitution to ratify the Good Friday Agreement. That's a big deal, and not just a matter of technicalities of border controls. Brexit undermines that settlement and it's up to the UK to come up with solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
Is it? Where specifically?
In the preamble:
"Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"
For comparison, the preamble to another famous treaty contains this line:
"Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"
I’m not sure how that statement leads you to the conclusion that EU membership underpins the treaty.
How can you "develop still further" the relationship "as partners in the European Union" if one party is no longer in the EU?
Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union
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.
You halfwits just don't get it, the EU is not going to take one for the UK, they understand the fact that you are either in or out of the club. They will happily man the borders and charge the UK the cost on any goods that they wish to send across it. Not hard to understand.
Are you suggesting that they are our enemies?
I am suggesting that they are practical, you do not want to be in their club then the rules are different. Like all clubs members have different access and privileges to non members. It has to have some attraction or you will soon have no members. They absolutely must and will kick the UK in the nuts, big time or else they are as stupid as the UK government and all signs so far point to them understanding the realities.
It is not necessarily more practical for them to kick us in the nuts. Even if we come off worse, they may still come away with a sore foot unnecessarily, it would depend on the issue as to whether kicking was best for them, particularly when in some situations they are claiming no cherry picking is permissible when it is provably not the case as they don't treat every non-EU member the same.
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!
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.
You halfwits just don't get it, the EU is not going to take one for the UK, they understand the fact that you are either in or out of the club. They will happily man the borders and charge the UK the cost on any goods that they wish to send across it. Not hard to understand.
Are you suggesting that they are our enemies?
I am suggesting that they are practical, you do not want to be in their club then the rules are different. Like all clubs members have different access and privileges to non members. It has to have some attraction or you will soon have no members. They absolutely must and will kick the UK in the nuts, big time or else they are as stupid as the UK government and all signs so far point to them understanding the realities.
It is not necessarily more practical for them to kick us in the nuts. Even if we come off worse, they may still come away with a sore foot unnecessarily, it would depend on the issue as to whether kicking was best for them, particularly when in some situations they are claiming no cherry picking is permissible when it is provably not the case as they don't treat every non-EU member the same.
They have to be prepared to take a hit to protect membership, why would anyone else stay in if UK gets a good deal , it has to be markedly worse than being a member, other wise EU is dead. A hard rain is gonna fall or it is going to be very very expensive.
PS: Far better a sore foot than having your legs amputated.
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.
Ireland changed its constitwith solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
Is it? Where specifically?
In the preamble:
"Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"
For comparison, the preamble to another famous treaty contains this line:
"Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"
I’m not sure how that statement leads you to the conclusion that EU membership underpins the treaty.
How can you "develop still further" the relationship "as partners in the European Union" if one party is no longer in the EU?
Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union
Still works.
Impossible! Tying to develop the relationship (unique it specifies, which in fact one could provocatively argue that developing it when one is in the EU and one not makes it even more unique) and close cooperation outside the bonds of the EU? No one could every do such a thing, that's why diplomacy did not exist before the EU.
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.
Ireland changed its constitution to ratify the Good Friday Agreement. That's a big deal, and not just a matter of technicalities of border controls. Brexit undermines that settlement and it's up to the UK to come up with solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
Is it? Where specifically?
In the preamble:
"Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"
For comparison, the preamble to another famous treaty contains this line:
"Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"
I’m not sure how that statement leads you to the conclusion that EU membership underpins the treaty.
How can you "develop still further" the relationship "as partners in the European Union" if one party is no longer in the EU?
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.
Ireland changed its constitution to ratify the Good Friday Agreement. That's a big deal, and not just a matter of technicalities of border controls. Brexit undermines that settlement and it's up to the UK to come up with solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
Is it? Where specifically?
In the preamble:
"Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"
For comparison, the preamble to another famous treaty contains this line:
"Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"
I’m not sure how that statement leads you to the conclusion that EU membership underpins the treaty.
