Ireland, understandably, does not want anything to change. But the fact is that something has changed. Britain has voted to leave. And Ireland needs to accommodate itself to that new reality.
Ireland just needs to defend its interests. It has no reason to facilitate something that is against its interests.
Is building and maintaining a hard border at it's own expense to keep the EU happy in it's own interest ?
It's no great surprise that Buccaneering Berexiteers who never bothered to learn how the EU works, about integrated cross-border supply chains or about how FTAs are done can't be arsed to read their cabinet papers either.
Of course this also goes for May, who now describes the backstop she signed up to as unacceptable
No she doesn't.
Well, what do you think she signed up to in December exactly?
She (unwisely) signed up to a backstop, but not the version later published by the EU. The idea was a backstop which would have kept all of the UK in a sort of customs union (by another name), if no other deal was done. The EU got cold feet because they thought that meant the UK could retain all of the advantages of the Single Market without the obligations, and so they changed it to apply to NI only,
Wasn't the text "full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union"? Is May proposing the whole UK stays in the single market?
She's not proposing that, that was the original rather vague backstop. It was always a nonsense because the whole idea of agreeing it was to move on to negotiating the actual deal which would make it redundant. The entire process has been backwards, at the EU's insistence. We should have started discussing the final relationship back in 2016, and then negotiated the withdrawal deal and the transition arrangements to get there. Pretty obvious stuff really, but the EU's barmy approach has made this whole thing even more difficult than it needed to be,
Ireland, understandably, does not want anything to change. But the fact is that something has changed. Britain has voted to leave. And Ireland needs to accommodate itself to that new reality.
Ireland just needs to defend its interests. It has no reason to facilitate something that is against its interests.
Is building and maintaining a hard border at it's own expense to keep the EU happy in it's own interest ?
Yes, that's right, Ireland wants a hard border. It wants it so bad that it's staking everything it has to prevent that from happening.
Ireland, understandably, does not want anything to change. But the fact is that something has changed. Britain has voted to leave. And Ireland needs to accommodate itself to that new reality.
Ireland just needs to defend its interests. It has no reason to facilitate something that is against its interests.
Is building and maintaining a hard border at it's own expense to keep the EU happy in it's own interest ?
It's no great surprise that Buccaneering Berexiteers who never bothered to learn how the EU works, about integrated cross-border supply chains or about how FTAs are done can't be arsed to read their cabinet papers either.
Of course this also goes for May, who now describes the backstop she signed up to as unacceptable
No she doesn't.
Well, what do you think she signed up to in December exactly?
She (unwisely) signed up to a backstop, but not the version later published by the EU. The idea was a backstop which would have kept all of the UK in a sort of customs union (by another name), if no other deal was done. The EU got cold feet because they thought that meant the UK could retain all of the advantages of the Single Market without the obligations, and so they changed it to apply to NI only,
Wasn't the text "full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union"? Is May proposing the whole UK stays in the single market?
That is the likely outcome, the whole UK staying in the Customs Union AND the single market in an indefinite transition period
Ireland, understandably, does not want anything to change. But the fact is that something has changed. Britain has voted to leave. And Ireland needs to accommodate itself to that new reality.
Ireland just needs to defend its interests. It has no reason to facilitate something that is against its interests.
Is building and maintaining a hard border at it's own expense to keep the EU happy in it's own interest ?
Yes, that's right, Ireland wants a hard border. It wants it so bad that it's staking everything it has to prevent that from happening.
ROI won't have a choice- if under a no deal the EU says pay up and build one - the Teasock will ask "how high ?"
It doesn't, but the current disaster is May's fault, she cannot fix it. And she cannot backpedal on her mistakes. Somebody, anybody else might.
BoZo, Gove and JRM are more responsible than May.
Any one of them would be worse.
The former perhaps. The other 2 not.
The PM has around a week or it's time to switch to no deal.
Why?
Why does May always get "another week"? What the fuck would letting this muddle-brained autist kick her dead dog around the park for another week possibly be expected to achieve?
May is such a hilariously terrible negotiator. All May has done has taught Barnier is that she will always crumble. You only need to tut disapprovingly and not answer her calls and she's practically begging you to cross her red lines.
To think just 18 months ago the public saw her as the "Iron Lady" Mk 2...
Much though I dislike Gove...He also has the virtue of having a brain and a working set of ears, neither of which seem to be in evidence at 10 Downing Street at the moment.
It's no great surprise that Buccaneering Berexiteers who never bothered to learn how the EU works, about integrated cross-border supply chains or about how FTAs are done can't be arsed to read their cabinet papers either.
Of course this also goes for May, who now describes the backstop she signed up to as unacceptable
No she doesn't.
Well, what do you think she signed up to in December exactly?
She (unwisely) signed up to a backstop, but not the version later published by the EU. The idea was a backstop which would have kept all of the UK in a sort of customs union (by another name), if no other deal was done. The EU got cold feet because they thought that meant the UK could retain all of the advantages of the Single Market without the obligations, and so they changed it to apply to NI only,
Wasn't the text "full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union"? Is May proposing the whole UK stays in the single market?
She's not proposing that, that was the original rather vague backstop. It was always a nonsense because the whole idea of agreeing it was to move on to negotiating the actual deal which would make it redundant. The entire process has been backwards, at the EU's insistence. We should have started discussing the final relationship back in 2016, and then negotiated the withdrawal deal and the transition arrangements to get there. Pretty obvious stuff really, but the EU's barmy approach has made this whole thing even more difficult than it needed to be,
Okay, but that's what I originally said.
Certainly if the argument is "well it was vague and supposed to be a stepping stone to an agreement that would never actually come into force", the same defense works for the Leavers who supported the backstop in December, doesn't it?
May is such a hilariously terrible negotiator. All May has done has taught Barnier is that she will always crumble. You only need to tut disapprovingly and not answer her calls and she's practically begging you to cross her red lines.
To think just 18 months ago the public saw her as the "Iron Lady" Mk 2...
The Tory party saw her as that. The public gave her the benefit of the doubt
It's no great surprise that Buccaneering Berexiteers who never bothered to learn how the EU works, about integrated cross-border supply chains or about how FTAs are done can't be arsed to read their cabinet papers either.
Of course this also goes for May, who now describes the backstop she signed up to as unacceptable
No she doesn't.
Well, what do you think she signed up to in December exactly?
She (unwisely) signed up to a backstop, but not the version later published by the EU. The idea was a backstop which would have kept all of the UK in a sort of customs union (by another name), if no other deal was done. The EU got cold feet because they thought that meant the UK could retain all of the advantages of the Single Market without the obligations, and so they changed it to apply to NI only,
Wasn't the text "full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union"? Is May proposing the whole UK stays in the single market?
She's not proposing that, that was the original rather vague backstop. It was always a nonsense because the whole idea of agreeing it was to move on to negotiating the actual deal which would make it redundant. The entire process has been backwards, at the EU's insistence. We should have started discussing the final relationship back in 2016, and then negotiated the withdrawal deal and the transition arrangements to get there. Pretty obvious stuff really, but the EU's barmy approach has made this whole thing even more difficult than it needed to be,
David Allen Green, a perceptive commentator on Brexit thinks the EU may have made a mistake on the backstop - shoehorned in part way through the process:
Ireland, understandably, does not want anything to change. But the fact is that something has changed. Britain has voted to leave. And Ireland needs to accommodate itself to that new reality.
Ireland just needs to defend its interests. It has no reason to facilitate something that is against its interests.
Is building and maintaining a hard border at it's own expense to keep the EU happy in it's own interest ?
Yes, that's right, Ireland wants a hard border. It wants it so bad that it's staking everything it has to prevent that from happening.
ROI won't have a choice- if under a no deal the EU says pay up and build one - the Teasock will ask "how high ?"
Don't be so ridiculous. What would actually happen is that the EU will prosecute the UK via the WTO for unfair competition with respect to its tariffs.
This is what the EU is ultimately trying to avoid. Not a hard border, but being put into a position where it is forced to litigate against the UK via the WTO for violation of its tariffs.
May is such a hilariously terrible negotiator. All May has done has taught Barnier is that she will always crumble. You only need to tut disapprovingly and not answer her calls and she's practically begging you to cross her red lines.
To think just 18 months ago the public saw her as the "Iron Lady" Mk 2...
The Tory party saw her as that. The public gave her the benefit of the doubt
Iron is cold, easy to bend, prone to rust, and sinks in water.
It doesn't, but the current disaster is May's fault, she cannot fix it. And she cannot backpedal on her mistakes. Somebody, anybody else might.
BoZo, Gove and JRM are more responsible than May.
Any one of them would be worse.
The former perhaps. The other 2 not.
The PM has around a week or it's time to switch to no deal.
That kills Brexit, Remain beats No Deal 55% to 45% with Yougov.
