OnionTerror
-
Posts
12,320 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by OnionTerror
-
-
1 minute ago, poppie said:
Hello Mr CCC - you very funny boy, but hates the poles peoples, very sad. Much good to see you back here friend.
I think it might be Mr H instead..
-
Currently live..will watch in full later...
-
4 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:
Sounds like a bilateral treaty is needed. Like the one you dismissed out of hand yesterday. FFS you can’t make this shit up!!!
If the UK is going to leave the SM, then what is to stop the UK from sending third country goods from GB, over the Irish border, and into the SM unchecked unless there's a backstop in the Irish sea?
Interesting to see what kind of solution the Irish come up with...
-
1 minute ago, ****-eyed octopus said:
I think we may have been through this before, but don't we do these checks already?
There are, between GB and the island of Ireland, checks are made at Larne, for instance..
-
13 minutes ago, thehowler said:
The WTO would only act on a complaint. I think ROI would be obliged to put up checks by the EU. But maybe the ROI could try talking with the Brit govt before turning to the EU?
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has said that there is nothing in its rules that would force either the EU or UK to erect a hard Irish border after Brexit.
The UK could potentially get an emergency waiver, but the UK will want to sign favourable FTAs with other WTO members ASAP, thus they would need to think about erecting infrastructure sooner rather than later... Its a difficult one...
-
10 minutes ago, kzb said:
First , what about the "interim" arrangements permitted by the WTO? It seems to me this is a good idea (and that is why it will be ignored).
Second, all this so called hard border needs is a bit of technology. There are already cameras everywhere. The cameras don't even need to be situated at the border.
Gibraltar has recently opened its new online Customs service, use that as a model.
If there was a will to do it, it would be done no problem believe me. So what I conclude is there is no will to do it.
A bit of a crass way to put it, but a camera cannot put a probe up a chicken's #### to check for pathogens.
-
5 minutes ago, ****-eyed octopus said:
And that border will be set up & enforced by ...
It’ll be enforced by other WTO members. The U.K. could ask for an emergency waiver on essential goods to start with, but they would also have to setup a hard border as well.
The EU would ask ROI to set one up first. It would be interesting if they said no.
-
1 minute ago, Steppenpig said:
Cherry picking by the EU of a third country. They get to continue their manufacturing exports to us, our service exports are restricted, we give up the right to have any say in future direction, and we pay 40 bn for the privilege. Oh yeah, in return, we get to restrict freedom of movement. I can only think the reason they rejected it was they assumed it was a trap.
The UK wanted to select the parts of the SM for its choosing, and it wanted to negate third country phytosanitary checks. It believed that equivalence on the "common rule book" was good enough. It isn't, as the UK wouldn't be under the SM common frameworks...amongst other problems with Chequers. Its straight out of the Legatum playbook.
-
22 minutes ago, Steppenpig said:
"The" truth might be a bit strong, but it seems plausible that the reason they are so intransigent is because they know the slightest crack and they will fall apart. I can't think of any reason they couldn't accepted the chequers deal. it was a gift to the EU.
It would be cherry picking of the SM by a third country.
-
9 minutes ago, kzb said:
Yes exactly. The question is, why was this not decided at first, or in parallel with, the withdrawal agreement?
The withdrawal agreement has to take account of the future relationship. That is what A50 says. To do that you need to know what the future relationship looks like. The fact that they did it the wrong way round shows us both sides wanted to scupper the idea from the start.
The UK has thought that Canada+++ would mean parts of the single market could be cherry picked. The main thought of the ERG is that because we align with EU law now, that as long as remain aligned even as a third country, then there will be frictionless trade. Nope. The SM is held together with two common frameworks, being "enforced" by either the EFTA Court (EEA states) or ECJ (EU states). We would be outside that framework, just as the likes of Canada or South Korea.
-
7 minutes ago, kzb said:
The text is from that very document you provided the link for !
The EU from the beginning laid out the possibilities at the start of the negotiations...The EU have offered a CETA type deal to us..
-
3 minutes ago, kzb said:
What about this paragraph then (my bold):
2.15 Article 50 does not specify how much the withdrawal agreement itself should say
about the future relationship between the EU and the departing Member State. Any sort of
detailed relationship would have to be put in a separate agreement that would have to be
negotiated alongside the withdrawal agreement using the detailed processes set out in the
EU Treaties. Article 50 does not specify whether these negotiations should be simultaneous or
consecutive. This would be a matter for negotiation.
We have been informed from several sources that no. 10 instructed Davis to accept the EU's staging of the negotiation. He also says this is the major reason why he resigned, and in last night's TV coverage he says it was the biggest mistake.
Where is that text from? AFAIK, this is the text of A50...
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012M050&from=EN
-
interesting tidbits..