How can you "develop still further" the relationship "as partners in the European Union" if one party is no longer in the EU?
As friendly neighbours, perhaps?
Yes, and in order to maintain the same shared legal framework you need something like the arrangements in the draft withdrawal agreement.
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.
Ireland changed its constitwith solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
Is it? Where specifically?
In the preamble:
"Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"
For comparison, the preamble to another famous treaty contains this line:
"Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"
I’m not sure how that statement leads you to the conclusion that EU membership underpins the treaty.
How can you "develop still further" the relationship "as partners in the European Union" if one party is no longer in the EU?
Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union
Still works.
Impossible! Tying to develop the relationship (unique it specifies, which in fact one could provocatively argue that developing it when one is in the EU and one not makes it even more unique) and close cooperation outside the bonds of the EU? No one could every do such a thing, that's why diplomacy did not exist before the EU.
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.
Ireland changed its constitution to ratify the Good Friday Agreement. That's a big deal, and not just a matter of technicalities of border controls. Brexit undermines that settlement and it's up to the UK to come up with solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
Is it? Where specifically?
In the preamble:
"Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"
For comparison, the preamble to another famous treaty contains this line:
"Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"
I’m not sure how that statement leads you to the conclusion that EU membership underpins the treaty.
How can you "develop still further" the relationship "as partners in the European Union" if one party is no longer in the EU?
As friendly neighbours, perhaps?
Yes, and in order to maintain the same shared legal framework you need something like the arrangements in the draft withdrawal agreement.
Why? What do the shared legal frameworks as described in the GFA have to do with the EU?
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.
Ireland changed its constitution to ratify the Good Friday Agreement. That's a big deal, and not just a matter of technicalities of border controls. Brexit undermines that settlement and it's up to the UK to come up with solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
Is it? Where specifically?
In the preamble:
"Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"
For comparison, the preamble to another famous treaty contains this line:
"Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"
I’m not sure how that statement leads you to the conclusion that EU membership underpins the treaty.
How can you "develop still further" the relationship "as partners in the European Union" if one party is no longer in the EU?
As friendly neighbours, perhaps?
Yes, and in order to maintain the same shared legal framework you need something like the arrangements in the draft withdrawal agreement.
Something like. That’s fine. Something like does not necessitate being in the EU does it? Norway? Canada? Jersey? Ukraine? All something like.
They have to be prepared to take a hit to protect membership, why would anyone else stay in if UK gets a good deal , it has to be markedly worse than being a member, other wise EU is dead. A hard rain is gonna fall or it is going to be very very expensive.
Yes it does need to be worse than being a member, as you say leaving cannot appear an attractive prospect for anyone else down the line, but they still want things out of the negotiations just as we do (or else both sides would already have stopped talking), and there's a gap between giving us what all that we want, and telling us to eat shit and like it. The former would not work for them, but the latter is not the best option for them either. Something which is demonstrably worse for us than being in the EU, in their eyes, but which is enough for us to not crash out and not cooperate on even the things they do want, is best for everyone.
It is clear, though, that fanatics on both sides want things as hard as possible. And if they are counting on the UK not being so stupid as to crash out and so to give in to all their demands they are bloody bonkers, since they believed that about Brexit in the first place and the vote still happened, so assuming the political scene will allow for us eat the shit they offer is unnecessarily risky.
And the EU seem obsessed with putting up a border.
Why can we not make work what worked for 70 years work again? An Irish solution to a problem created by the EU.
Ireland changed its constitution to ratify the Good Friday Agreement. That's a big deal, and not just a matter of technicalities of border controls. Brexit undermines that settlement and it's up to the UK to come up with solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
Is it? Where specifically?
In the preamble:
"Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"
For comparison, the preamble to another famous treaty contains this line:
"Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"
I’m not sure how that statement leads you to the conclusion that EU membership underpins the treaty.
How can you "develop still further" the relationship "as partners in the European Union" if one party is no longer in the EU?
Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union
Still works.