Going forward, could we maybe just take it as read that we've all seen that statistic and aren't impressed? I feel like it would save you a lot of time
if Swizerland can cope outside the customs union why can’t Northern Ireland? Feels like half of France commutes to Geneva every day regardless.
Switzerland has a customs border with the EU. Everyone in the negotiations is "committed" to prevent that from happening.
Fair enough. F*ck it. I now support an Irish Sea customs border. Seems the neatest and most obvious solution. NI will unite with the Republic eventually anyway.
Sounds like the all-UK backstop has been agreed behind the scenes to me.
Lots of drama and theatre before it's publically agreed in December, and a grateful Commons and country rows in behind the PM, losing sight of what a lousy deal it is compared to what we have now.
To have another referendum before we have even left because the remain voting PM who replaced him cant cut a deal would be ridiculous in the extreme, and if it were happening anywhere but here, we would be rolling our eyes at the tin pot "democracy".
Some people's real objection to a second referendum is that they'll lose the ability to sneer at Irish democracy.
If there were a second referendum, the side that didn't promise to end FoM would lose. Its all the whole thing has ever been about
Not if it was No Deal as the alternative, Remain wins 55% to 45% with Yougov on that basis.
Eastern European migrants to the UK have fallen since the Leave vote anyway and we could have had transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 within the EU had Blair chosen to do so
The leave side would bang on and on and on about immigration controls, and the Remain side would have no answer. "Someone who is campaigning for us could have done something about it 14 years ago but didn't" isn't the new "Let's give £350m to the NHS"
That might get Leave to 45%, it would not get them to over 50% as enough soft Brexiteer 2016 Leave voters would switch to Remain if No Deal, Crash Out Brexit was the alternative.
As I said Eastern European migration has already fallen since the Leave vote anyway
Yes it has fallen because they think we are leaving!
We do however have to come to terms with the fact the original campaign promised a unicorn.
It would not be undemocratic to ask the people if they actually want the lame donkey that is realistically available, or not.
It wouldn't be undemocratic to have a referendum every day, doesn't mean we should do that either.
The public just want immigration down, the rest is noise. If there was no FoM, Remain would have won 80-20, although there wouldn't have been a referendum anyway.
Ireland, understandably, does not want anything to change. But the fact is that something has changed. Britain has voted to leave. And Ireland needs to accommodate itself to that new reality.
Ireland just needs to defend its interests. It has no reason to facilitate something that is against its interests.
Is building and maintaining a hard border at it's own expense to keep the EU happy in it's own interest ?
Yes, that's right, Ireland wants a hard border. It wants it so bad that it's staking everything it has to prevent that from happening.
ROI won't have a choice- if under a no deal the EU says pay up and build one - the Teasock will ask "how high ?"
Don't be so ridiculous. What would actually happen is that the EU will prosecute the UK via the WTO for unfair competition with respect to its tariffs.
This is what the EU is ultimately trying to avoid. Not a hard border, but being put into a position where it is forced to litigate against the UK via the WTO for violation of its tariffs.
I’m intrigued - can you take me through the steps whereby we get taken to court by the EU?
The public just want immigration down, the rest is noise. If there was no FoM, Remain would have won 80-20, although there wouldn't have been a referendum anyway.
And as was said at the time of the vote, crashing the economy is a surefire way to decrease immigration, which is what has happened so far.
The public just want immigration down, the rest is noise. If there was no FoM, Remain would have won 80-20, although there wouldn't have been a referendum anyway.
And as was said at the time of the vote, crashing the economy is a surefire way to decrease immigration, which is what has happened so far.
Sounds like the all-UK backstop has been agreed behind the scenes to me.
Lots of drama and theatre before it's publically agreed in December, and a grateful Commons and country rows in behind the PM, losing sight of what a lousy deal it is compared to what we have now.
Okay, but this is the fundamental problem:
That doesn't solve the backstop issue at all. The fundamental, legally-binding, requirement is that Northern Ireland remain 100% aligned with the CU unless and until the UK is able to come up with something better.
So either: the UK remains in the SM and CU indefinitely, with no endpoint, and not being allowed to leave until the EU says so, or: the UK still needs a backstop for the backstop, to protect NI from the inevitable failure two years from now.
On topic and as Alastair is discussing some of the madder outlier possibilities today.
If a non-party leader could be prime minister then one of the possibilities might actually be Theresa May.
Imagine she is no confidenced within the Tory party and another leader elected. However she refuses to resign as PM and starts down an EEA route with some tacit cross party support and dares the Tories to try and VoNC her in parliament to remove her as PM.
Lots of resignations, lots of tears and tantrums, I'm sure, but could she, as holder of the office manage this?
Is that any more of a stretch than anyone else building a coalition from scratch?? Thoughts, please.
As I said Eastern European migration has already fallen since the Leave vote anyway
Can you clarify what you mean by "Eastern Europe" ? Are you taslking about migration from Poland, the Baltic States and the Czech Republic which has fallen or are you talking about migration from Romania, Bulgaria and Slovakia ?
What about migration from Africa including the former Portuguese colonies of Africa which is on the increase?
The public just want immigration down, the rest is noise. If there was no FoM, Remain would have won 80-20, although there wouldn't have been a referendum anyway.
And as was said at the time of the vote, crashing the economy is a surefire way to decrease immigration, which is what has happened so far.
It's almost like they've read my comment from earlier in this thread. Always offer 3 options so the middle ground wins.
Imagine if the referendum was remain where we were, formalise our status as a full member but outside the EU's integration project (i.e. Cameron's agreed terms) or outside. We wouldn't be in this mess...
Ireland, understandably, does not want anything to change. But the fact is that something has changed. Britain has voted to leave. And Ireland needs to accommodate itself to that new reality.
Ireland just needs to defend its interests. It has no reason to facilitate something that is against its interests.
Is building and maintaining a hard border at it's own expense to keep the EU happy in it's own interest ?
Yes, that's right, Ireland wants a hard border. It wants it so bad that it's staking everything it has to prevent that from happening.
ROI won't have a choice- if under a no deal the EU says pay up and build one - the Teasock will ask "how high ?"
Don't be so ridiculous. What would actually happen is that the EU will prosecute the UK via the WTO for unfair competition with respect to its tariffs.
This is what the EU is ultimately trying to avoid. Not a hard border, but being put into a position where it is forced to litigate against the UK via the WTO for violation of its tariffs.
I’m intrigued - can you take me through the steps whereby we get taken to court by the EU?
We would be taken to court by anyone who is not in the EU if we didn't have a hard border for RoI goods crossing the border into the UK.
They would bring a WTO action under MFN which would, as @grabcocque alluded to, contend that the UK was treating the non-EU country unfairly by allowing EU imports into the UK (via the NI "border"). The WTO dispute resolution might then (might only, although anywhere but NI certainly would) deem that if the UK has no checks on EU goods, then it is not allowed to impose checks on imports from non-EU countries' goods.
To have another referendum before we have even left because the remain voting PM who replaced him cant cut a deal would be ridiculous in the extreme, and if it were happening anywhere but here, we would be rolling our eyes at the tin pot "democracy".
Some people's real objection to a second referendum is that they'll lose the ability to sneer at Irish democracy.
If there were a second referendum, the side that didn't promise to end FoM would lose. Its all the whole thing has ever been about
Not if it was No Deal as the alternative, Remain wins 55% to 45% with Yougov on that basis.
Eastern European migrants to the UK have fallen since the Leave vote anyway and we could have had transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 within the EU had Blair chosen to do so
The leave side would bang on and on and on about immigration controls, and the Remain side would have no answer. "Someone who is campaigning for us could have done something about it 14 years ago but didn't" isn't the new "Let's give £350m to the NHS"
That might get Leave to 45%, it would not get them to over 50% as enough soft Brexiteer 2016 Leave voters would switch to Remain if No Deal, Crash Out Brexit was the alternative.
As I said Eastern European migration has already fallen since the Leave vote anyway
Yes it has fallen because they think we are leaving!
No, based upon common sense and my anecdotal experience, it has fallen because many Europeans thought we were a civilised decent tolerant country to be admired. Then they realised that there was a fair possibility that 52% of the British people were probably xenophobes, making us not a country to be admired at all, and where it didn't matter how useful your skills or labour are, you are simply not welcome because you have a funny accent. Genuine patriots should be ashamed.
if Swizerland can cope outside the customs union why can’t Northern Ireland? Feels like half of France commutes to Geneva every day regardless.
Switzerland has a customs border with the EU. Everyone in the negotiations is "committed" to prevent that from happening.
Fair enough. F*ck it. I now support an Irish Sea customs border. Seems the neatest and most obvious solution. NI will unite with the Republic eventually anyway.
To have another referendum before we have even left because the remain voting PM who replaced him cant cut a deal would be ridiculous in the extreme, and if it were happening anywhere but here, we would be rolling our eyes at the tin pot "democracy".
