Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts


  • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
    Well Ireland and the UK have had common travel area since 1923.
    Mentioning the 4 freedoms of the Treaty of Rome here is popping smoke.
    The Common Travel Area worked fine as long as both the UK and Ireland were in or out of the EU.
    It was, in effect, a visa agreement rather than a customs union. The backstop is about trade, not travel. Therefore mentioning the Common Travel Area is popping smoke.

    Originally posted by Gooner View Post
    The British Position Paper on the border was a decent, workable and honourable one, the outstanding problem - other than the EU being unwilling to work with it - being that UK can't know the scope and extent of the solutions needed until there is a trade agreement!
    How do you know that it was workable if nobody knows the scope or extent of the agreement? If the UK is being honourable in their intent not to have a hard border and honour the GFA then why do the Brexiteers want a time limit on the Backstop?

    "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
    validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
    "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Surrey View Post

      In what way is the UK not honouring the GFA? The agreement said nothing about the EU. If anything it will be Ireland in breech you choose to build a wall.
      If the UK leaves without a deal they will be required, under WTO rules, to have a customs border between them and the EU.
      "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
      validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
      "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
        And what exactly are you referring to this? That the EU didn't agree to the UK demands which would have destroyed the whole of the EU in a long run? Or what ?
        Every now and again a random US American member drops in here and points out the E(u)mpire will collapse, implode, disintegrate, go down in flames, …any moment now.

        I've been here since 2009 and have never known it to be different, they used to make entire threads about it, but these days they limit their efforts to small posts in existing threads without much further comment,

        it's therapeutical I imagine
        High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.
        Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Co.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post

          Then they should consider joining with the other half-dozen countries that are talking about leaving the EU..

          It is now a verified fact that the EU bureaucrats are too inflexible to adapt to changing circumstances. Like it or not, your little Empire is unsustainable.

          The EU in it's current form is probably more than sustainable … until the next major recession.
          If/when the next major recession arrives I expect their will be huge populist anger against German economic intransigence and French political incompetence.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
            Common travel area is pretty much just a glorified visa free agreement between the ROI and the UK. It doesn't help with trade all that much - nor does it actually matter with the four freedoms either (traveling ain't in it, what those four freedom refer to with freedom of movement is quite a bit different). It is even much more narrow in scope than for example the Nordic Passport Union.
            There is much greater freedom of movement between the ROI and the UK than exists in the EUs 'four freedoms' The Irish can vote in UK General Elections (and vice versa?). I wonder when that will be extended as a right in the EU bloc.


            What you are forgetting with the argument of 'no wall' is that i doubt very much that any one wants there to be a physical wall - however it is a direct consequence of the UK's decision to leave the EU that there will be a requirement to have the border checks and especially custom checks (not the least due to WTO's MFN clause). The decision to which lead to that requirement (i.e. to quit both the SM and the CU without system equivalent to the backstop in place) was British so that is also who will be seen as the side which caused there to be a need for the checks - and not honouring the GFA, even though AFAIK the GFA does not explicitly state it requires open borders several things in its assume that it is there and can't really function without it.
            Sigh. See https://www.gov.uk/government/public...position-paper

            All the border issues can be resolved providing their is a sprit of friendly co-operation and a willingness to do so.

            If a case is ever brought to the WTO, or even to the ECJ, I think you'll find that the British propositions will be found to be far more in keeping with EU treaties than the EU Commissions case is!