The December statement includes a commitment to the continuation of EU funding programmes to Northern Ireland and Ireland: Peace and Interreg programmes, but the February text does not mention this commitment.
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.
Apparently he now has more US bonds than either China or Japan. That’s a lot of money, even for him.
But is he buying or just holding?
Personally, I have moved my own investments into a defensive position, with a good chunk in cash. At some point this year there will be a Brexit panic dip and I want to take advantage. 2 years ago I did that, and made a tidy profit by buying back a few months later in the summer.
I wasn't particularly expecting a US buying opportunity. I can see the US overheating with all the stimulus from cashpiles coming onshore and consumer tax cuts. Maybe that is what Buffett anticipates.
Why not go in for horse-racing? It's great fun, and probably as profitable.
Simple. I do not know enough about horses!
I bet on politics, football and things like the Oscars. My equities are invested for retirement, so mostly long term holdings.
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.
You halfwits just don't get it, the EU is not going to take one for the UK, they understand the fact that you are either in or out of the club. They will happily man the borders and charge the UK the cost on any goods that they wish to send across it. Not hard to understand.
Are you suggesting that they are our enemies?
Look what they did to Greece for example - enemies might be too strong, but friends, hardly.
They have to be prepared to take a hit to protect membership, why would anyone else stay in if UK gets a good deal , it has to be markedly worse than being a member, other wise EU is dead. A hard rain is gonna fall or it is going to be very very expensive.
Yes it does need to be worse than being a member, as you say leaving cannot appear an attractive prospect for anyone else down the line, but they still want things out of the negotiations just as we do (or else both sides would already have stopped talking), and there's a gap between giving us what all that we want, and telling us to eat shit and like it. The former would not work for them, but the latter is not the best option for them either. Something which is demonstrably worse for us than being in the EU, in their eyes, but which is enough for us to not crash out and not cooperate on even the things they do want, is best for everyone.
It is clear, though, that fanatics on both sides want things as hard as possible. And if they are counting on the UK not being so stupid as to crash out and so to give in to all their demands they are bloody bonkers, since they believed that about Brexit in the first place and the vote still happened, so assuming the political scene will allow for us eat the shit they offer is unnecessarily risky.
Quite. However, if they are so scared that the U.K. will look attractive as a model once outside and you’ve got to use a stick to keep the others in line, it’s not much of a club is it? It’s a prison.
Man City not out of 2nd gear yet and already ahead. Grim times for the Gunners.
It takes a heart of stone
I hear you...
So when's Saint Totteringham's day this year?
Kyle Walker was barely booed tonight.... the Arsenal fans can barely be bothered to even do that. Spurs season tickets for next season going on sale shortly....
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.
Ireland changed its constitution to ratify the Good Friday Agreement. That's a big deal, and not just a matter of technicalities of border controls. Brexit undermines that settlement and it's up to the UK to come up with solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
Is it? Where specifically?
In the preamble:
"Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"
For comparison, the preamble to another famous treaty contains this line:
"Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"
I’m not sure how that statement leads you to the conclusion that EU membership underpins the treaty.
How can you "develop still further" the relationship "as partners in the European Union" if one party is no longer in the EU?
Easy delete “ in the European Union”. Works fine.
The preamble of the Canadian Constitution still states that one of its aims is to "promote the Interests of the British Empire".
They have to be prepared to take a hit to protect membership, why would anyone else stay in if UK gets a good deal , it has to be markedly worse than being a member, other wise EU is dead. A hard rain is gonna fall or it is going to be very very expensive.
Yes it does need to be worse than being a member, as you say leaving cannot appear an attractive prospect for anyone else down the line, but they still want things out of the negotiations just as we do (or else both sides would already have stopped talking), and there's a gap between giving us what all that we want, and telling us to eat shit and like it. The former would not work for them, but the latter is not the best option for them either. Something which is demonstrably worse for us than being in the EU, in their eyes, but which is enough for us to not crash out and not cooperate on even the things they do want, is best for everyone.
