Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please
Options
Comments
-
The agreement is that GB plus NI stay in the CU, but effectively only NI remains in the SM. Should GB leave the CU then the backstop comes into play where NI remains "until and unless" there is some other mechanism to keep an open north/south border as per the GFA. In other words even if GB exits the CU NI will remain in the SM.
Again you haven't read the agreement , The UK has agreed to abide by the VAT directives and goods in the UK will be regarded as in free circulation within the EU , thats a fundamental tenant of the Single Market ,( The CU laws largely deals with goods entering into and going out of the CU ) they have also agreed to regulatory alignment in most areas, again such a deal will completely handcuff the UK
What you refer to is the backstop , but the backstop will not be activated during the transition period and in fact it may never be activated
There is no difference between NI and GB during the transition period0 -
Again you haven't read the agreement , The UK has agreed to abide by the VAT directives and goods in the UK will be regarded as in free circulation within the EU , thats a fundamental tenant of the Single Market ,( The CU laws largely deals with goods entering into and going out of the CU ) they have also agreed to regulatory alignment in most areas, again such a deal will completely handcuff the UK
What you refer to is the backstop , but the backstop will not be activated during the transition period
They may have agreed to some SM alignments but they are not remaining in the SM under this agreement.
Only NI is. That is where they are handcuffed. They cannot leave the CU "unless and until" they can come up with a mechanism that satisfies the EU that NI remains effectively within the SM.0 -
If that was his thinking then I don`t see why they would not have done it as part of this agreement.
Same outcome as far as DUP support goes and there would have been no need to tie themselves into this CU which is looking like the straw that will break this deal as far as the Tory`sat least are concerned.
I don't think Fox's attitude would be May's attitude. May is a genuine unionist based on the way she speaks about the 'precious union' and realises there has to be some way of avoiding a hard border to safeguard the union's future. I believe she's pinning her hopes on achieving an open border through a future EU/UK deal. Privately I suspect she would not like NI to be in a different orbit to the UK, but the possibility that it could be looks like it was enough to convince Fox that his plans can be achieved long-term.
This is why I think the DUP are playing a dangerous game. A few weeks back the ERG were talking up a possible Super Canada style deal, which hit the rocks due to the fantasy stuff about technology solving the border issue. For most of these ERG types, the border is something they don't care about or understand.
With that being the case, are the DUP really unconcerned about toppling a genuinely, passionate unionist like May and potentially have her replaced with a more token unionist figure whose main priority would not be unionist unity, but rather big international deals - with chlorinated chickens and whatnot - that would necessitate NI being pulled closer to the EU sphere and away from the UK sphere?
Do they really think a PM Johnson or Gove is going to rebuff a glitzy trade deal with the US that would necessitate such divergence, in order to satisfy 200,000 plus voters in NI, whose influence is gradually going to reduce anyway due to the inevitable demographic changes under way? I think they're making poor long-term calculations, with supporting Brexit being the biggest one of all.0 -
They may have agreed to some SM alignments but they are not remaining in the SM under this agreement.
Only NI is. That is where they are handcuffed. They cannot leave the CU "unless and until" they can come up with a mechanism that satisfies the EU that NI remains effectively within the SM.
Again , you are mixing up the backstop and the transition period agreement ( which is what this deal is )
The current deal in essence keeps the UK within the SM and CU ( i.e. it allows free movement of goods within the UK and EU , thats the key tenant of the SM and the UK will abide by the VAT directives ( and for 5 years after transition in some respects )
Under this deal , NI remains identical to GB
However should the UK negotiate a trade deal that follows the transition period it must in effect pass the " back stop " test and should the UK leave the SM ( and even the CU ) it must ensure that NI in effect remains within the SM/CU0 -
The DUP are pariahs to British politics from now on. Labour nor the Lib Dems would have taken them to begin with. Their only chance of having ANY say in what happens on British Mainland Politics ever again is completely over, unless UKIP or the BNP get an overall majority.
They are being banished back to Northern Ireland forever. They don't want them!0 -
Advertisement
-
Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »I don't think Fox's attitude would be May's attitude. May is a genuine unionist based on the way she speaks about the 'precious union' and realises there has to be some way of avoiding a hard border to safeguard the union's future. I believe she's pinning her hopes on achieving an open border through a future EU/UK deal. Privately I suspect she would not like NI to be in a different orbit to the UK, but the possibility that it could be looks like it was enough to convince Fox that his plans can be achieved long-term.
