Brexit Phase Two - Trade

Good news.

£10 million is at least a couple of orders of magnitude less than we stand to lose.

There can't be much of Yeman left for our Saudi customers to bomb by now?
That's Yeman buggered then. Plick.
 
Merkel gets two weeks to solve migrant crisis after CSU ultimatum Merkel gets two weeks to solve migrant crisis after coalition partners' ultimatum | Daily Mail Online she must be kacking it. She knows all to well how nimble the EU isn't. It's like watching the Ents on slow motion. Wonder if David is laughing like a drain? Mutti must be thinking back to the happy time when it was David getting the 'non' treatment from Brussels.
None of which helps the UK position.

You're mainlining DM newsprint today I see :)
 
well since the 1922 is not repealed by BREXIT-STET
Firstly, there wasn't a 1922 agreement. It was a 1923 agreement and wasn't implemented until 1925.
Secondly, it was put into the freezer from 1939 until 1952.
Thirdly, the non binding agreement only applies to people, not goods.
And finally it has been amended several times since then so it is not even the same agreement as was thought up in 1923 when "Ireland would be classed as part of the United Kingdom for immigration purposes".
The last amendment was in 2011 (before Brexit was thought of) and commits both countries (but, again, in a nonbinding agreement which "is not intended to create legally binding obligations, nor to create or confer any right, privilege or benefit on any person or party, private or public") to continue their cooperation with the CTA (and that phrase was only introduced in 1954), their list of visa free countries and to develop "electronic border management system/s"

I didn't think a nonbinding agreement could be repealed. You live and learn.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Firstly, there wasn't a 1922 agreement. It was a 1923 agreement and wasn't implemented until 1925.
Secondly, it was put into the freezer from 1939 until 1952.
Thirdly, the non binding agreement only applies to people, not goods.
And finally it has been amended several times since then so it is not even the same agreement as was thought up in 1923 when "Ireland would be classed as part of the United Kingdom for immigration purposes".
The last amendment was in 2011 (before Brexit was thought of) and commits both countries (but, again, in a nonbinding agreement which "is not intended to create legally binding obligations, nor to create or confer any right, privilege or benefit on any person or party, private or public") to continue their cooperation with the CTA (and that phrase was only introduced in 1954), their list of visa free countries and to develop "electronic border management system/s"

I didn't think a nonbinding agreement could be repealed. You live and learn.
And your point is?
 
So it was mistaken to claim the UK can just have a soft (ie open) border under WTO rules
Not at all. As I stated before, the WTO rules states that you must have border controls but does not specify their nature. (See link in previous post). The reason for that should be obvious: different states impose different forms of border controls. The US controls its border with Canada differently from its one with Mexico for example.

As long as whatever border control the UK puts in place with the ROI ticks all the WTO boxes, it can be any form we like, including a 'soft border' with minimal checks. A soft border does not equal an open border - it's just a border that has the minimum checks needed to meet WTO requirements.

As I said before, if after a hard Brexit, the UK puts a soft border in place with the ROI, that will put the onus on the EU to put a hard border in place on their side. which will royally fornicate the Irish economy. The problems with the UK/ROI border were largely created by the EU - that's a decision I suspect will come back to haunt them.

Wordsmith
 
I can see that going down well with the other countries. If only UK could have vetoed all this EU f*ckwittery when we had all that persuasive power, like the referendum negotiations.
The Italians have virtually stopped taking in immigrants crossing the Mediterranean. Which has put the EU in a cleft stick. Kick up a stink and the Italian population will be reminded why they elected an anti-EU government in the first place. Don't kick up a stink and other governments will start refusing to take immigrants.

Wordsmith
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
Not at all. As I stated before, the WTO rules states that you must have border controls but does not specify their nature. (See link in previous post). The reason for that should be obvious: different states impose different forms of border controls. The US controls its border with Canada differently from its one with Mexico for example.

As long as whatever border control the UK puts in place with the ROI ticks all the WTO boxes, it can be any form we like, including a 'soft border' with minimal checks. A soft border does not equal an open border - it's just a border that has the minimum checks needed to meet WTO requirements.

As I said before, if after a hard Brexit, the UK puts a soft border in place with the ROI, that will put the onus on the EU to put a hard border in place on their side. which will royally fornicate the Irish economy. The problems with the UK/ROI border were largely created by the EU - that's a decision I suspect will come back to haunt them.

Wordsmith
Fantasy island here we come.
 
oh and just to remind people, it's the South German/ Bavarian coalition-where the shit always starts. Just sayin'like. Where did it all start last time?

Isn't that because Catholic Bavaria is never quite sure it's a part of Germany ruled from Berlin or a part of the defunct Austro-Hungarian Empire ruled from Vienna?
 
Firstly, there wasn't a 1922 agreement. It was a 1923 agreement and wasn't implemented until 1925.
Secondly, it was put into the freezer from 1939 until 1952.
Thirdly, the non binding agreement only applies to people, not goods.
And finally it has been amended several times since then so it is not even the same agreement as was thought up in 1923 when "Ireland would be classed as part of the United Kingdom for immigration purposes".
The last amendment was in 2011 (before Brexit was thought of) and commits both countries (but, again, in a nonbinding agreement which "is not intended to create legally binding obligations, nor to create or confer any right, privilege or benefit on any person or party, private or public") to continue their cooperation with the CTA (and that phrase was only introduced in 1954), their list of visa free countries and to develop "electronic border management system/s"

I didn't think a nonbinding agreement could be repealed. You live and learn.
And I'm telling you the reality. Stupid of the EU to accept a non binding agreement then ain't it. But then the agreement for the ROI to confer immigration permission must be illegal too. Oh shit all those people who must be here illegally too as a result.

When will you get it through your bonse that people carry goods with them too, they do it all the time.
My bold what on earth is the point of such an agreement, when the priciple of the agreement that has been made is accepted by the EU. Hot air and waffle. The phrase CTA was introduced before we even joined the EEC, largely because Ireland and us shared embassies which is the normal outlet for visas.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Bacongrills The NAAFI Bar 253
Good CO Brexit 349
ACAB The NAAFI Bar 464

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top