It is clear, though, that fanatics on both sides want things as hard as possible. And if they are counting on the UK not being so stupid as to crash out and so to give in to all their demands they are bloody bonkers, since they believed that about Brexit in the first place and the vote still happened, so assuming the political scene will allow for us eat the shit they offer is unnecessarily risky.
For me it just looks like UK side are pretty useless and imagine they will get all they want. For sure EU position is that they will get minimum and at a big price with EU making the decisions. I do not see it ending well.
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.
Ireland changed its constitution to ratify the Good Friday Agreement. That's a big deal, and not just a matter of technicalities of border controls. Brexit undermines that settlement and it's up to the UK to come up with solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
Is it? Where specifically?
In the preamble:
"Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"
For comparison, the preamble to another famous treaty contains this line:
"Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"
I’m not sure how that statement leads you to the conclusion that EU membership underpins the treaty.
How can you "develop still further" the relationship "as partners in the European Union" if one party is no longer in the EU?
Easy delete “ in the European Union”. Works fine.
The preamble of the Canadian Constitution still states that one of its aims is to "promote the Interests of the British Empire".
Lol! And we were pragmatic about the development of the relationship over time. Without rancour.
And the EU seem obsessed with putting up a border.
Why can we not make work what worked for 70 years work again? An Irish solution to a problem created by the EU.
Ireland changed its constitution to ratify the Good Friday Agreement. That's a big deal, and not just a matter of technicalities of border controls. Brexit undermines that settlement and it's up to the UK to come up with solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
Is it? Where specifically?
In the preamble:
"Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"
For comparison, the preamble to another famous treaty contains this line:
"Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"
I’m not sure how that statement leads you to the conclusion that EU membership underpins the treaty.
How can you "develop still further" the relationship "as partners in the European Union" if one party is no longer in the EU?
Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union
Still works.
The December statement includes a commitment to the continuation of EU funding programmes to Northern Ireland and Ireland: Peace and Interreg programmes, but the February text does not mention this commitment.
Its time this 'Brexit is incompatible with the Belfast Agreement' was laid to rest - its the EU's proposals which are incompatible.
Rather it is the UK demands that are incompatible with someone resigning from club membership. It is very simple , not a club member then you don't get member benefits wihout paying handsomely for the privilege.
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!
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.
You halfwits just don't get it, the EU is not going to take one for the UK, they understand the fact that you are either in or out of the club. They will happily man the borders and charge the UK the cost on any goods that they wish to send across it. Not hard to understand.
Are you suggesting that they are our enemies?
I am suggesting that they are practical, you do not want to be in their club then the rules are different. Like all clubs members have different access and privileges to non members. It has to have some attraction or you will soon have no members. They absolutely must and will kick the UK in the nuts, big time or else they are as stupid as the UK government and all signs so far point to them understanding the realities.
It is not necessarily more practical for them to kick us in the nuts. Even if we come off worse, they may still come away with a sore foot unnecessarily, it would depend on the issue as to whether kicking was best for them, particularly when in some situations they are claiming no cherry picking is permissible when it is provably not the case as they don't treat every non-EU member the same.
PS: Far better a sore foot than having your legs amputated.
Would that affect them all that much? I hear Juncker is frequently legless as it is.
More seriously, that is true. The issue becomes whether an amputation would be a risk if they, you know, actually conceded something, rather than the usual EU trick of pretending they are conceding something. They've obviously prepared to concede something as we're still talking, so they can lay off acting offended anytime we have the temerity to suggest something. The complexity of leaving has been made very clear to all by now, it is not as though sentiment for it elsewhere will rise unless Brexit is a huge success, and even if it is that will not be immediately apparent, so it does not risk an amputation to apply one degree down from the hardest kick imaginable.
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.
Ireland changed its constitution to ratify the Good Friday Agreement. That's a big deal, and not just a matter of technicalities of border controls. Brexit undermines that settlement and it's up to the UK to come up with solutions.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
Is it? Where specifically?