Some people's real objection to a second referendum is that they'll lose the ability to sneer at Irish democracy.
If there were a second referendum, the side that didn't promise to end FoM would lose. Its all the whole thing has ever been about
Not if it was No Deal as the alternative, Remain wins 55% to 45% with Yougov on that basis.
Eastern European migrants to the UK have fallen since the Leave vote anyway and we could have had transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 within the EU had Blair chosen to do so
The leave side would bang on and on and on about immigration controls, and the Remain side would have no answer. "Someone who is campaigning for us could have done something about it 14 years ago but didn't" isn't the new "Let's give £350m to the NHS"
That might get Leave to 45%, it would not get them to over 50% as enough soft Brexiteer 2016 Leave voters would switch to Remain if No Deal, Crash Out Brexit was the alternative.
As I said Eastern European migration has already fallen since the Leave vote anyway
Yes it has fallen because they think we are leaving!
No, based upon common sense and my anecdotal experience, it has fallen because many Europeans thought we were a civilised decent tolerant country to be admired. Then they realised that there was a fair possibility that 52% of the British people were probably xenophobes, making us not a country to be admired at all, and where it didn't matter how useful your skills or labour are, you are simply not welcome because you have a funny accent. Genuine patriots should be ashamed.
What a load of crap. Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe and figures back it up. You don’t realise how lucky we are!
To have another referendum before we have even left because the remain voting PM who replaced him cant cut a deal would be ridiculous in the extreme, and if it were happening anywhere but here, we would be rolling our eyes at the tin pot "democracy".
Some people's real objection to a second referendum is that they'll lose the ability to sneer at Irish democracy.
If there were a second referendum, the side that didn't promise to end FoM would lose. Its all the whole thing has ever been about
Not if it was No Deal as the alternative, Remain wins 55% to 45% with Yougov on that basis.
Eastern European migrants to the UK have fallen since the Leave vote anyway and we could have had transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 within the EU had Blair chosen to do so
The leave side would bang on and on and on about immigration controls, and the Remain side would have no answer. "Someone who is campaigning for us could have done something about it 14 years ago but didn't" isn't the new "Let's give £350m to the NHS"
That might get Leave to 45%, it would not get them to over 50% as enough soft Brexiteer 2016 Leave voters would switch to Remain if No Deal, Crash Out Brexit was the alternative.
As I said Eastern European migration has already fallen since the Leave vote anyway
Yes it has fallen because they think we are leaving!
No, based upon common sense and my anecdotal experience, it has fallen because many Europeans thought we were a civilised decent tolerant country to be admired. Then they realised that there was a fair possibility that 52% of the British people were probably xenophobes, making us not a country to be admired at all, and where it didn't matter how useful your skills or labour are, you are simply not welcome because you have a funny accent. Genuine patriots should be ashamed.
We would be taken to court by anyone who is not in the EU if we didn't have a hard border for RoI goods crossing the border into the UK.
They would bring a WTO action under MFN which would, as @grabcocque alluded to, contend that the UK was treating the non-EU country unfairly by allowing EU imports into the UK (via the NI "border"). The WTO dispute resolution might then (might only, although anywhere but NI certainly would) deem that if the UK has no checks on EU goods, then it is not allowed to impose checks on imports from non-EU countries' goods.
I think that's very far-fetched. There are plenty of countries which check goods at the border more vigorously in some places than in others. Nothing in the WTO treaties prevents a country from using risk-based enforcement. In any case, as far the UK is concerned, what other land borders are we talking about where the arrangements have to be the same?
What's more, it's nonsense anyway, because the whole idea is to have a trade deal with the EU. That's what this whole negotiation is about, right? So why on earth are we obsessing about what will happen if we don't, and (even more bizarrely) using what bad things might happen if we don't do a deal as a reason not to do a deal?
Ireland, understandably, does not want anything to change. But the fact is that something has changed. Britain has voted to leave. And Ireland needs to accommodate itself to that new reality.
Ireland just needs to defend its interests. It has no reason to facilitate something that is against its interests.
Is building and maintaining a hard border at it's own expense to keep the EU happy in it's own interest ?
Yes, that's right, Ireland wants a hard border. It wants it so bad that it's staking everything it has to prevent that from happening.
ROI won't have a choice- if under a no deal the EU says pay up and build one - the Teasock will ask "how high ?"
Don't be so ridiculous. What would actually happen is that the EU will prosecute the UK via the WTO for unfair competition with respect to its tariffs.
This is what the EU is ultimately trying to avoid. Not a hard border, but being put into a position where it is forced to litigate against the UK via the WTO for violation of its tariffs.
I’m intrigued - can you take me through the steps whereby we get taken to court by the EU?
We would be taken to court by anyone who is not in the EU if we didn't have a hard border for RoI goods crossing the border into the UK.
They would bring a WTO action under MFN which would, as @grabcocque alluded to, contend that the UK was treating the non-EU country unfairly by allowing EU imports into the UK (via the NI "border"). The WTO dispute resolution might then (might only, although anywhere but NI certainly would) deem that if the UK has no checks on EU goods, then it is not allowed to impose checks on imports from non-EU countries' goods.
Even if you’re correct (which I don’t think you are - IIRC we are allowed to treat different borders differently - and Ireland is our only land border) - that’s not the EU. I want to know why the EU would take us to court, as per Mr Coque’s post.
if Swizerland can cope outside the customs union why can’t Northern Ireland? Feels like half of France commutes to Geneva every day regardless.
Switzerland has a customs border with the EU. Everyone in the negotiations is "committed" to prevent that from happening.
Fair enough. F*ck it. I now support an Irish Sea customs border. Seems the neatest and most obvious solution. NI will unite with the Republic eventually anyway.
So the DUP remove support for TMay's government.
Then we have a General Election. May needs to grow a backbone and stand up to the bigots. May should still be able to get Brexit through under the promise of an election after it.
Put the country first for once. What happened to the Conservative Party being the ‘natural party of government’? It cant govern for sh*t.
On topic and as Alastair is discussing some of the madder outlier possibilities today.
If a non-party leader could be prime minister then one of the possibilities might actually be Theresa May.
Imagine she is no confidenced within the Tory party and another leader elected. However she refuses to resign as PM and starts down an EEA route with some tacit cross party support and dares the Tories to try and VoNC her in parliament to remove her as PM.
Lots of resignations, lots of tears and tantrums, I'm sure, but could she, as holder of the office manage this?
Is that any more of a stretch than anyone else building a coalition from scratch?? Thoughts, please.
In theory it sounds a nice idea, but in practice it won't happen for the same reason that a break away party is unlikely, and the reason is a human one. Most politician's social groups are based around their political affiliation. Many of them have no friends outside that circle. To defect, or to do what you are saying Theresa May could do would require a skin thicker than the average Rhino. She is awkward, but not that awkward.
Switzerland has a customs border with the EU. Everyone in the negotiations is "committed" to prevent that from happening.
Mrs Stodge and I were in Basel in the summer right by the Dreilandereck (the tripoint in the Rhine where France, Germany and Switzerland "meet"). It's not a wholly open border though technology has been used to facilitate the passage between France and Switzerland as well as between Germany and Switzerland especially for motor vehicles and as others have said, there is a lot of traffic moving through on a daily basis.
Commercial traffic seems to be the focus of the checks as you might expect.
To have another referendum before we have even left because the remain voting PM who replaced him cant cut a deal would be ridiculous in the extreme, and if it were happening anywhere but here, we would be rolling our eyes at the tin pot "democracy".
Some people's real objection to a second referendum is that they'll lose the ability to sneer at Irish democracy.
If there were a second referendum, the side that didn't promise to end FoM would lose. Its all the whole thing has ever been about
Not if it was No Deal as the alternative, Remain wins 55% to 45% with Yougov on that basis.
Eastern European migrants to the UK have fallen since the Leave vote anyway and we could have had transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 within the EU had Blair chosen to do so
The leave side would bang on and on and on about immigration controls, and the Remain side would have no answer. "Someone who is campaigning for us could have done something about it 14 years ago but didn't" isn't the new "Let's give £350m to the NHS"
That might get Leave to 45%, it would not get them to over 50% as enough soft Brexiteer 2016 Leave voters would switch to Remain if No Deal, Crash Out Brexit was the alternative.
As I said Eastern European migration has already fallen since the Leave vote anyway
Yes it has fallen because they think we are leaving!
No, based upon common sense and my anecdotal experience, it has fallen because many Europeans thought we were a civilised decent tolerant country to be admired. Then they realised that there was a fair possibility that 52% of the British people were probably xenophobes, making us not a country to be admired at all, and where it didn't matter how useful your skills or labour are, you are simply not welcome because you have a funny accent. Genuine patriots should be ashamed.