This is why I think the DUP are playing a dangerous game. A few weeks back the ERG were talking up a possible Super Canada style deal, which hit the rocks due to the fantasy stuff about technology solving the border issue. For most of these ERG types, the border is something they don't care about or understand.
With that being the case, are the DUP really unconcerned about toppling a genuinely, passionate unionist like May and potentially have her replaced with a more token unionist figure whose main priority would not be unionist unity, but rather big international deals - with chlorinated chickens and whatnot - that would necessitate NI being pulled closer to the EU sphere and away from the UK sphere?
Do they really think a PM Johnson or Gove is going to rebuff a glitzy trade deal with the US that would necessitate such divergence, in order to satisfy 200,000 plus voters in NI, whose influence is gradually going to reduce anyway due to the inevitable demographic changes under way? I think they're making poor long-term calculations, with supporting Brexit being the biggest one of all.
The DUP are now faced with an invidious choice, potentially aid in preventing this deal passing , and therefore risk a nuclear cliff face brexit . A cliff face brexit is , as we can see, something the UK has bent over backwards to prevent , hence the nett effect of forcing GBs hand , may be that NI is cast adrift by any future UK Gov , in order to allow the rest of the UK do a deal with the EU
Hence pulling down this deal could result in a far worse "unintended consequence " in the future0 -
DUP would cut off their nose to spite their face. Expect anything!The DUP are now faced with an invidious choice, potentially aid in preventing this deal passing , and therefore risk a nuclear cliff face brexit . A cliff face brexit is , as we can see, something the UK has bent over backwards to prevent , hence the nett effect of forcing GBs hand , may be that NI is cast adrift by any future UK Gov , in order to allow the rest of the UK do a deal with the EU
Hence pulling down this deal could result in a far worse "unintended consequence " in the future0 -
Not sure they would. Theres a sizeable sentiment in EU that are fed up with the UK attitude to EU. I think at this point if the UK want to stay, then they are going to have to go all in....including accepting the EURO.
Telling Britain ‘no thanks’ would be an interesting position for the Europeans to take.
Especially so, considering a number of high profile politicians (Macron and Verhofstadt most notably) have highlighted the threat of Russian interference in European politics and highlighted Brexit as the most impactful example of how they are trying and succeeding to destabilize and weaken the EU.
For the EU, given these acknowledgements, to then do a complete about turn if Britain wanted to stay by saying ‘nope, Russians or not, you bought it you own it’ would be quite weird, and wholly counterproductive for a continent apparently keen to assert itself more effectively on the global stage0 -
Seth Brundle wrote: »DUP would cut off their nose to spite their face. Expect anything!
im not so sure , its worth noting that Arelene is saying she'll study the text first before deciding, nutters like Sammy can largely be ignored0 -
Folkstonian wrote: »Telling Britain ‘no thanks’ would be an interesting position for the Europeans to take.
Especially so, considering a number of high profile politicians (Macron and Verhofstadt most notably) have highlighted the threat of Russian interference in European politics and highlighted Brexit as the most impactful example of how they are trying and succeeding to destabilize and weaken the EU.
For the EU, given these acknowledgements, to then do a complete about turn if Britain wanted to stay by saying ‘nope, Russians or not, you bought it you own it’ would be quite weird, and wholly counterproductive for a continent apparently keen to assert itself more effectively on the global stage
While Russia will want Brexit to happen and cause maximum collateral damage. I think it is spurious to suggest Russia had much to do with it.
If we're going to list the reasons why Brexit was voted through you need to start with Rubert Murdoch, British Tabloids, Nigel F, Johnson, Jingoistic history taught in schools, Poppy's, UKIP, BNP, Immigration, 2 World Wars and 1 World Cup, hating the French, the Commonwealth, the Empire, Britannia ruling the waves and on and on and on.
The Russians are the Americans problem!!!
The Russians didn't cause Brexit ffs.0 -
Advertisement
-
While Russia will want Brexit to happen and cause maximum collateral damage. I think it is spurious to suggest Russia had much to do with it.
If we're going to list the reasons why Brexit was voted through you need to start with Rubert Murdoch, British Tabloids, Nigel F, Johnson, Jingoistic history taught in schools, Poppy's, UKIP, BNP, Immigration, 2 World Wars and 1 World Cup, hating the French, the Commonwealth, the Empire, Britannia ruling the waves and on and on and on.
The Russians are the Americans problem!!!