In the preamble:
"Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"
For comparison, the preamble to another famous treaty contains this line:
"Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"
I’m not sure how that statement leads you to the conclusion that EU membership underpins the treaty.
How can you "develop still further" the relationship "as partners in the European Union" if one party is no longer in the EU?
As friendly neighbours, perhaps?
Yes, and in order to maintain the same shared legal framework you need something like the arrangements in the draft withdrawal agreement.
Why? What do the shared legal frameworks as described in the GFA have to do with the EU?
The EU is that framework. That's why the agreement talks about ensuring the council is represented in EU meetings.
They have to be prepared to take a hit to protect membership, why would anyone else stay in if UK gets a good deal , it has to be markedly worse than being a member, other wise EU is dead. A hard rain is gonna fall or it is going to be very very expensive.
Yes it does need to be worse than being a member, as you say leaving cannot appear an attractive prospect for anyone else down the line, but they still want things out of the negotiations just as we do (or else both sides would already have stopped talking), and there's a gap between giving us what all that we want, and telling us to eat shit and like it. The former would not work for them, but the latter is not the best option for them either. Something which is demonstrably worse for us than being in the EU, in their eyes, but which is enough for us to not crash out and not cooperate on even the things they do want, is best for everyone.
It is clear, though, that fanatics on both sides want things as hard as possible. And if they are counting on the UK not being so stupid as to crash out and so to give in to all their demands they are bloody bonkers, since they believed that about Brexit in the first place and the vote still happened, so assuming the political scene will allow for us eat the shit they offer is unnecessarily risky.
For me it just looks like UK side are pretty useless and imagine they will get all they want. For sure EU position is that they will get minimum and at a big price with EU making the decisions. I do not see it ending well.
Oh we do not appear to have gone about things very well and have been overly optimistic. But it does take two to tango, and for a noble organisation it hardly is in their own best interests to make us being actively hostile and obstructive seem like an attractive option for us to take, which it will if they don't at least pretend better that they are not offering us a plate of shit and want us to thank them for the shit as well.
Why can we not make work what worked for 70 years work again? An Irish solution to a problem created by the EU.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
Is it? Where specifically?
In the preamble:
"Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"
For comparison, the preamble to another famous treaty contains this line:
"Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"
I’m not sure how that statement leads you to the conclusion that EU membership underpins the treaty.
How can you "develop still further" the relationship "as partners in the European Union" if one party is no longer in the EU?
Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union
Still works.
The December statement includes a commitment to the continuation of EU funding programmes to Northern Ireland and Ireland: Peace and Interreg programmes, but the February text does not mention this commitment.
Its time this 'Brexit is incompatible with the Belfast Agreement' was laid to rest - its the EU's proposals which are incompatible.
Rather it is the UK demands that are incompatible with someone resigning from club membership. It is very simple , not a club member then you don't get member benefits wihout paying handsomely for the privilege.
Agree - but where are we making such demands and what demands wrt NI?
Its the EU proposal to change the status of NI without consent which breaches the Belfast Agreement.
They have to be prepared to take a hit to protect membership, why would anyone else stay in if UK gets a good deal , it has to be markedly worse than being a member, other wise EU is dead. A hard rain is gonna fall or it is going to be very very expensive.
Yes it does need to be worse than being a member, as you say leaving cannot appear an attractive prospect for anyone else down the line, but they still want things out of the negotiations just as we do (or else both sides would already have stopped talking), and there's a gap between giving us what all that we want, and telling us to eat shit and like it. The former would not work for them, but the latter is not the best option for them either. Something which is demonstrably worse for us than being in the EU, in their eyes, but which is enough for us to not crash out and not cooperate on even the things they do want, is best for everyone.
It is clear, though, that fanatics on both sides want things as hard as possible. And if they are counting on the UK not being so stupid as to crash out and so to give in to all their demands they are bloody bonkers, since they believed that about Brexit in the first place and the vote still happened, so assuming the political scene will allow for us eat the shit they offer is unnecessarily risky.