What a load of crap. Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe and figures back it up. You don’t realise how lucky we are!
I said it was their perception , though perception is reality, and 52% of people voted "F-off foreigners!" Those are the real figures, not opinion polls on how people think they should think. I have not spoken to a single Leave supporter that I am quite sure were moved by a Little Englander xenophobic motivation. With a couple of exceptions, the posters on here don't disabuse me of that belief.
Sounds like the all-UK backstop has been agreed behind the scenes to me.
Lots of drama and theatre before it's publically agreed in December, and a grateful Commons and country rows in behind the PM, losing sight of what a lousy deal it is compared to what we have now.
Okay, but this is the fundamental problem:
That doesn't solve the backstop issue at all. The fundamental, legally-binding, requirement is that Northern Ireland remain 100% aligned with the CU unless and until the UK is able to come up with something better.
So either: the UK remains in the SM and CU indefinitely, with no endpoint, and not being allowed to leave until the EU says so, or: the UK still needs a backstop for the backstop, to protect NI from the inevitable failure two years from now.
In no way does it solve anyone's concerns.
My bold - a fair summary of where I think we will end up. Like I said, a truly lousy deal, but it's what I think they will have to get through the Commons and country. Good luck with that.
if Swizerland can cope outside the customs union why can’t Northern Ireland? Feels like half of France commutes to Geneva every day regardless.
It copes because Switzerland exists essentially as an antidote to the several countries it borders. They are Swiss because they don't want to be Germans, Italians and French.
The same applies to DUP supporters vis a vis Ireland, but not to the 60% that don't want a hard border. That hard border reappears by the UK diverging from the EU.
Which also addresses Cycle Free' s remark that the Irish should get used to the reality of the UK leaving the EU.
We would be taken to court by anyone who is not in the EU if we didn't have a hard border for RoI goods crossing the border into the UK.
They would bring a WTO action under MFN which would, as @grabcocque alluded to, contend that the UK was treating the non-EU country unfairly by allowing EU imports into the UK (via the NI "border"). The WTO dispute resolution might then (might only, although anywhere but NI certainly would) deem that if the UK has no checks on EU goods, then it is not allowed to impose checks on imports from non-EU countries' goods.
I think that's very far-fetched. There are plenty of countries which check goods at the border more vigorously in some places than in others. Nothing in the WTO treaties prevents a country from using risk-based enforcement. In any case, as far the UK is concerned, what other land borders are we talking about where the arrangements have to be the same?
What's more, it's nonsense anyway, because the whole idea is to have a trade deal with the EU. That's what this whole negotiation is about, right? So why on earth are we obsessing about what will happen if we don't, and (even more bizarrely) using what bad things might happen if we don't do a deal as a reason not to do a deal?
Of course - the idea is to have a trade deal. If Dear Old Theresa has said nothing else this morning she has told us how she doesn't want to use the backstop.
And as I also noted, there are situations whereby the WTO might not enforce MFN rules (good article here). But them is nevertheless the rules and a challenge could come.
My contention all along has been very simple - that Theresa May cannot allow herself to be put into a situation whereby a border could be required. She could not go down the pathway whereby one of the destinations is a hard border. Hence the backstop, hence the impasse, and hence, in the end, the effective bluff by the EU.
That said, it looks like they might be caving on the no cherry-picking line if they are going to allow Chequers (ie customs union for goods).
We would be taken to court by anyone who is not in the EU if we didn't have a hard border for RoI goods crossing the border into the UK.
They would bring a WTO action under MFN which would, as @grabcocque alluded to, contend that the UK was treating the non-EU country unfairly by allowing EU imports into the UK (via the NI "border"). The WTO dispute resolution might then (might only, although anywhere but NI certainly would) deem that if the UK has no checks on EU goods, then it is not allowed to impose checks on imports from non-EU countries' goods.
I think that's very far-fetched. There are plenty of countries which check goods at the border more vigorously in some places than in others. Nothing in the WTO treaties prevents a country from using risk-based enforcement. In any case, as far the UK is concerned, what other land borders are we talking about where the arrangements have to be the same?
What's more, it's nonsense anyway, because the whole idea is to have a trade deal with the EU. That's what this whole negotiation is about, right? So why on earth are we obsessing about what will happen if we don't, and (even more bizarrely) using what bad things might happen if we don't do a deal as a reason not to do a deal?
I addressed this yesterday. It is clearly not true. WTO rules do not require a 'hard' border - they just require that checks are done. The checks would be done, via declaration and via audit away from the border. Problem solved.
What a load of crap. Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe and figures back it up. You don’t realise how lucky we are!
I said it was their perception , though perception is reality, and 52% of people voted "F-off foreigners!" Those are the real figures, not opinion polls on how people think they should think. I have not spoken to a single Leave supporter that I am quite sure were moved by a Little Englander xenophobic motivation. With a couple of exceptions, the posters on here don't disabuse me of that belief.
Just because someone in a long abandoned County Durham pit village thinks they should have a greater right to a job in the country of their birth than someone who has come here for purely economic reasons does not make them racist, a bigot or a ‘little englander’.
To have another referendum before we have even left because the remain voting PM who replaced him cant cut a deal would be ridiculous in the extreme, and if it were happening anywhere but here, we would be rolling our eyes at the tin pot "democracy".
Some people's real objection to a second referendum is that they'll lose the ability to sneer at Irish democracy.
If there were a second referendum, the side that didn't promise to end FoM would lose. Its all the whole thing has ever been about
Not if it was No Deal as the alternative, Remain wins 55% to 45% with Yougov on that basis.
Eastern European migrants to the UK have fallen since the Leave vote anyway and we could have had transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 within the EU had Blair chosen to do so
The leave side would bang on and on and on about immigration controls, and the Remain side would have no answer. "Someone who is campaigning for us could have done something about it 14 years ago but didn't" isn't the new "Let's give £350m to the NHS"
That might get Leave to 45%, it would not get them to over 50% as enough soft Brexiteer 2016 Leave voters would switch to Remain if No Deal, Crash Out Brexit was the alternative.
As I said Eastern European migration has already fallen since the Leave vote anyway
Yes it has fallen because they think we are leaving!
No, based upon common sense and my anecdotal experience, it has fallen because many Europeans thought we were a civilised decent tolerant country to be admired. Then they realised that there was a fair possibility that 52% of the British people were probably xenophobes, making us not a country to be admired at all, and where it didn't matter how useful your skills or labour are, you are simply not welcome because you have a funny accent. Genuine patriots should be ashamed.
What a load of crap. Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe and figures back it up. You don’t realise how lucky we are!
Overall, possibly. Depends where one is. Have you tried being an Essex boy in Geordie-land. Mostly it’s fine, because mostly they’re great people, BUT!
My son, when a student at a Uni in Lancashire, was beaten up because of his Essex accent. “Don’t come up here and talk like that’ or words to that effect. His Lancastrian cousins were embarrassed, but recognised it might happen..
We would be taken to court by anyone who is not in the EU if we didn't have a hard border for RoI goods crossing the border into the UK.
They would bring a WTO action under MFN which would, as @grabcocque alluded to, contend that the UK was treating the non-EU country unfairly by allowing EU imports into the UK (via the NI "border"). The WTO dispute resolution might then (might only, although anywhere but NI certainly would) deem that if the UK has no checks on EU goods, then it is not allowed to impose checks on imports from non-EU countries' goods.
I think that's very far-fetched. There are plenty of countries which check goods at the border more vigorously in some places than in others. Nothing in the WTO treaties prevents a country from using risk-based enforcement. In any case, as far the UK is concerned, what other land borders are we talking about where the arrangements have to be the same?
What's more, it's nonsense anyway, because the whole idea is to have a trade deal with the EU. That's what this whole negotiation is about, right? So why on earth are we obsessing about what will happen if we don't, and (even more bizarrely) using what bad things might happen if we don't do a deal as a reason not to do a deal?
It makes sense if the EU does not want to have a trade deal with the UK. The UK does. But if the EU is less bothered then it would explain why they are so intent on focusing on what happens to the Irish border if there is no deal.
Sounds like the all-UK backstop has been agreed behind the scenes to me.
Lots of drama and theatre before it's publically agreed in December, and a grateful Commons and country rows in behind the PM, losing sight of what a lousy deal it is compared to what we have now.
Okay, but this is the fundamental problem:
That doesn't solve the backstop issue at all. The fundamental, legally-binding, requirement is that Northern Ireland remain 100% aligned with the CU unless and until the UK is able to come up with something better.
So either: the UK remains in the SM and CU indefinitely, with no endpoint, and not being allowed to leave until the EU says so, or: the UK still needs a backstop for the backstop, to protect NI from the inevitable failure two years from now.
In no way does it solve anyone's concerns.
