Brexit Phase Two - Trade

Indeed. The principle of continental politics is still the Issue, how to affect it is ours,. There is no easy solution but pretending they can be managed by the EU is an illusion. The EU is usually the alter ego of the dominant power. DeGaulle looms large.

Running away would not be my preferred option. In the olden days we had a preference of getting stuck in.
 
As I've said before, the antics of the remain side, be it Gina Miller, the House of Lords or Tory rebels like Ken Clarke, have made in increasingly likely that we'll do a hard Brexit. May runs away from problems and putting more in her way has made it even less likely that she'll conclude the negotiations successfully.

Proposing staying in the EU would be electoral suicide for the Tories. A majority of those that voted opted for leave. Ignoring the result of the referendum would result in the Tories being reduced to 50 - 100 seats in the next GE - together with a Corbyn government. So that's not an option the Tories will take.

And Article 50 is absolutely clear. If, by March of next year, no agreement has been concluded with the EU, we leave without an agreement and fall back on WTO rules. That is EU law - and Westminster law is subordinate to EU law, so there's nothing Westminster can do to change that date.

Wordsmith
Grow up FFS, Miller, HoL and others will not deliver a hard brexit. Fox, Johnson and Davis will.
 
Grow up FFS, Miller, HoL and others will not deliver a hard brexit. Fox, Johnson and Davis will.

To be honest I'm not sure Fox, Johnson and Davis are capable of delivering a hard Brexit. I'm not yet convinced they even want to.
 
I have a three other suspects on ignore but they're not up to his standard. For example, if we take a Baglock as a unit of stupidity, @Graculus only comes in about 50 micro-Baglock's. (Mainly because I don't think anyone else can get up to a full Baglock of stupidity).

Wordsmith :smile:
Sure Champ. A reminder
mangler.jpg



On integrity, you're getting around 9 @Flight's for running away Jessiedom. If you had any balls, coughed up to reading those you claimed to have put on ignore and generally manned the feck up I'd be happy to rip your bollocks posts to pieces with facts.

That's Why I'm on ignore though isn't it, you huge verbose Jessie?
 
Running away would not be my preferred option. In the olden days we had a preference of getting stuck in.
Too late, we in effect capitulated on that basis in 1972. The only way you win by remaining is by dictat, Logic would imply that vested interest would pour scorn on in internal reform. However the issues in Germany and Italy are going to the route of the problem. Now it's just a matter of if the EU can hang together long enough to do a trade deal. Come on you're military, how do you defeat a fait accompli?
 
Too late, we in effect capitulated on that basis in 1972. The only way you win by remaining is by dictat, Logic would imply that vested interest would pour scorn on in internal reform. However the issues in Germany and Italy are going to the route of the problem. Now it's just a matter of if the EU can hang together long enough to do a trade deal. Come on you're military, how do you defeat a fait accompli?

I've yet to see a fait accompli.
 
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.
Good job you don't read it.......
 
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.
"If only someone else sorted out my feckwittery" is how that sounds. Man up. Grow a set.
 
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.
Blair,Brown, Lisbon and Germans. That's you told.
 
s
sometimes we're ahead sometimes we're not.
Sometimes we're stupid and sometime we're we're stupid and sticking our fingers in our ears.

Fact resistance reaches new highs shock.
1529357867143.png
 
Last edited:
So the government’s ‘effective control’ of the border can be based on non-existent technology, for example?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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
USA / Canada....frictionless


You can use all the sophistry you like, but even ‘minimal checks’ means UK government officials will be stopping cars and goods vehicles at border checkpoints .

Only an idiot would consider such a plan sensible.

Not that most English Brexiters give a **** about NI (Losing NI ‘a price worth paying’ is a phrase I’ve seen several times ’)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Some of the required technology is being developed regardless; I still think that Jon Thompson was got at by Philip Hammond.
'In development', yet no details appear to have been provided so far.

Suspect it will take more than 283 days to have a fully working and installed system in place. Hence, it is not a viable solution to 'no-deal' and WTO rules (the 'Mautitania model' favoured by the most devoted Leavers) - without a hard border.


It all seems a bit complicated....
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
CptDanjou Brexit 385
S11Blade Brexit 476
B Medals 22

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top