Quite. However, if they are so scared that the U.K. will look attractive as a model once outside and you’ve got to use a stick to keep the others in line, it’s not much of a club is it? It’s a prison.
I do not think they need to have an intense worry in many more people seeing the demands of membership as outweighing the benefits, at the least in the short and medium term, but there is something to be said that they may have missed an opportunity to improve in Brexit's aftermath. One of the things that turned me from the EU in the end despite the dream of the EU being relatively attractive, was their constant reacting to events with glib lines about learning lessons, but then once a crisis was past the top EU bodies and people showing absolute contempt for the idea that meaningful reform should be attempted, sneering at populism once the threat had died down. It isn't in danger of collapsing, but they could have seized the chance to allay concerns and make it even stronger rather than react petulantly, even if they regard our own leaving as petulant.
They have to be prepared to take a hit to protect membership, why would anyone else stay in if UK gets a good deal , it has to be markedly worse than being a member, other wise EU is dead. A hard rain is gonna fall or it is going to be very very expensive.
Yes it does need to be worse than being a member, as you say leaving cannot appear an attractive prospect for anyone else down the line, but they still want things out of the negotiations just as we do (or else both sides would already have stopped talking), and there's a gap between giving us what all that we want, and telling us to eat shit and like it. The former would not work for them, but the latter is not the best option for them either. Something which is demonstrably worse for us than being in the EU, in their eyes, but which is enough for us to not crash out and not cooperate on even the things they do want, is best for everyone.
It is clear, though, that fanatics on both sides want things as hard as possible. And if they are counting on the UK not being so stupid as to crash out and so to give in to all their demands they are bloody bonkers, since they believed that about Brexit in the first place and the vote still happened, so assuming the political scene will allow for us eat the shit they offer is unnecessarily risky.
Quite. However, if they are so scared that the U.K. will look attractive as a model once outside and you’ve got to use a stick to keep the others in line, it’s not much of a club is it? It’s a prison.
I do not think they need to have an intense worry in many more people seeing the demands of membership as outweighing the benefits, at the least in the short and medium term, but there is something to be said that they may have missed an opportunity to improve in Brexit's aftermath. One of the things that turned me from the EU in the end despite the dream of the EU being relatively attractive, was their constant reacting to events with glib lines about learning lessons, but then once a crisis was past the top EU bodies and people showing absolute contempt for the idea that meaningful reform should be attempted, sneering at populism once the threat had died down. It isn't in danger of collapsing, but they could have seized the chance to allay concerns and make it even stronger rather than react petulantly, even if they regard our own leaving as petulant.
Why can we not make work what worked for 70 years work again? An Irish solution to a problem created by the EU.
Where in the GFA does it say there can't be any customs checks?
As I said, the issues are far more fundamental than that. The GFA is predicated on the assumption that the UK and Ireland are both EU members.
Is it? Where specifically?
In the preamble:
"Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"
For comparison, the preamble to another famous treaty contains this line:
"Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"
I’m not sure how that statement leads you to the conclusion that EU membership underpins the treaty.
How can you "develop still further" the relationship "as partners in the European Union" if one party is no longer in the EU?
Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union
Still works.
The December statement includes a commitment to the continuation of EU funding programmes to Northern Ireland and Ireland: Peace and Interreg programmes, but the February text does not mention this commitment.
They have to be prepared to take a hit to protect membership, why would anyone else stay in if UK gets a good deal , it has to be markedly worse than being a member, other wise EU is dead. A hard rain is gonna fall or it is going to be very very expensive.
Yes it does need to be worse than being a member, as you say leaving cannot appear an attractive prospect for anyone else down the line, but they still want things out of the negotiations just as we do (or else both sides would already have stopped talking), and there's a gap between giving us what all that we want, and telling us to eat shit and like it. The former would not work for them, but the latter is not the best option for them either. Something which is demonstrably worse for us than being in the EU, in their eyes, but which is enough for us to not crash out and not cooperate on even the things they do want, is best for everyone.