The Russians didn't cause Brexit ffs.
actually Angela Merkel in my view singlehandly swung Brexit away from a dull debate about EU rules etc and into a full blown immigration panic in the UK0 -
While Russia will want Brexit to happen and cause maximum collateral damage. I think it is spurious to suggest Russia had much to do with it.
If we're going to list the reasons why Brexit was voted through you need to start with Rubert Murdoch, British Tabloids, Nigel F, Johnson, Jingoistic history taught in schools, Poppy's, UKIP, BNP, Immigration, 2 World Wars and 1 World Cup, hating the French, the Commonwealth, the Empire, Britannia ruling the waves and on and on and on.
The Russians are the Americans problem!!!
The Russians didn't cause Brexit ffs.
Forgive me, I was just basing my opinions on things that EU politicians have actually said in a public forum about this specific issue.
I’ll blame Thomas Arne and jingoistic history syllabuses from here on0 -
While Russia will want Brexit to happen and cause maximum collateral damage. I think it is spurious to suggest Russia had much to do with it.
If we're going to list the reasons why Brexit was voted through you need to start with Rubert Murdoch, British Tabloids, Nigel F, Johnson, Jingoistic history taught in schools, Poppy's, UKIP, BNP, Immigration, 2 World Wars and 1 World Cup, hating the French, the Commonwealth, the Empire, Britannia ruling the waves and on and on and on.
The Russians are the Americans problem!!!
The Russians didn't cause Brexit ffs.
People vote.
I voted against Scottish Devolution. It happened. Did not cry or protest. It was the will of the people.
The UK voted leave. Cry babies out in force! If you love the EU move to Germany.
The country that requires ID at all times!
"Your papers please"0 -
prinzeugen wrote: »People vote.
I voted against Scottish Devolution. It happened. Did not cry or protest. It was the will of the people.
The UK voted leave. Cry babies out in force! If you love the EU move to Germany.
The country that requires ID at all times!
"Your papers please"
The great thing about democracy is the people do and can change their mind , nothing better in a democracy then to ask people again
Then the new/latest answer becomes " The will of the people "
IN Germany you must own a mandatory form of ID , you are not required to carry it at all times, nor are you obliged under a police request to immediately have it availableThe country that requires ID at all times!
In the UK , they just substitute that with the highest percentage of CCTV coverage in the western world instead !!, who needs ID when facial recognition is running 24/70 -
prinzeugen wrote: »People vote.
I voted against Scottish Devolution. It happened. Did not cry or protest. It was the will of the people.
The UK voted leave. Cry babies out in force! If you love the EU move to Germany.
The country that requires ID at all times!
"Your papers please"
How do you think Alba will vote in their 2nd Independence vote?
Reckon if brexit is rough ride, they'll likely opt for freedom.
It will be the will of the people if they do, under the new circumstances.0 -
If there was a hard Brexit and it came down for us to staying in the EU or keeping solidarity with NI nationalists and leave the EU, we would shaft the NI nationalists and put in a hard border.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.
As much as you'd delight in the above it wouldn't be 'shafting' our fellow Irishmen/Irishwomen in the north - it would be keeping the fire out of the majority of the premises or face burning the whole place down.
Oh and this 'we' you speak to -- who''d take pleasure in shafting the members of our nation who reside in the north -- are very few in number and getting fewer.0 -
that this Protocol is based on the third scenario of maintaining full alignment with those rules of the Union's internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement, to apply unless and until <b> an alternative arrangement implementing another scenario is agreed </b>
The obvious text missing from this section is reference to avoiding a hard border, eg “... scenario is agreed which avoids a hard border” which should be inserted after, otherwise this sentence can be interpreted to mean anything agreed down the line could be acceptable.0 -
littlemac1980 wrote: »that this Protocol is based on the third scenario of maintaining full alignment with those rules of the Union's internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement, to apply unless and until <b> an alternative arrangement implementing another scenario is agreed </b>
The obvious text missing from this section is reference to avoiding a hard border, eg “... scenario which avoids a hard border” which should be inserted after, otherwise this sentence can be interpreted to mean anything agreed down the line could be acceptable.
I see no issue with allowing the flexibility that by agreement with all parties an alternative scenario could be considered in the future .0 -
I see no issue with allowing the flexibility that by agreement with all parties an alternative scenario could be considered in the future .
That depends on what the definition of “all parties” is - I’m on a phone so I can’t check, if Ireland are included then that’s OK - if not - then the backstop is temporary and will be subject to being overwritten on a political whim at any stage in future negotiations between the UK and EU negotiating on something as benign as Mutual recognition of driving licenses.