It is also unclear from the terms of Article 50 how far the arrangements for the UK’s future relationship with the EU would be included in a withdrawal agreement. But it is likely that the scope of those arrangements would require the negotiation of a separate agreement with the EU. The precise process for negotiating that agreement would depend on its content, but an ambitious agreement could need the unanimous agreement of all 27 Member States in the Council.5 Any such process would clearly add to the complexity and hence, very probably, to the length of the overall negotiations. If the agreement needed unanimous agreement in the Council, it would be open to any Member State to seek to block it, or to extract a price for agreeing any element of the agreement
......
It is therefore probable that it would take up to decade or more to negotiate firstly our exit from the EU, secondly our future arrangements with the EU, and thirdly our trade deals with countries outside of the EU, on any terms that would be acceptable to the UK. This would be a long period of uncertainty, which would have consequences for UK businesses, trade and inward investment
-
1 hour ago, kzb said:
Follow what it actually says in Article 50?
Have a negotiating team that supports Brexit instead of a team whose remit is to stop Brexit?
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.Taking account - does this mean that an agreement has to be concluded by the end of two years? What does the UK actually want? David Davis himself keeps on plugging away on CETA+++++, which is currently a pipe dream.
-
8 minutes ago, kzb said:
I think it is worse than that, what we see is collusion not negotiation.
Certainly since DexEU was sidelined this is what they have been up to.
We are now seeing the joint UK-EU plan to Remain, unfolding before us.
How should it have gone out of interest?
-
7 minutes ago, kzb said:
Saw some of the EU Scrutiny committee on BBC Parliament channel last night. David Davis was being questioned and it was basically an inquest over his time as Brexit Secretary.
DD said for the Germans in particular, and also the French somewhat, the single most important issue during the negotiation was preventing the UK seeing any advantage due to Brexit. This confirms many peoples' suspicions.
As we also suspected, the single biggest mistake we made was agreeing to the staging of the negotiation. He was instructed to do this by no. 10. Theresa May told him, "I am in charge of negotiations and I expect you to back me up".
I didn't see the whole thing perhaps it will be repeated soon.
The UK agreeing to the sequencing is one of the consequences of rushing through A50 without a plan.
-
2 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:
Why would we do that when we voted for 95% of them
What are Leave offering you?
A decade of austerity while we learn the new economic realities, adjust to being a poorer less influential country and find ourselves still tied to EU rules and regulations.
If we had what it took to become a global powerhouse we would have been leading the EU not whining about it.
This is the movement of travel..
-
2 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:
No deal is face saving for both sides as neither side has to compromise.
We are where we are because; 1) as you indicate we have never agreed an end state, and 2) the timetable promoted by the EU does not facilitate reaching an early end state agreement.
We need to just leave, take stock, and work from a clean break position.
This is Sparta.
I can’t see the withdrawal getting through this side anyway.
Although harder the exit, the more likelihood of going back in, perhaps not as a full member but as part of an association agreement - a sort of permanent withdrawal agreement.
-
5 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:
It depends if you think the EU really does want a good neighbourly relationship - or if they want to crush us, punish us, and make an example out of us for any other country wanting to leave.
resistance is fEUtile
tick tock.
Under a no deal, no one wins.. the UK needs to work out what it wants. That was one of the main problems that should have been addressed before triggering A50.
-
15 minutes ago, ****-eyed octopus said:
I'm not sure protecting industry via tariffs is a good idea. There may be some industries which need protecting because of strategic interests or have a long term future; we could decide to help them out if that's the case. Having £39 bn in reserve would help of course ...
Stare aid under WTO could well be actionable by other states. If we want to have favorable trade agreements with the ROW, we don’t want to start narking them off from the outset.
The 39bn would be made to look like chump change. Not only in lost trade, revenue from taxes et al, but also benefit payments to those who have been laid off.
-
8 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:
That’s my view too. I think we need a clear amputation; and then negotiate a trade deal with the EU from complete separation. I also think we should drop our tariffs to zero, enabling an open border with ROI.
Which would destroy any relevant UK industry that rely on tariffs to protect its interests,and it wouldn't be reciprocal either...Foreign companies would be able to send everything into the UK tariff free, but UK companies shipping to say Brazil, would be facing tariffs. Therefore, If we dropped most/all tariffs to zero, why would any country need to sign an FTA with us?
Zero tariffs wouldn't provide an open border either. Its the harmonisation of standards that would..They wouldn't have to apply just on Ireland, but in Liverpool Docks, Felixtowe, Dover, etc..
-
-
7 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:
It'll be a back door into the single market. Trade from ROI across to other parts of the SM would have to be checked.
-
4 hours ago, Riedquat said:
They certainly couldn't make a sudden leap towards it but it's been continually nudging in that direction. It's not all that hard to get most people to accept anything if you do it gradually enough. Lots of small changes, spread over time, and dismiss anyone who objects to them of living in the past (because they've taken so long) and / or making a mountain out of a molehill ("it's not a big change, won't really make much difference, stop complaining.")
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0115/1023250-european-commission-tax/
There is an incremental push..
Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.
in House prices and the economy
Posted · Edited by Dave Beans
Didn’t I say that a couple of weeks ago and it was poo pooed? Not pointing any fingers ?