It is clear, though, that fanatics on both sides want things as hard as possible. And if they are counting on the UK not being so stupid as to crash out and so to give in to all their demands they are bloody bonkers, since they believed that about Brexit in the first place and the vote still happened, so assuming the political scene will allow for us eat the shit they offer is unnecessarily risky.
For me it just looks like UK side are pretty useless and imagine they will get all they want. For sure EU position is that they will get minimum and at a big price with EU making the decisions. I do not see it ending well.
Oh we do not appear to have gone about things very well and have been overly optimistic. But it does take two to tango, and for a noble organisation it hardly is in their own best interests to make us being actively hostile and obstructive seem like an attractive option for us to take, which it will if they don't at least pretend better that they are not offering us a plate of shit and want us to thank them for the shit as well.
Having yet to see any reality from UK team , they really are idiots , it is hard to see a good outcome.
They have to be prepared to take a hit to protect membership, why would anyone else stay in if UK gets a good deal , it has to be markedly worse than being a member, other wise EU is dead. A hard rain is gonna fall or it is going to be very very expensive.
Yes it does need to be worse than being a member, as you say leaving cannot appear an attractive prospect for anyone else down the line, but they still want things out of the negotiations just as we do (or else both sides would already have stopped talking), and there's a gap between giving us what all that we want, and telling us to eat shit and like it. The former would not work for them, but the latter is not the best option for them either. Something which is demonstrably worse for us than being in the EU, in their eyes, but which is enough for us to not crash out and not cooperate on even the things they do want, is best for everyone.
It is clear, though, that fanatics on both sides want things as hard as possible. And if they are counting on the UK not being so stupid as to crash out and so to give in to all their demands they are bloody bonkers, since they believed that about Brexit in the first place and the vote still happened, so assuming the political scene will allow for us eat the shit they offer is unnecessarily risky.
Quite. However, if they are so scared that the U.K. will look attractive as a model once outside and you’ve got to use a stick to keep the others in line, it’s not much of a club is it? It’s a prison.
No it's a club. You don't get the benefits if you aren't a member.
Comments
Personally, I have moved my own investments into a defensive position, with a good chunk in cash. At some point this year there will be a Brexit panic dip and I want to take advantage. 2 years ago I did that, and made a tidy profit by buying back a few months later in the summer.
I wasn't particularly expecting a US buying opportunity. I can see the US overheating with all the stimulus from cashpiles coming onshore and consumer tax cuts. Maybe that is what Buffett anticipates.
https://twitter.com/almostadequate/status/969309382046601216?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/football/live/2018/mar/01/arsenal-v-manchester-city-premier-league-live
Apart from tedious goings-on in north London of little or no interest to anyone, where are we tonight ? In truth, not much further forward than yesterday.
The vitriol against Barnier and the EU notwithstanding (and that's good for domestic politics but that's all) where is the solution ? The nearest approximation to the post-EU situation around currently are the border of Gibraltar and Spain and (I believe) the borders between the Spanish enclaves in North Africa and Morocco.
There are a few other oddities such as the shores of Lake Maggiore with Italian and Swiss bits.
If we don't want the paraphernalia of a "hard" border, somebody needs to see if the much-vaunted technology really can cut the mustard. It's not the same as collecting the Congestion Charge or the toll at Dartford. I imagine all sorts of bureaucracy could be conducted on line and verified electronically or via scanner but I'm not wholly convinced.
The conundrum is we want a border to show we've left the EU but we don't want a border because it interferes with the free flow of commerce and trade. I also think IF we got a "soft" or frictionless border the default expectation will be an FTA with the EU which I imagine is what we want but whether that's what the EU wants is less clear.
Domestically, talking tough to Europe does no Prime Minister any harm even if it's not in the country's longer term benefits. Perhaps it deflects from the public's reaction to the news EU migrants arriving post-Transition (when Freedom of Movement still applies) will be granted indefinite leave to stay.