            To wit: "
            1. The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation. 2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the Union may conclude specific agreements with the countries concerned. These agreements may contain reciprocal rights and obligations as well as the possibility of undertaking activities jointly.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
              There is much greater freedom of movement between the ROI and the UK than exists in the EUs 'four freedoms' The Irish can vote in UK General Elections (and vice versa?). I wonder when that will be extended as a right in the EU bloc.
              You should check the Nordic Passport Union - it is also far more extensive than the freedom of movement from the EU's four freedoms and even extends outside of the EU. I mean CTA is not something unique. Traditionally such residents are eligible to vote in local elections in the country they happen to reside in but not in the parliamentary elections for the fairly obvious reasons.
              All the border issues can be resolved providing their is a sprit of friendly co-operation and a willingness to do so.
              Not quite. Reason being that the EU can not agree to something which would undermine the basic structures of the EU. Furthermore the EU can not agree to something which would otherwise expose it (like leaving borders open without explicit agreements). So in other words while issues can be resolved in the spirit of friendly co-operation that doesn't mean that everything would be possible.
              1. The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation. 2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the Union may conclude specific agreements with the countries concerned. These agreements may contain reciprocal rights and obligations as well as the possibility of undertaking activities jointly.
              And? That is pretty much what the withdrawal agreement and the possibly following trade agreement are all about. Only case when the suggested backstop take place is if the EU and the UK would be unable to resolve the issues. Besides is is the UK's 'red lines' which are causing havoc with these. For example the EU is quite fine with the customs union with the UK but that is not acceptable for the UK.
              It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                The Irish can vote in UK General Elections (and vice versa?). I wonder when that will be extended as a right in the EU bloc.
                The Irish cannot vote in UK elections. Irish citizens who are resident in the UK and registered to vote there may vote. UK citizens who are resident in Ireland and registered to vote here may vote in local, parliamentary and European elections, although the last one may change soon. Irish citizens who do not live in Ireland cannot vote in Ireland; no representation without taxation. EU citizens who live in Ireland and are registered to vote here may vote in local and European elections but not in Parliamentary elections. Only Irish citizens who live in Ireland may vote in constitutional referendums.


                "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
                validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
                "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
                  I mean CTA is not something unique. Traditionally such residents are eligible to vote in local elections in the country they happen to reside in but not in the parliamentary elections for the fairly obvious reasons.
                  Irish citizens resident in the UK can vote in UK general elections, and indeed in referenda.

                  Not quite. Reason being that the EU can not agree to something which would undermine the basic structures of the EU. Furthermore the EU can not agree to something which would otherwise expose it (like leaving borders open without explicit agreements). So in other words while issues can be resolved in the spirit of friendly co-operation that doesn't mean that everything would be possible.
                  How would any of the the British ideas on the border undermine the 'the basic structures of the EU'?

                  And? That is pretty much what the withdrawal agreement and the possibly following trade agreement are all about. Only case when the suggested backstop take place is if the EU and the UK would be unable to resolve the issues. Besides is is the UK's 'red lines' which are causing havoc with these. For example the EU is quite fine with the customs union with the UK but that is not acceptable for the UK.
                  You think the EU Commission is negotiating with the idea of good neighbourliness and prosperity in mind?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
                    UK citizens who are resident in Ireland and registered to vote here may vote in local, parliamentary and European elections, although the last one may change soon.
                    Can't UK citizens resident in Ireland vote in Irish general elections and referenda? Seems a bit unfair if they don't.

                    One wonders how many Irish citizens voted in the UK referendum on EU membership ...

                    Edit, D'oh! Missed the Parliamentary (the Dail?) bit.

                    So yes, the UKs and Irelands relationship in that respect goes quite beyond that of the EUs.

                    If we trust each other enough to allow us to vote in each others elections I am pretty sure we can come up with a decent solution on the border issues.

                    Of course it would have been better to have sorted out the Trade issues first so we would have a better idea of what we are dealing with!
                    Last edited by Gooner; 28 Jan 19, 06:38.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gooner View Post


                      If we trust each other enough to allow us to vote in each others elections I am pretty sure we can come up with a decent solution on the border issues.

                      Of course it would have been better to have sorted out the Trade issues first so we would have a better idea of what we are dealing with!
                      From a trade and customs perspective this is between the UK and the EU. The fact that the border is between Ireland and Northern Ireland brings in another set of issues. The Backstop is an undertaking that those other political and social issues are put front and center in any trade negotiations.

                      When the UK wants to remove/change/limit that Backstop gives the impression that they want the freedom to ignore those very political and social issues, i.e. they will sacrifice the political wellbeing and security of the people of Northern Ireland in order to have a more advantageous outcome for the people of Great Britain.

                      Since Brexit is primarily an English thing it also means that history casts a shadow on proceedings and, just as Brexit has stirred up English nationalism it has also stirred up anti-English sentiment in the parts of the UK which opposed Brexit. In other words this is emotionally charged on both sides which is not a good thing for anyone concerned and the bombastic and jingoistic rhetoric from some prominent Brexiteers doesn't help.

                      "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
                      validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
                      "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post

                        If the UK leaves without a deal they will be required, under WTO rules, to have a customs border between them and the EU.
                        Nonsense. There is no requirement to have a hard border under wto rules.
                        The Irish may choose to put up one to please their masters in Brussels.
                        "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Surrey View Post

                          Nonsense. There is no requirement to have a hard border under wto rules.
                          The Irish may choose to put up one to please their masters in Brussels.
                          That's the sort of hyperbole that has made this process so difficult.
                          Ireland, like all other EU member States, has signed up to mutual agreements. Using language like the above just sounds like jingoistic nonsense.


                          The UK is perfectly within its rights under WTO rules not to put up a border between it and the EU and so; no border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
                          The problem is that if it does so (or doesn't so, as the case may be) then it cannot put up borders with any other WTO countries. So, no borders and frictionless, taffirless trade with the Ireland and the EU means the same must apply with all other WTO countries.


                          The only practical way around this is to cite Article 21 of the GATT which allows exceptions based n national security considerations. That might enable GB and NI to be treated differently as the GFA is a recognised international agreement but that is exactly what the DUP are opposing and they are the king-makers (or queen-makers) in Westminster at the moment. It is also untested in law so as things stand if Irish beef can walk across the border into Northern Ireland then Brazilian beef must be allowed into the UK under the same rules.
                          "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
                          validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
                          "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
                            The Backstop is an undertaking that those other political and social issues are put front and center in any trade negotiations.
                            It already was, see UK Position Paper.

                            When the UK wants to remove/change/limit that Backstop gives the impression that they want the freedom to ignore those very political and social issues, i.e. they will sacrifice the political wellbeing and security of the people of Northern Ireland in order to have a more advantageous outcome for the people of Great Britain.
                            That is bollocks. See above.

                            Who willingly signs an agreement only one party can amend? A vassal perhaps. The unlimited backstop has to go if the EU wants a deal.

                            Since Brexit is primarily an English thing
                            Wales voted for Brexit too.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
                              The only practical way around this is to cite Article 21 of the GATT which allows exceptions based n national security considerations. That might enable GB and NI to be treated differently as the GFA is a recognised international agreement but that is exactly what the DUP are opposing and they are the king-makers (or queen-makers) in Westminster at the moment.
                              The DUP aren't opposing the GFA (anymore) they are opposing Northern Ireland being treated differently to the rest of the United Kingdom.

                              It is also untested in law so as things stand if Irish beef can walk across the border into Northern Ireland then Brazilian beef must be allowed into the UK under the same rules.
                              A good reason why the trade negotiations between the UK and EU should already have begun!
                              But even so forms will still have to be filled in, tariffs (if the EU decides to go that route) will still have to be paid, and standards still have to be kept. They just won't be happening at the border.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post

                                That's the sort of hyperbole that has made this process so difficult.
                                Ireland, like all other EU member States, has signed up to mutual agreements. Using language like the above just sounds like jingoistic nonsense.


                                The UK is perfectly within its rights under WTO rules not to put up a border between it and the EU and so; no border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
                                The problem is that if it does so (or doesn't so, as the case may be) then it cannot put up borders with any other WTO countries. So, no borders and frictionless, taffirless trade with the Ireland and the EU means the same must apply with all other WTO countries.


                                The only practical way around this is to cite Article 21 of the GATT which allows exceptions based n national security considerations. That might enable GB and NI to be treated differently as the GFA is a recognised international agreement but that is exactly what the DUP are opposing and they are the king-makers (or queen-makers) in Westminster at the moment. It is also untested in law so as things stand if Irish beef can walk across the border into Northern Ireland then Brazilian beef must be allowed into the UK under the same rules.
                                I believe in free trade. Not that fussed about tariffs.
                                "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X