Yes. May is trying to substitute a 'regulatory border' for a 'customs border' but the DUP and ERG are all over this little trick. If the UK stays in the CU but only NI is in the SM, there is going to be a very, very real economic border in the Irish Sea. This would only get worse if there was an eventual FTA.
A temporary, all-UK CU with no differences between GB and NI and which can be terminated by the UK is the only scheme that will get through. And May is nowhere near achieving this.
It's easy to forget just how impressive a debut Mrs May made as Prime Minister. I remember reading that at the time and thinking that yes, that is exactly what we need to do. Think how different things would have been if she had kept to that plan.
Speaking personally, if the transition had been managed more effectively and particularly more slowly I'd have shrugged my shoulders and got on with other things. The decision to ram it through in two and a half years is what has wound me up. Even then, it is only as particular examples of madness have come to light.
If Brexit doesn't now happen - which seems at the very least far from impossible - the indecent haste with which it was attempted will have been the reason for its failure.
What a load of crap. Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe and figures back it up. You don’t realise how lucky we are!
I said it was their perception , though perception is reality, and 52% of people voted "F-off foreigners!" Those are the real figures, not opinion polls on how people think they should think. I have not spoken to a single Leave supporter that I am quite sure were moved by a Little Englander xenophobic motivation. With a couple of exceptions, the posters on here don't disabuse me of that belief.
Just because someone in a long abandoned County Durham pit village thinks they should have a greater right to a job in the country of their birth than someone who has come here for purely economic reasons does not make them racist, a bigot or a ‘little englander’.
Odd that Mr G and I should post so close together.
We would be taken to court by anyone who is not in the EU if we didn't have a hard border for RoI goods crossing the border into the UK.
They would bring a WTO action under MFN which would, as @grabcocque alluded to, contend that the UK was treating the non-EU country unfairly by allowing EU imports into the UK (via the NI "border"). The WTO dispute resolution might then (might only, although anywhere but NI certainly would) deem that if the UK has no checks on EU goods, then it is not allowed to impose checks on imports from non-EU countries' goods.
I think that's very far-fetched. There are plenty of countries which check goods at the border more vigorously in some places than in others. Nothing in the WTO treaties prevents a country from using risk-based enforcement. In any case, as far the UK is concerned, what other land borders are we talking about where the arrangements have to be the same?
What's more, it's nonsense anyway, because the whole idea is to have a trade deal with the EU. That's what this whole negotiation is about, right? So why on earth are we obsessing about what will happen if we don't, and (even more bizarrely) using what bad things might happen if we don't do a deal as a reason not to do a deal?
I addressed this yesterday. It is clearly not true. WTO rules do not require a 'hard' border - they just require that checks are done. The checks would be done, via declaration and via audit away from the border. Problem solved.
You addressed no such thing. You stated your fantasy outcome. Or perhaps one that will be in place in a few years (let's hope). What you most certainly didn't address is where we are today, why no one has described, or provided the plans for, or submitted the technical drawings of, or published a white paper on the technological/remote solution.
I think a goodly proportion of the western world is eagerly awaiting just such a disclosure and yet detail, other than mad Brexiters waving their hands in ignorance, has there been none.
If Brexit doesn't now happen - which seems at the very least far from impossible - the indecent haste with which it was attempted will have been the reason for its failure.
No, the reason for its failure is its inherent contradictions.
You can't grow a unicorn even with an extension to the schedule
Overall, possibly. Depends where one is. Have you tried being an Essex boy in Geordie-land. Mostly it’s fine, because mostly they’re great people, BUT!
My son, when a student at a Uni in Lancashire, was beaten up because of his Essex accent. “Don’t come up here and talk like that’ or words to that effect. His Lancastrian cousins were embarrassed, but recognised it might happen..
Well I’m a brummie with a posh accent in Geordie-land and have never had any problems!
But you’re right - there’s always going to be some problems, in any country. We certainly aren’t perfect but I think people underestimate how tolerent Britain actually is. We rightly hold ourselves to a very high standard.
That looks likely. However the Customs Union + at least some SM conformance would have to be permanent otherwise the NI backstop kicks in. Essentially or choice is No Deal, Irish Sea border or no divergence. In practice, I think we will end up with no divergence, because it's easier, removes the Irish border issue and allows us to keep our car industry.
It's easy to forget just how impressive a debut Mrs May made as Prime Minister. I remember reading that at the time and thinking that yes, that is exactly what we need to do. Think how different things would have been if she had kept to that plan.
All the Brexiteers were ecstatic about the way it was going until the moment the European Council published their negotiating guidelines after Article 50 was invoked.
This is an obvious lie. There is no legal basis for saying a permanent NI membership of SM+CU can be done in the withdrawal agreement, but that a temporary all-UK customs union cannot be.
But since the ECJ will do whatever the Commission tell them, the distinction is academic.
What a load of crap. Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe and figures back it up. You don’t realise how lucky we are!
I said it was their perception , though perception is reality, and 52% of people voted "F-off foreigners!" Those are the real figures, not opinion polls on how people think they should think. I have not spoken to a single Leave supporter that I am quite sure were moved by a Little Englander xenophobic motivation. With a couple of exceptions, the posters on here don't disabuse me of that belief.
Just because someone in a long abandoned County Durham pit village thinks they should have a greater right to a job in the country of their birth than someone who has come here for purely economic reasons does not make them racist, a bigot or a ‘little englander’.
In principle you are correct, but I think we all know the truth that that is just a good excuse for a good old bit of prejudice. You can romanticise ex-miners as much as you like, but if you are going to suggest they are all pure-of-thought then you are attempting to deny reality.
We would be taken to court by anyone who is not in the EU if we didn't have a hard border for RoI goods crossing the border into the UK.
They would bring a WTO action under MFN which would, as @grabcocque alluded to, contend that the UK was treating the non-EU country unfairly by allowing EU imports into the UK (via the NI "border"). The WTO dispute resolution might then (might only, although anywhere but NI certainly would) deem that if the UK has no checks on EU goods, then it is not allowed to impose checks on imports from non-EU countries' goods.
I think that's very far-fetched. There are plenty of countries which check goods at the border more vigorously in some places than in others. Nothing in the WTO treaties prevents a country from using risk-based enforcement. In any case, as far the UK is concerned, what other land borders are we talking about where the arrangements have to be the same?
What's more, it's nonsense anyway, because the whole idea is to have a trade deal with the EU. That's what this whole negotiation is about, right? So why on earth are we obsessing about what will happen if we don't, and (even more bizarrely) using what bad things might happen if we don't do a deal as a reason not to do a deal?
I addressed this yesterday. It is clearly not true. WTO rules do not require a 'hard' border - they just require that checks are done. The checks would be done, via declaration and via audit away from the border. Problem solved.
You addressed no such thing. You stated your fantasy outcome. Or perhaps one that will be in place in a few years (let's hope). What you most certainly didn't address is where we are today, why no one has described, or provided the plans for, or submitted the technical drawings of, or published a white paper on the technological/remote solution.
I think a goodly proportion of the western world is eagerly awaiting just such a disclosure and yet detail, other than mad Brexiters waving their hands in ignorance, has there been none.
It is not about predictions on outcome. It is about whether the ERG plan on the NI border would be in violation of WTO rules. It is not.
Your statement is incorrect. He has not “generally voted for more EU integration".
I just copy pasted that part from the website.... You'll have to explain to them why 55 votes for is not more than 24 votes against...
I’m just saying on the face of it, the statistics are not particularly convincing.
On the two most important votes -- Maastricht & Lisbon -- Corbyn voted against.
He also went on holiday during the 2016 referendum. Of course, he deserves a holiday, but if the referendum was so important, I guess he could have rearranged his holiday.
I suspect Corbyn’s position on the EU is similar to mine. With some sorrow, I expect he voted Leave.
Apart from an answer already given, his holiday was a long weekend, I believe to celebrate his wife's significant birthday. Takes a far braver man than many here who would "forget" or find something else to do.. ...
What a load of crap. Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe and figures back it up. You don’t realise how lucky we are!
I said it was their perception , though perception is reality, and 52% of people voted "F-off foreigners!" Those are the real figures, not opinion polls on how people think they should think. I have not spoken to a single Leave supporter that I am quite sure were moved by a Little Englander xenophobic motivation. With a couple of exceptions, the posters on here don't disabuse me of that belief.
Just because someone in a long abandoned County Durham pit village thinks they should have a greater right to a job in the country of their birth than someone who has come here for purely economic reasons does not make them racist, a bigot or a ‘little englander’.
This is an obvious lie. There is no legal basis for saying a permanent NI membership of SM+CU can be done in the withdrawal agreement, but that a temporary all-UK customs union cannot be.
But since the ECJ will do whatever the Commission tell them, the distinction is academic.
Total crap based on your pathetic hatred, or just further ignorance typical of those that hold your deeply prejudiced views. The ECJ is a group of fully qualified professional judges. They interpret the law as agreed by the Commission that in turn report to the Council of Ministers who are the elected leaders of the 27/28 sovereign states. Stop trying to mislead people or at least try and have some kind of understanding of what you are talking about.
We would be taken to court by anyone who is not in the EU if we didn't have a hard border for RoI goods crossing the border into the UK.
They would bring a WTO action under MFN which would, as @grabcocque alluded to, contend that the UK was treating the non-EU country unfairly by allowing EU imports into the UK (via the NI "border"). The WTO dispute resolution might then (might only, although anywhere but NI certainly would) deem that if the UK has no checks on EU goods, then it is not allowed to impose checks on imports from non-EU countries' goods.
I think that's very far-fetched. There are plenty of countries which check goods at the border more vigorously in some places than in others. Nothing in the WTO treaties prevents a country from using risk-based enforcement. In any case, as far the UK is concerned, what other land borders are we talking about where the arrangements have to be the same?
What's more, it's nonsense anyway, because the whole idea is to have a trade deal with the EU. That's what this whole negotiation is about, right? So why on earth are we obsessing about what will happen if we don't, and (even more bizarrely) using what bad things might happen if we don't do a deal as a reason not to do a deal?
I addressed this yesterday. It is clearly not true. WTO rules do not require a 'hard' border - they just require that checks are done. The checks would be done, via declaration and via audit away from the border. Problem solved.
You addressed no such thing. You stated your fantasy outcome. Or perhaps one that will be in place in a few years (let's hope). What you most certainly didn't address is where we are today, why no one has described, or provided the plans for, or submitted the technical drawings of, or published a white paper on the technological/remote solution.
I think a goodly proportion of the western world is eagerly awaiting just such a disclosure and yet detail, other than mad Brexiters waving their hands in ignorance, has there been none.
It is not about predictions on outcome. It is about whether the ERG plan on the NI border would be in violation of WTO rules. It is not.
Apparently the EU will take us to court for not putting up a border.
What a load of crap. Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe and figures back it up. You don’t realise how lucky we are!
I said it was their perception , though perception is reality, and 52% of people voted "F-off foreigners!" Those are the real figures, not opinion polls on how people think they should think. I have not spoken to a single Leave supporter that I am quite sure were moved by a Little Englander xenophobic motivation. With a couple of exceptions, the posters on here don't disabuse me of that belief.
Just because someone in a long abandoned County Durham pit village thinks they should have a greater right to a job in the country of their birth than someone who has come here for purely economic reasons does not make them racist, a bigot or a ‘little englander’.
It kinda does.
Condecending ignorance and arrogance right there. No wonder Brexit won.
The EU has pretty much ended negotiations. Instead of recognising the reality and addressing it, May continues to be in utter denial. They will just wait until she comes back and caves in.
I think May will be replaced in the next couple of weeks. Everyone can see she has no idea how to proceed. I actually think the Cabinet are going to move against her - the more realistic Remainers (Hunt, Javid) must realise by now that May has no ability to either conclude a deal or manage the fallout of no deal.
The backstop was her mistake and she needs to pay the price.
This is an obvious lie. There is no legal basis for saying a permanent NI membership of SM+CU can be done in the withdrawal agreement, but that a temporary all-UK customs union cannot be.
But since the ECJ will do whatever the Commission tell them, the distinction is academic.
Total crap based on your pathetic hatred, or just further ignorance typical of those that hold your deeply prejudiced views. The ECJ is a group of fully qualified professional judges. They interpret the law as agreed by the Commission that in turn report to the Council of Ministers who are the elected leaders of the 27/28 sovereign states. Stop trying to mislead people or at least try and have some kind of understanding of what you are talking about.
Sounds like the all-UK backstop has been agreed behind the scenes to me.
Lots of drama and theatre before it's publically agreed in December, and a grateful Commons and country rows in behind the PM, losing sight of what a lousy deal it is compared to what we have now.
Okay, but this is the fundamental problem:
That doesn't solve the backstop issue at all. The fundamental, legally-binding, requirement is that Northern Ireland remain 100% aligned with the CU unless and until the UK is able to come up with something better.
So either: the UK remains in the SM and CU indefinitely, with no endpoint, and not being allowed to leave until the EU says so, or: the UK still needs a backstop for the backstop, to protect NI from the inevitable failure two years from now.
In no way does it solve anyone's concerns.
A temporary, all-UK CU with no differences between GB and NI and which can be terminated by the UK is the only scheme that will get through. And May is nowhere near achieving this.
ie Chequers!! Looking more likely now. Although not sure about the time-limited bit.
What a load of crap. Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe and figures back it up. You don’t realise how lucky we are!
I said it was their perception , though perception is reality, and 52% of people voted "F-off foreigners!" Those are the real figures, not opinion polls on how people think they should think. I have not spoken to a single Leave supporter that I am quite sure were moved by a Little Englander xenophobic motivation. With a couple of exceptions, the posters on here don't disabuse me of that belief.
Just because someone in a long abandoned County Durham pit village thinks they should have a greater right to a job in the country of their birth than someone who has come here for purely economic reasons does not make them racist, a bigot or a ‘little englander’.
It kinda does.
Condecending ignorance and arrogance right there. No wonder Brexit won.
Chippyness alert (maybe?)!! Are you suggesting bigotry is absent in the mining heartlands? Or are you one of those middle class paternalists who really rather admires those plucky working class folk with their quaint ways and their pureness of mind and body?
We would be taken to court by anyone who is not in the EU if we didn't have a hard border for RoI goods crossing the border into the UK.
They would bring a WTO action under MFN which would, as @grabcocque alluded to, contend that the UK was treating the non-EU country unfairly by allowing EU imports into the UK (via the NI "border"). The WTO dispute resolution might then (might only, although anywhere but NI certainly would) deem that if the UK has no checks on EU goods, then it is not allowed to impose checks on imports from non-EU countries' goods.
I think that's very far-fetched. There are plenty of countries which check goods at the border more vigorously in some places than in others. Nothing in the WTO treaties prevents a country from using risk-based enforcement. In any case, as far the UK is concerned, what other land borders are we talking about where the arrangements have to be the same?
What's more, it's nonsense anyway, because the whole idea is to have a trade deal with the EU. That's what this whole negotiation is about, right? So why on earth are we obsessing about what will happen if we don't, and (even more bizarrely) using what bad things might happen if we don't do a deal as a reason not to do a deal?
I addressed this yesterday. It is clearly not true. WTO rules do not require a 'hard' border - they just require that checks are done. The checks would be done, via declaration and via audit away from the border. Problem solved.
You addressed no such thing. You stated your fantasy outcome. Or perhaps one that will be in place in a few years (let's hope). What you most certainly didn't address is where we are today, why no one has described, or provided the plans for, or submitted the technical drawings of, or published a white paper on the technological/remote solution.
I think a goodly proportion of the western world is eagerly awaiting just such a disclosure and yet detail, other than mad Brexiters waving their hands in ignorance, has there been none.
It is not about predictions on outcome. It is about whether the ERG plan on the NI border would be in violation of WTO rules. It is not.
No of course it is not. We don't need, nor does WTO rules mandate any borders anywhere (taking back control notwithstanding). It is another WTO member that would bring the action that, under WTO rules, would require us to have one.
Read this article. It is short, sharp, and to the point.
What a load of crap. Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe and figures back it up. You don’t realise how lucky we are!
I said it was their perception , though perception is reality, and 52% of people voted "F-off foreigners!" Those are the real figures, not opinion polls on how people think they should think. I have not spoken to a single Leave supporter that I am quite sure were moved by a Little Englander xenophobic motivation. With a couple of exceptions, the posters on here don't disabuse me of that belief.
Just because someone in a long abandoned County Durham pit village thinks they should have a greater right to a job in the country of their birth than someone who has come here for purely economic reasons does not make them racist, a bigot or a ‘little englander’.
It kinda does.
Condecending ignorance and arrogance right there. No wonder Brexit won.
As you say, small wonder Leave won.
Many Remainers could lose a binary Referendum even if the two options were
This is an obvious lie. There is no legal basis for saying a permanent NI membership of SM+CU can be done in the withdrawal agreement, but that a temporary all-UK customs union cannot be.
But since the ECJ will do whatever the Commission tell them, the distinction is academic.
Total crap based on your pathetic hatred, or just further ignorance typical of those that hold your deeply prejudiced views. The ECJ is a group of fully qualified professional judges. They interpret the law as agreed by the Commission that in turn report to the Council of Ministers who are the elected leaders of the 27/28 sovereign states. Stop trying to mislead people or at least try and have some kind of understanding of what you are talking about.
Thanks for the entertainment!
No it was educational rather than entertaining. I understand it must have put your braincell into overload when it contradicted everything you have been told by the Daily Mail
What a load of crap. Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe and figures back it up. You don’t realise how lucky we are!
I said it was their perception , though perception is reality, and 52% of people voted "F-off foreigners!" Those are the real figures, not opinion polls on how people think they should think. I have not spoken to a single Leave supporter that I am quite sure were moved by a Little Englander xenophobic motivation. With a couple of exceptions, the posters on here don't disabuse me of that belief.
Just because someone in a long abandoned County Durham pit village thinks they should have a greater right to a job in the country of their birth than someone who has come here for purely economic reasons does not make them racist, a bigot or a ‘little englander’.
It kinda does.
Condecending ignorance and arrogance right there. No wonder Brexit won.
Faux outrage alert! Nothing condescending about calling out prejudice for what it is. If it is more common in some communities than in others, working class credentials do not make them immune from criticism
What a load of crap. Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe and figures back it up. You don’t realise how lucky we are!
I said it was their perception , though perception is reality, and 52% of people voted "F-off foreigners!" Those are the real figures, not opinion polls on how people think they should think. I have not spoken to a single Leave supporter that I am quite sure were moved by a Little Englander xenophobic motivation. With a couple of exceptions, the posters on here don't disabuse me of that belief.
Just because someone in a long abandoned County Durham pit village thinks they should have a greater right to a job in the country of their birth than someone who has come here for purely economic reasons does not make them racist, a bigot or a ‘little englander’.
It kinda does.
Condecending ignorance and arrogance right there. No wonder Brexit won.
As you say, small wonder Leave won.
Many Remainers could lose a binary Referendum even if the two options were
(i) Remain (ii) Remain
Thick as mince is thick as mince nothing we can do about that. Sadly.
What a load of crap. Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe and figures back it up. You don’t realise how lucky we are!
I said it was their perception , though perception is reality, and 52% of people voted "F-off foreigners!" Those are the real figures, not opinion polls on how people think they should think. I have not spoken to a single Leave supporter that I am quite sure were moved by a Little Englander xenophobic motivation. With a couple of exceptions, the posters on here don't disabuse me of that belief.
Just because someone in a long abandoned County Durham pit village thinks they should have a greater right to a job in the country of their birth than someone who has come here for purely economic reasons does not make them racist, a bigot or a ‘little englander’.
It kinda does.
Condecending ignorance and arrogance right there. No wonder Brexit won.
As you say, small wonder Leave won.
Many Remainers could lose a binary Referendum even if the two options were
(i) Remain (ii) Remain
Thick as mince is thick as mince nothing we can do about that. Sadly.
I have no problem with another Referendum (it is anti-democratic, for sure).
I just know that you and Nigel and Alastair can fuck it up again.
What a load of crap. Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe and figures back it up. You don’t realise how lucky we are!
I said it was their perception , though perception is reality, and 52% of people voted "F-off foreigners!" Those are the real figures, not opinion polls on how people think they should think. I have not spoken to a single Leave supporter that I am quite sure were moved by a Little Englander xenophobic motivation. With a couple of exceptions, the posters on here don't disabuse me of that belief.
Just because someone in a long abandoned County Durham pit village thinks they should have a greater right to a job in the country of their birth than someone who has come here for purely economic reasons does not make them racist, a bigot or a ‘little englander’.
It kinda does.
Condecending ignorance and arrogance right there. No wonder Brexit won.
Chippyness alert (maybe?)!! Are you suggesting bigotry is absent in the mining heartlands? Or are you one of those middle class paternalists who really rather admires those plucky working class folk with their quaint ways and their pureness of mind and body?
I’m not suggesting that at all. What I am suggesting is that not every leave voter is a racist bigot. An opinion that some London types seem to revell in.
Probably Olly Robins or somebody close to him. Whether malice or incompetence, May seems to be surrounded by people who are feeding her entirely inaccurate intel on the EU's thinking.
You'd think, after Salzburg, May would have attempted to curate her sources a bit better, but no.
I'm sure they'll agree to an all-UK backstop. They just won't agree to a time-limited one. If Britain wants to present the former as a triumph, they won't publicly disagree.
"The one thing upon which all sides of the Brexit divide can surely agree is that any deal that Theresa May brings back from Brussels will be a national humiliation."
What a load of crap. Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe and figures back it up. You don’t realise how lucky we are!
I said it was their perception , though perception is reality, and 52% of people voted "F-off foreigners!" Those are the real figures, not opinion polls on how people think they should think. I have not spoken to a single Leave supporter that I am quite sure were moved by a Little Englander xenophobic motivation. With a couple of exceptions, the posters on here don't disabuse me of that belief.
Just because someone in a long abandoned County Durham pit village thinks they should have a greater right to a job in the country of their birth than someone who has come here for purely economic reasons does not make them racist, a bigot or a ‘little englander’.
It kinda does.
Condecending ignorance and arrogance right there. No wonder Brexit won.
As you say, small wonder Leave won.
Many Remainers could lose a binary Referendum even if the two options were
(i) Remain (ii) Remain
Thick as mince is thick as mince nothing we can do about that. Sadly.
I have no problem with another Referendum (it is anti-democratic, for sure).
I just know that you and Nigel and Alastair can fuck it up again.
You will probably have missed my post yesterday when I said I didn't think we should have another referendum. We must leave. I would rather we BINO'd but as folk such as JRM, Boris, Andrea and Andrew remain active I have no great confidence in them not fucking it all up. Not that I expect to see them down the Job Centre any time soon as as result.
Some people's real objection to a second referendum is that they'll lose the ability to sneer at Irish democracy.
If there were a second referendum, the side that didn't promise to end FoM would lose. Its all the whole thing has ever been about
Not if it was No Deal as the alternative, Remain wins 55% to 45% with Yougov on that basis.
Eastern European migrants to the UK have fallen since the Leave vote anyway and we could have had transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 within the EU had Blair chosen to do so
The leave side would bang on and on and on about immigration controls, and the Remain side would have no answer. "Someone who is campaigning for us could have done something about it 14 years ago but didn't" isn't the new "Let's give £350m to the NHS"
That might get Leave to 45%, it would not get them to over 50% as enough soft Brexiteer 2016 Leave voters would switch to Remain if No Deal, Crash Out Brexit was the alternative.
As I said Eastern European migration has already fallen since the Leave vote anyway
Yes it has fallen because they think we are leaving!
No, based upon common sense and my anecdotal experience, it has fallen because many Europeans thought we were a civilised decent tolerant country to be admired. Then they realised that there was a fair possibility that 52% of the British people were probably xenophobes, making us not a country to be admired at all, and where it didn't matter how useful your skills or labour are, you are simply not welcome because you have a funny accent. Genuine patriots should be ashamed.
What a load of crap. Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe and figures back it up. You don’t realise how lucky we are!
Overall, possibly. Depends where one is. Have you tried being an Essex boy in Geordie-land. Mostly it’s fine, because mostly they’re great people, BUT!
My son, when a student at a Uni in Lancashire, was beaten up because of his Essex accent. “Don’t come up here and talk like that’ or words to that effect. His Lancastrian cousins were embarrassed, but recognised it might happen..
I've been on a bus in Bolton where the driver was discussing with the other passengers how much he hated Southerners (I'm from that London). I suppose I could have made a complaint to the bus company but decided it wasn't worth it.
What a load of crap. Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe and figures back it up. You don’t realise how lucky we are!
I said it was their perception , though perception is reality, and 52% of people voted "F-off foreigners!" Those are the real figures, not opinion polls on how people think they should think. I have not spoken to a single Leave supporter that I am quite sure were moved by a Little Englander xenophobic motivation. With a couple of exceptions, the posters on here don't disabuse me of that belief.
Just because someone in a long abandoned County Durham pit village thinks they should have a greater right to a job in the country of their birth than someone who has come here for purely economic reasons does not make them racist, a bigot or a ‘little englander’.
It kinda does.
Condecending ignorance and arrogance right there. No wonder Brexit won.
As you say, small wonder Leave won.
Many Remainers could lose a binary Referendum even if the two options were
(i) Remain (ii) Remain
Thick as mince is thick as mince nothing we can do about that. Sadly.
I have no problem with another Referendum (it is anti-democratic, for sure).
I just know that you and Nigel and Alastair can fuck it up again.
You will probably have missed my post yesterday when I said I didn't think we should have another referendum. We must leave. I would rather we BINO'd but as folk such as JRM, Boris, Andrea and Andrew remain active I have no great confidence in them not fucking it all up. Not that I expect to see them down the Job Centre any time soon as as result.
I give you credit for saying we must leave. I happen to agree.
I personally have no difficulty with the idea of another referendum to clarify the nature of the Leave.
I have no difficulty with Remain being on the ballot of a second referendum.
That is not generosity. It is because I have absolute confidence that Remain will fuck the opportunity up again.
What a load of crap. Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe and figures back it up. You don’t realise how lucky we are!
I said it was their perception , though perception is reality, and 52% of people voted "F-off foreigners!" Those are the real figures, not opinion polls on how people think they should think. I have not spoken to a single Leave supporter that I am quite sure were moved by a Little Englander xenophobic motivation. With a couple of exceptions, the posters on here don't disabuse me of that belief.
Just because someone in a long abandoned County Durham pit village thinks they should have a greater right to a job in the country of their birth than someone who has come here for purely economic reasons does not make them racist, a bigot or a ‘little englander’.
It kinda does.
Condecending ignorance and arrogance right there. No wonder Brexit won.
Faux outrage alert! Nothing condescending about calling out prejudice for what it is. If it is more common in some communities than in others, working class credentials do not make them immune from criticism
If the communities they moved into were so terribly hostile, why did it take the Referendum result for them to feel it?
Some people's real objection to a second referendum is that they'll lose the ability to sneer at Irish democracy.
If there were a second referendum, the side that didn't promise to end FoM would lose. Its all the whole thing has ever been about
Not if it was No Deal as the alternative, Remain wins 55% to 45% with Yougov on that basis.
Eastern European migrants to the UK have fallen since the Leave vote anyway and we could have had transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 within the EU had Blair chosen to do so
The leave side would bang on and on and on about immigration controls, and the Remain side would have no answer. "Someone who is campaigning for us could have done something about it 14 years ago but didn't" isn't the new "Let's give £350m to the NHS"
As I said Eastern European migration has already fallen since the Leave vote anyway
Yes it has fallen because they think we are leaving!
.
What a load of crap. Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe and figures back it up. You don’t realise how lucky we are!
Overall, possibly. Depends where one is. Have you tried being an Essex boy in Geordie-land. Mostly it’s fine, because mostly they’re great people, BUT!
My son, when a student at a Uni in Lancashire, was beaten up because of his Essex accent. “Don’t come up here and talk like that’ or words to that effect. His Lancastrian cousins were embarrassed, but recognised it might happen..
I've been on a bus in Bolton where the driver was discussing with the other passengers how much he hated Southerners (I'm from that London). I suppose I could have made a complaint to the bus company but decided it wasn't worth it.
The 70s were a rougher age. I've got into fights because of my Irish surname, my glasses, looking at someone's bird, talking posh, spilling someone's beer, talking Northern, talking Southern (no, I don't understand either) not supporting some football team I can't even recall, dancing with someone's bird, standing *there* and so forth. Some people are just objectionable and looking for trouble. Unfortunately, in this day and age we just have to wade through their bile and ill informed rantings online, which is progress of a sort.
Comments
Why does May always get "another week"? What the fuck would letting this muddle-brained autist kick her dead dog around the park for another week possibly be expected to achieve?
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1052519655468875777
Certainly if the argument is "well it was vague and supposed to be a stepping stone to an agreement that would never actually come into force", the same defense works for the Leavers who supported the backstop in December, doesn't it?
https://www.ft.com/content/0df6434e-d12c-11e8-a9f2-7574db66bcd5
Its fair to say, few of his FT readers are sympathetic to the view.
This is what the EU is ultimately trying to avoid. Not a hard border, but being put into a position where it is forced to litigate against the UK via the WTO for violation of its tariffs.
QED.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1052895796176269312
F*ck it. I now support an Irish Sea customs border. Seems the neatest and most obvious solution. NI will unite with the Republic eventually anyway.
Cometh the hour, cometh the voting system.
Lots of drama and theatre before it's publically agreed in December, and a grateful Commons and country rows in behind the PM, losing sight of what a lousy deal it is compared to what we have now.
Brexiteers didn't want to know what being a Third Country meant, nor did they care.
The public just want immigration down, the rest is noise. If there was no FoM, Remain would have won 80-20, although there wouldn't have been a referendum anyway.
That doesn't solve the backstop issue at all. The fundamental, legally-binding, requirement is that Northern Ireland remain 100% aligned with the CU unless and until the UK is able to come up with something better.
So either: the UK remains in the SM and CU indefinitely, with no endpoint, and not being allowed to leave until the EU says so, or: the UK still needs a backstop for the backstop, to protect NI from the inevitable failure two years from now.
In no way does it solve anyone's concerns.
If a non-party leader could be prime minister then one of the possibilities might actually be Theresa May.
Imagine she is no confidenced within the Tory party and another leader elected. However she refuses to resign as PM and starts down an EEA route with some tacit cross party support and dares the Tories to try and VoNC her in parliament to remove her as PM.
Lots of resignations, lots of tears and tantrums, I'm sure, but could she, as holder of the office manage this?
Is that any more of a stretch than anyone else building a coalition from scratch?? Thoughts, please.
Can you clarify what you mean by "Eastern Europe" ? Are you taslking about migration from Poland, the Baltic States and the Czech Republic which has fallen or are you talking about migration from Romania, Bulgaria and Slovakia ?
What about migration from Africa including the former Portuguese colonies of Africa which is on the increase?
Imagine if the referendum was remain where we were, formalise our status as a full member but outside the EU's integration project (i.e. Cameron's agreed terms) or outside. We wouldn't be in this mess...
They would bring a WTO action under MFN which would, as @grabcocque alluded to, contend that the UK was treating the non-EU country unfairly by allowing EU imports into the UK (via the NI "border"). The WTO dispute resolution might then (might only, although anywhere but NI certainly would) deem that if the UK has no checks on EU goods, then it is not allowed to impose checks on imports from non-EU countries' goods.
What's more, it's nonsense anyway, because the whole idea is to have a trade deal with the EU. That's what this whole negotiation is about, right? So why on earth are we obsessing about what will happen if we don't, and (even more bizarrely) using what bad things might happen if we don't do a deal as a reason not to do a deal?
Put the country first for once. What happened to the Conservative Party being the ‘natural party of government’? It cant govern for sh*t.
Commercial traffic seems to be the focus of the checks as you might expect.
The same applies to DUP supporters vis a vis Ireland, but not to the 60% that don't want a hard border. That hard border reappears by the UK diverging from the EU.
Which also addresses Cycle Free' s remark that the Irish should get used to the reality of the UK leaving the EU.
And as I also noted, there are situations whereby the WTO might not enforce MFN rules (good article here). But them is nevertheless the rules and a challenge could come.
My contention all along has been very simple - that Theresa May cannot allow herself to be put into a situation whereby a border could be required. She could not go down the pathway whereby one of the destinations is a hard border. Hence the backstop, hence the impasse, and hence, in the end, the effective bluff by the EU.
That said, it looks like they might be caving on the no cherry-picking line if they are going to allow Chequers (ie customs union for goods).
My son, when a student at a Uni in Lancashire, was beaten up because of his Essex accent. “Don’t come up here and talk like that’ or words to that effect. His Lancastrian cousins were embarrassed, but recognised it might happen..
A temporary, all-UK CU with no differences between GB and NI and which can be terminated by the UK is the only scheme that will get through. And May is nowhere near achieving this.
Speaking personally, if the transition had been managed more effectively and particularly more slowly I'd have shrugged my shoulders and got on with other things. The decision to ram it through in two and a half years is what has wound me up. Even then, it is only as particular examples of madness have come to light.
If Brexit doesn't now happen - which seems at the very least far from impossible - the indecent haste with which it was attempted will have been the reason for its failure.
I think a goodly proportion of the western world is eagerly awaiting just such a disclosure and yet detail, other than mad Brexiters waving their hands in ignorance, has there been none.
You can't grow a unicorn even with an extension to the schedule
But you’re right - there’s always going to be some problems, in any country. We certainly aren’t perfect but I think people underestimate how tolerent Britain actually is. We rightly hold ourselves to a very high standard.
But since the ECJ will do whatever the Commission tell them, the distinction is academic.
On a lighter note for Python fans: : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkihKpnx5yM
Or something....
No wonder Brexit won.
I think May will be replaced in the next couple of weeks. Everyone can see she has no idea how to proceed. I actually think the Cabinet are going to move against her - the more realistic Remainers (Hunt, Javid) must realise by now that May has no ability to either conclude a deal or manage the fallout of no deal.
The backstop was her mistake and she needs to pay the price.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1052883515954540544
Read this article. It is short, sharp, and to the point.
Many Remainers could lose a binary Referendum even if the two options were
(i) Remain
(ii) Remain
I just know that you and Nigel and Alastair can fuck it up again.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexiteers-plan-bs-are-fantasies-that-do-not-solve-the-irish-border-question-8q2mjkslp
"The one thing upon which all sides of the Brexit divide can surely agree is that any deal that Theresa May brings back from Brussels will be a national humiliation."
I personally have no difficulty with the idea of another referendum to clarify the nature of the Leave.
I have no difficulty with Remain being on the ballot of a second referendum.
That is not generosity. It is because I have absolute confidence that Remain will fuck the opportunity up again.