I have no doubt this is all fiendishly complicated, and the febrile nature of politics in NI make it all very sensitive indeed, but even if being non-EU causes many difficult issues, if the GFA does not require a specific thing, then it cannot be an undermining of that settlement to not do that thing, even if it would indeed make things more difficult.
Things being difficult and undermining the GFA settlement are surely not equivalent terms if the settlement does not require specific things.
I've just got Ed Conway's book on the Bretton Woods Conference. While I've only just started it, it appears to be well researched and insightful.
By comparison, AEP wrote The Secret Life of Bill Clinton.
Shall we start one of the on-line petitions?
"Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"
For comparison, the preamble to another famous treaty contains this line:
"Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"
In all seriousness, if the whole thing is indeed predicated on both sides being EU members, then it would be a damn stupid document if it does not state that in big bold letters very clearly. But is the whole thing undermined if a few words are changed? Diplomats know that people and nations change over time, and would want the flexibility to try to ensure it can still be adhered to even should one or both sides change unexpectedly?
Edit: heck, remove the words about being partners in the EU and how is it even undermined? It's still all about cooperation and close relationships.
.....In the constitutional clauses that form the core of the document, the signatories acknowledged that “the present wish of a majority of the people in Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland’s status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people”.
The current threat to that principle comes, not from implementing Brexit, but from the idea that Northern Ireland might stay in the Customs Union or the Single Market while the rest of the UK leaves.
https://capx.co/will-brexit-scupper-the-good-friday-agreement/
Anas would have been better.
Words I thought I'd never say.
"Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their
peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly
neighbours and as partners in the European Union"
The North/South Ministerial Council is also tasked among other things
"to consider the European Union dimension of relevant
matters, including the implementation of EU policies and programmes
and proposals under consideration in the EU framework. Arrangements to
be made to ensure that the views of the Council are taken into account and
represented appropriately at relevant EU meetings."
Nothing on border or customs arrangements, presumably as in 1998 Brexit wasn't considered remotely possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India–Bangladesh_enclaves#Notable_enclaves
Enclave #51, Dahala Khagrabari, was the world's only third-order enclave before India ceded it to Bangladesh in 2015. It was a piece of India within Bangladesh, within India, within Bangladesh.
I see North Ayrshire Labour tried to put 12.5% on Council tax today but were thwarted by SNP. Only the other day that Police Scotland were asked to investigate PFI debacle in NA schools as well. Labour are wose than Tories at the moment.
Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours
and as partners in the European UnionStill works.
PS: Far better a sore foot than having your legs amputated.
It is clear, though, that fanatics on both sides want things as hard as possible. And if they are counting on the UK not being so stupid as to crash out and so to give in to all their demands they are bloody bonkers, since they believed that about Brexit in the first place and the vote still happened, so assuming the political scene will allow for us eat the shit they offer is unnecessarily risky.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/03/01/the-irish-border-issue-is-not-going-away-no-matter-how-much-the-uk-government-may-wish-it-away/
Its time this 'Brexit is incompatible with the Belfast Agreement' was laid to rest - its the EU's proposals which are incompatible.
I bet on politics, football and things like the Oscars. My equities are invested for retirement, so mostly long term holdings.
Who knew?
More seriously, that is true. The issue becomes whether an amputation would be a risk if they, you know, actually conceded something, rather than the usual EU trick of pretending they are conceding something. They've obviously prepared to concede something as we're still talking, so they can lay off acting offended anytime we have the temerity to suggest something. The complexity of leaving has been made very clear to all by now, it is not as though sentiment for it elsewhere will rise unless Brexit is a huge success, and even if it is that will not be immediately apparent, so it does not risk an amputation to apply one degree down from the hardest kick imaginable.
Its the EU proposal to change the status of NI without consent which breaches the Belfast Agreement.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/969325448122552322
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/969278558563532800
https://twitter.com/CER_Grant/status/969259786754777088
https://twitter.com/CER_Grant/status/969326832469381125
hard to see a good outcome.