And actually there is no reference in the quoted text to “all parties” - it’s ambiguous & vague - and in the context of what’s occurring here - that’s a disaster.0 -
littlemac1980 wrote: »That depends on what the definition of “all parties” is - I’m on a phone so I can’t check, if Ireland are included then that’s OK - if not - then the backstop is temporary and will be subject to being overwritten on a political whim at any stage in future negotiations between the UK and EU negotiating on something as benign as Mutual recognition of driving licenses.
at the end of the day , we cant " force " the EU into providing us with the wherewithal to maintain no border with NI . We can only do it with the agreement of the other member states.
Today we have a backstop( well in draft form ) , that in effect handcuffs the whole UK.
I see no problem , Ireland is not a signatory to this deal as a single country , the deal is between the UK and the EU . Ireland cant deliver no border on its own ,
Hence the review allows the UK and the EU , collectively to revise the backstop with the provision for an independent arbitrator to decide if its not needed0 -
Advertisement
-
at the end of the day , we cant " force " the EU into providing us with the wherewithal to maintain no border with NI . We can only do it with the agreement of the other member states.
Today we have a backstop( well in draft form ) , that in effect handcuffs the whole UK.
I see no problem , Ireland is not a signatory to this deal as a single country , the deal is between the UK and the EU . Ireland cant deliver no border on its own ,
Hence the review allows the UK and the EU , collectively to revise the backstop with the provision for an independent arbitrator to decide if its not needed
I appreciate that, but there is a difference between demanding something (which we aren’t doing) and being told that it is guaranteed that hat something will be delivered in the process of negotiating, or else there will be no deal, and then not being given what was guaranteed to be included - which may well be the case from the language above.
Bottom line is - unless this is specifically dealt with and addressed elsewhere in the text - that ain’t no backstop - it doesn’t refer to the border (or rather requirement for no hard border)0 -
You're offering reasons there why people who wish to remain EU citizens might not want to move to Germany, Eugene, therefore encouraging them to stay in the UK and work to have the UK remain/rejoin, which would unquestionably be their democratic right. Is that really the outcome you want?prinzeugen wrote: »People vote.
I voted against Scottish Devolution. It happened. Did not cry or protest. It was the will of the people.
The UK voted leave. Cry babies out in force! If you love the EU move to Germany.
The country that requires ID at all times!
"Your papers please"0 -
littlemac1980 wrote: »I appreciate that, but there is a difference between demanding something (which we aren’t doing) and being told that it is guaranteed that hat something will be delivered in the process of negotiating, or else there will be no deal, and then not being given what was guaranteed to be included - which may well be the case from the language above.
Bottom line is - unless this is specifically dealt with and addressed elsewhere in the text - that ain’t no backstop - it doesn’t refer to the border (or rather requirement for no hard border)
I dont think the phase " hard border " is valid legalese , The protocol does set out what it regards as the criteria , the preservation of the GFA, the maintenance of and all island economy etc
I dont think we need to see " hard border " whatever that means , actually mentioned per se0 -
I dont think the phase " hard border " is valid legalese , The protocol does set out what it regards as the criteria , the preservation of the GFA, the maintenance of and all island economy etc
I dont think we need to see " hard border " whatever that means , actually mentioned per se
I think everyone understands what “hard border” means. I’m not saying it has to state “hard border” I use that phrase here for the sake of brevity - I’m on my phone - I would expect a 500+ page agreement to include specific references to what is intended to be avoided e.g. customs checks/identification checks etc.
This isn’t a backstop - it’s the EU and UK saying to each other - “Don’t worry we’ll work that out between us down the road”0 -
littlemac1980 wrote: »I think everyone understands what “hard border” means. I’m not saying it has to state “hard border” I use that phrase here for the sake of brevity - I’m on my phone - I would expect a 500+ page agreement to include specific references to what is intended to be avoided e.g. customs checks/identification checks etc.
This isn’t a backstop - it’s the EU and UK saying to each other - “Don’t worry we’ll work that out between us down the road”
The protocol makes it clear that the EU and the UK are together committed to (a) ensuring the continuance of the GFA, ensuring an all-island economy and in the event that the UK diverges from the arrangements in the transition agreement , after the end of such a period , that it ( the UK ) is legally committed to ensuring the North remains in compliance with the EU CU and SM. ( in the absence of a mutually agreed alternative )
for the life of me I cant see what you are arguing about . The english is plain
The next thing is the current draft transition agreement largely binds the whole of the UK into the main provisions of the EU SM and CU , until such time as the transition period ends. Given the UK desperately wants a long term trade deal and given the time it has taken, in the past, to negotiate such a deal ( 10+ years ) I suspect the transition period will be extended significantly to avoid a crash out Brexit occurring at the end of the transition period. We could be old and grey before we see the end of this0 -
The protocol makes it clear that the EU and the UK are together committed to (a) ensuring the continuance of the GFA, ensuring an all-island economy and in the event that the UK diverges from the arrangements in the transition agreement , after the end of such a period , that it ( the UK ) is legally committed to ensuring the North remains in compliance with the EU CU and SM.
for the life of me I cant see what you are arguing about . The english is plain
Well I didn't think I was arguing. I was pointing out that in my opinion the language in bold is too vague and isn't the backstop that was stated to be included:
This Protocol is based on the third scenario of maintaining full alignment with those rules of the Union's internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement, to apply unless and until an alternative arrangement implementing another scenario is agreed
As is clear from the italics text the words "unless and until" are clearly included, but the operative part of the text is what comes after that, which is the very vague phrase"
"an alternative arrangement implementing another scenario is agreed"
1. Agreed between whom?
2. What scenario?
3. What alternative arangement?
Everything before the words "unless and until" are only effective upto the agreement to implement another arrangement.
This "backstop" is as clear as mud. Not having clarity on this critical point in this critical agreement is, in my opinion, a disaster.0 -
I don't think there's anything vague about this. Here's the full text of the recital you're talking about:littlemac1980 wrote: »Well I didn't think I was arguing. I was pointing out that in my opinion the language in bold is too vague and isn't the backstop that was stated to be included:
This Protocol is based on the third scenario of maintaining full alignment with those rules of the Union's internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement, to apply unless and until an alternative arrangement implementing another scenario is agreed
As is clear from the italics text the words "unless and until" are clearly included, but the operative part of the text is what comes after that, which is the very vague phrase"
"an alternative arrangement implementing another scenario is agreed"
1. Agreed between whom?
2. What scenario?
3. What alternative arangement?
Everything before the words "unless and until" are only effective upto the agreement to implement another arrangement.
This "backstop" is as clear as mud. Not having clarity on this critical point in this critical agreement is, in my opinion, a disaster.RECALLING that the Joint Report from the negotiators of the European Union and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50 TEU on the United Kingdom's orderly withdrawal from the European Union of 8 December 2017 outlines three different scenarios for protecting North-South cooperation and avoiding a hard border, but that this Protocol is based on the third scenario of maintaining full alignment with those rules of the Union's internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement, to apply unless and until an alternative arrangement implementing another scenario is agreed,
So the recital refers back to the three scenarios agreed between the EU and UK negotiators in the Joint Report. You're familiar with them; they're in para 49 of the Joint Report. In light of this, the answers to your questions are:
1. Agreed between whom? Between the UK and the EU.
2. What scenario? Either of the other two scenarios outlined in the Joint Report for protecting North-South cooperation and avoiding a hard border (i.e. a trade deal which will do this, or magic technology which will do this).
3. What alternative arrangement? The alternative arrangement, agreed by the EU and the UK, for implementing one or other of the other two scenarios .0 -
Actually during the transition period the UK is abiding by, in essence all the directives establishing the CU/SM ( including the VAT directive ) .it is in essence not actually leaving the current SM/CU
remember this agreement is solely concerned with the transition period , it does not detail what will happen if ( ever) the transition period ends !
Isn't there a provision to continue the transition for the next 80 years while a deal is being negotiated?
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1062803273902628866?s=190 -
prinzeugen wrote: »People vote.
I voted against Scottish Devolution. It happened. Did not cry or protest. It was the will of the people.
The UK voted leave. Cry babies out in force! If you love the EU move to Germany.
The country that requires ID at all times!
"Your papers please"
I've lived in Germany and didn't show one piece of ID the whole time. What are you on about?0 -
Advertisement
-
I've read a lot since the paper was released and I wonder how a lot of this is going to go down in Europe,it looks like the UK has been given a lot of cake.
• still have access to the SM for goods
• will have special access for services
• won't pay into the EU
• Fisheries and border control are under UK watch
• Supreme court is the highest court in the land for non EU matters0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement