A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

So your definition of free movement is one where you can only cross on foot?

Ask the Gibraltarians how does that work for them.

Obviously you don’t understand what I wrote, the checks were purely customs checks pre 65 due to smuggling of goods across the border in vehicles and vehicles were temporarily imported, these restrictions were reduced when the Irish-Anglo trade agreement of 65 came into force.

Once again the restrictions were not on free movement of iritcitzens from North to South but on customs complains with regulations at the time.

No, you're not understanding me. I'm speaking about the practicalities of a border. People were stopped and checked. It was a border in every conceivable sense.

That's why freedom of movement for people is in practical terms useless unless it comes with freedom of goods. Any person can conceivably carry potentially commercial quantities of goods on their person.

A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Of course the WTO will not tell you how to enforce a border, it's a trade not a policing authority.

What they will do is open the gates for everyone to throw the book at you for not doing enough to control your borders. If your only hope hinges on getting an exception well, let's just say the UK will be getting a taste of the glacial pace and heavy fines of the WTO (which probably works just fine for the current British leadership, they know they'll just be dumping it on following Prime Ministers).

No. WTO Article XXI Security Exceptions prevents any member from taking action against another state in order to maintain international peace and security.

Isn’t that what the GFA is manifestly about to prevent the troubles and intent of the security exceptions

Well, you may want to ask Ukraine why they challenged Russia's use of an art. XXI exception. Or the Qatar-UAE that's still pending decision. Or the USA measures on steel and aluminium (where XXI was used) that has been challenged by just about everyone.

noviorbis77 wrote:

People have a democratic choice to vote for them. Their manifesto will be forthcoming. Watch this space.

Democracy, ha, there's a nice notion. Would be great if we had it back again.

Oh we will. It will be very interesting to see if he has changed his mind on gun ownership and privatisation of the NHS. If he has changed his mind on these issues, which he will have to do for the Brexit 'Party' to get MP's elected (if people bother reading manifesto's or understanding what people stand for any more), it will be highly amusing he can change his mind on these topics, but other people can't change their mind on Brexit. Just getting in there early to pre-empt the hypocrisy.

[

Reinhardt wrote:

1/ The Brexit Party is a not a party in the tradiitonal setup, it is a Limited Company.
2/ There are no members, only people who donate money. Members have no say over the direction of policy.
3/ Nigel Farage is the Director. He has overall control of the 'Party' and there is no way to remove him as you could in a normal party.
4/ They have no manifesto.
5/ They accepted funding through PayPal. The Electoral Comission has told them to check all funds to ensure they only come from UK resident sources. I and most people who don't trust Farage one inch, suspect this was deliberate and they knew full well they were receiving funds from non UK sources. The Electoral Comission's findings, don't go far enough.

1. This is correct.
2. Again, correct. I find this problematic. I was happy to vote for them in European Elections, but I did not donate money and nor shall I without any representation or voice.
3. Again, correct, although the argument could be made that such tight control was necessary to get a new party off the ground in time for the Euro Elections.
4. Not in the traditional sense. They held a "Big Vision" rally in Birmingham last weekend and began to outline some national policies. Unfortunately, it was mostly knee-jerk nonsense, like cutting Foreign Aid arbitrarily in half and scrapping HS2 (the planned high-speed rail link between London and Birmingham/Manchester/Leeds). I couldn't vote for any of these things at a General Election.
5. Nothing unusual about this. Other parties do it too up to a certain amount. It is also common on the Continent. The CSU in Germany, for example, allows donations via PayPal. There was nothing for the Electoral Commission to find, and since it is an independent body, I am quite satisfied that they investigated thoroughly.

KLDC10 wrote:

3. Again, correct, although the argument could be made that such tight control was necessary to get a new party off the ground in time for the Euro Elections.

I think it's purely so he can't get kicked out. So what happened at UKIP can't happen again.

KLDC10 wrote:

4. Not in the traditional sense. They held a "Big Vision" rally in Birmingham last weekend and began to outline some national policies. Unfortunately, it was mostly knee-jerk nonsense, like cutting Foreign Aid arbitrarily in half and scrapping HS2 (the planned high-speed rail link between London and Birmingham/Manchester/Leeds). I couldn't vote for any of these things at a General Election.

Yes i saw some footage, and turned off immediately after hearing air raid siren sounds.
The make up of the audience was very telling.

KLDC10 wrote:

5. Nothing unusual about this. Other parties do it too up to a certain amount. It is also common on the Continent. The CSU in Germany, for example, allows donations via PayPal. There was nothing for the Electoral Commission to find, and since it is an independent body, I am quite satisfied that they investigated thoroughly.

Doesn't matter what the CSU does in Germany, we're talking about UK election / funding law.

EC Commission report:

We have concluded that the fundraising structure adopted by the party leaves it open to a high and ongoing risk of receiving and accepting impermissible donations.

We have made recommendations that will, if implemented by the party, achieve and maintain robust procedures for receiving funds and help it comply with its legal requirements.

Doesn't say they have received foreign based payments, but isn't remotely impressed by the systems in place or the fact they definately haven't had payments from non-uk residents. Newspapers sucessfully sent funds with Paypal account details not in the UK.

Reinhardt wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

5. Nothing unusual about this. Other parties do it too up to a certain amount. It is also common on the Continent. The CSU in Germany, for example, allows donations via PayPal. There was nothing for the Electoral Commission to find, and since it is an independent body, I am quite satisfied that they investigated thoroughly.

Doesn't matter what the CSU does in Germany, we're talking about UK election / funding law.

It really doesn't matter in deed, because donations by foreigners are not illegal in Germany.

- there is no limit on donations from EU citizens
- there is a 1000€ limit on donations by non-EU citizens
- there is a 500€ limit on anonymous donations

So really irrelevant....

Best regards
Thomas

JJJ wrote:

No, you're not understanding me. I'm speaking about the practicalities of a border. People were stopped and checked. It was a border in every conceivable sense.

No I understands perfectly what you are saying, but it dosnt diminish the fact the Irish had free movement across the Irish border just a custom check point for regulatory requirements in force at the time

JJJ wrote:

That's why freedom of movement for people is in practical terms useless unless it comes with freedom of goods. Any person can conceivably carry potentially commercial quantities of goods on their person.

No it’s free movement is there wether or not you choose to bring goods in that is subject to regulatory requirements is the individual choice Knowingly That the goods are subject to inspections

JJJ wrote:

Well, you may want to ask Ukraine why they challenged Russia's use of an art. XXI exception. Or the Qatar-UAE that's still pending decision. Or the USA measures on steel and aluminium (where XXI was used) that has been challenged by just about everyone.

Mmmm.........”According to the Panel, an “emergency in international relations” is a “situation of armed conflict, or of a latent armed conflict, or of heightened tension or crisis, or of general instability engulfing or surrounding a state“. The Panel was satisfied that the situation between Ukraine and Russia since 2014 constituted such an emergency. Since the measures were adopted between November 2014 and July 2016, they were clearly “taken in the time of” that emergency, thereby meeting the requirements of Article XXI(b)(iii).”

tommy1808 wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

5. Nothing unusual about this. Other parties do it too up to a certain amount. It is also common on the Continent. The CSU in Germany, for example, allows donations via PayPal. There was nothing for the Electoral Commission to find, and since it is an independent body, I am quite satisfied that they investigated thoroughly.

Doesn't matter what the CSU does in Germany, we're talking about UK election / funding law.

It really doesn't matter in deed, because donations by foreigners are not illegal in Germany.

- there is no limit on donations from EU citizens
- there is a 1000€ limit on donations by non-EU citizens
- there is a 500€ limit on anonymous donations

So really irrelevant....

Best regards
Thomas

I’m merely pointing out that it is a common way of soliciting donations. The most salient part of my replies was “other parties do it too”. Perhaps it would have been clearer to write “other British parties do it too.”

noviorbis77 wrote:

We’ve had a vote. We do not need another one. Is this concept so difficult to understand.

Funny. And here I always thought democracy was when you could vote more than once, especially if some years down the road you actually changed your mind!

And are you another one who think the Brexit party have the same long term ambitions as the Nazi party?

It is aggressively xenophobic, uses fear and hatred of others as its primary emotional propaganda instruments, shifting blame for absolutely everything gone wrong in their own country to those presumably "evil" others – the rethoric is so eerily similar it's getting insane – but only if you actually know anything about what happened back then.

Does the Brexit Party advocate mass murder? Not at this point, but what is usually the consequence of hateful blame-shifting to some random group of others once the heads of that movement run out of other ways to keep a grip of their followers? It doesn't tend to end well.

Jo Cox was just the first murder victim driven by that hatred. Are you sure she'll remain the only one?

A101 wrote:

That’s an overview of the GFA but you haven’t actually said how we are in violation.

The UK veering away from the EU in standards and regulations forces a controlled border.

I do not see any security borders going up

Because you've not left and diverged – yet.

in fact as you are well a aware the ROI/UK concluded a new travel agreement

You're grasping at straws in the hope of keeping a highway bridge from collapsing. Any agreements between the ROI and the UK are contingent on what the future relationship actually will be.

Klaus wrote:

You'll find that claim to be a lot harder to establish than apparently expected.

If you think that then obviously then there is no need for the backstop and the GFA as that statement seems to suggest that the security situation is stable and will remain the same.

So what is a legitimate security situation you believe would justify a nation invoking the WTO Article XXI Security Exceptions

When the UK itself takes measures (Brexit and divergence from the EU) in full knowledge of thereby violating a standing peace treaty it automatically forfeits any subsequent demands for keeping that same border open after themselves creating the need for that border to be closed.

Outright desperate, dishonest gabling with the lives of the people in Ireland (North and South) like that is exactly the kind of behaviour which will make any future agreements with not just the EU but also other countries a lot harder to achieve and a lot less benefician in the results.

Boeing74741R wrote:

The only certainty you will get from Corbyn is more waffle and flip-flopping whilst Labour continue to demonstrate just how divided they are on the issue and have their head stuck in in the sand over how (un)achievable their supposed alternative policy is.

No contest about that – the only way the Tories are still in power has been Corbyn's absolutely spectacular failure to lead anything like a competent opposition.

Him being an avowed Leaver against the vast majority of his own party's membership and (ahem!) remaining voters hasn't helped matters much either.

Reinhardt wrote:

I think it's purely so he can't get kicked out. So what happened at UKIP can't happen again.

I don’t wish to paint with too broad a brush here, but that may not be the worst thing. Parties like UKIP tend to attract some of the more, shall we say, “fringe elements”. Farage’s departure from his former party proved that, if anything, he was the moderating influence because it quickly fell to the hard right and as such has become largely irrelevant.

Reinhardt wrote:

Yes i saw some footage, and turned off immediately after hearing air raid siren sounds.
The make up of the audience was very telling.

Oh. Well then you missed the glow sticks later on

Boeing74741R wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Boeing74741R wrote:

By all means mock those who voted for this and call them out on their BS claims as they need to be held accountable, but have people forgotten that 16.1m didn't vote for this when sneering at us over it all?

The whole Brexit campaign was built on lies, all of it. The Brittish public has been lied to by the Brittish press corps, or at least part of them, Boris Johnson is the perfect example for this of course. And the Brexitremist continue to lie. So blaming the people whom voted for Brexit and radicalized to Brexitremist doesn't help us a bit. Blaming the people whom continue to tell lies - Rees-Mogg, Raab, Johnson, Hunt, Farage are quite vocal in this - should be held responsible for dissolving billions of economic growth, and putting tens of millions at a disadvantage, and this for self-glory and perhaps even more egocentric or economic reasons, but I cannot speculate on that.

I completely agree, especially when you consider those who may have voted to leave at the time but are now on record saying they would vote to remain if they could turn the clock back or given the choice again.

The British people have had the opportunity to stop Brexit by voting pro-EU in the EU parliamentary elections less than two months ago. The did not take that opportunity so it is time to stop complaining and just accept the consequences.

AeroVega wrote:

The British people have had the opportunity to stop Brexit by voting pro-EU in the EU parliamentary elections less than two months ago. The did not take that opportunity so it is time to stop complaining and just accept the consequences.

That is bullocks, remain got more voted than Brexit, but that doesn't mean Brexit will be stopped.

Dutchy wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

The British people have had the opportunity to stop Brexit by voting pro-EU in the EU parliamentary elections less than two months ago. The did not take that opportunity so it is time to stop complaining and just accept the consequences.

That is bullocks, remain got more voted than Brexit, but that doesn't mean Brexit will be stopped.

No they didn’t.

Remoaners conveniently forgot to add the vote of the Labour Party even though they are committed to delivering Brexit.

Why must people keep making up false stories?

Klaus wrote:

The UK veering away from the EU in standards and regulations forces a controlled border.

Where in the GFA does it state the UK must be aligned with EU standards and regulations?

Klaus wrote:

Because you've not left and diverged – yet.

Has the UK government been quoted that a hard(armed) security border will be established?

Now that would be in violation of the GFA

Klaus wrote:

You're grasping at straws in the hope of keeping a highway bridge from collapsing. Any agreements between the ROI and the UK are contingent on what the future relationship actually will be.

Nope you are wrong again.......”The British and Irish governments have signed an agreement that formally outlines the provisions of the Common Travel Area (CTA) once it leaves the EU”

As reported in the Irish times Thu, May 9, 2019, 10:54

And this certainly respects the GFA

Klaus wrote:

When the UK itself takes measures (Brexit and divergence from the EU) in full knowledge of thereby violating a standing peace treaty it automatically forfeits any subsequent demands for keeping that same border open after themselves creating the need for that border to be closed.

The UK has respected the GFA as you know this because you have yet to state where we are in violation of the agreement, the GFA will be respected on the UK side of the border but the EU seems heel bent on making accusations that we are not respecting it when we are going abouve and beyond in trying to make the border as frictionless as possabile when the EU refuse to collaborate.

Klaus wrote:

Outright desperate, dishonest gabling with the lives of the people in Ireland (North and South) like that is exactly the kind of behaviour which will make any future agreements with not just the EU but also other countries a lot harder to achieve and a lot less benefician in the results.

Nope actions speak louder than words and it seems that the EU is using empty rhetoric, the UK is using all legally defined measures that are avalible to it but it seems the EU is trying with all its might to sabotage a result it does not like that was which a democratic elected government is trying to make good on the manifesto of honouring the result of a referenda

Dutchy wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

The British people have had the opportunity to stop Brexit by voting pro-EU in the EU parliamentary elections less than two months ago. The did not take that opportunity so it is time to stop complaining and just accept the consequences.

That is bullocks, remain got more voted than Brexit, but that doesn't mean Brexit will be stopped.

Funny then how the Brexit party received majority of the seats


Remainers are so deeply attached to the EU why didn’t they win in a landslide

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

The British people have had the opportunity to stop Brexit by voting pro-EU in the EU parliamentary elections less than two months ago. The did not take that opportunity so it is time to stop complaining and just accept the consequences.

That is bullocks, remain got more voted than Brexit, but that doesn't mean Brexit will be stopped.

Funny then how the Brexit party received majority of the seats

Funny how someone who does not live in the UK seems to know that Labour have come out as a remain party.

Amazing how people who do not live in the UK, seem to know more about the UK than those that live there LOL.

AeroVega wrote:

The British people have had the opportunity to stop Brexit by voting pro-EU in the EU parliamentary elections less than two months ago. The did not take that opportunity so it is time to stop complaining and just accept the consequences.

Since there are no pro-remain parties with any shot of doing anything meaningful about Brexit that ain't even bullsh*t, its horsesh*t.

Best regards
Thomas

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

The UK veering away from the EU in standards and regulations forces a controlled border.

Where in the GFA does it state the UK must be aligned with EU standards and regulations?

It doesn't need to. The EU treaties, freedom of movement and alignment of standards are what made GFA possible. The UK makes a decision that makes maintaining the GFA impossible, and leaving the common market does exactly that, they break the treaty. Just like it isn't the floor that breaks a glass, it is you dropping it. Even if the EU sets up the border, they have to because EU countries have to protect outside borders, the UK knows that and voted for it, it is still the UK in violation of the GFA. If the UK insists on it illegal course, the Hague will explain that in great detail in short order.

Best regards
Thomas

Dutchy wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

The British people have had the opportunity to stop Brexit by voting pro-EU in the EU parliamentary elections less than two months ago. The did not take that opportunity so it is time to stop complaining and just accept the consequences.

That is bullocks, remain got more voted than Brexit, but that doesn't mean Brexit will be stopped.

When given the opportunity to express their preference in an official poll, less than 15% of the British electorate voted for one of the Remain parties (LibDem, Greens, SNP, Change UK).

But somehow, you and tommy continue to argue that, if given another chance, the British people would stop Brexit. Well, they had that chance already, and they did not.

tommy1808 wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

The British people have had the opportunity to stop Brexit by voting pro-EU in the EU parliamentary elections less than two months ago. The did not take that opportunity so it is time to stop complaining and just accept the consequences.

Since there are no pro-remain parties with any shot of doing anything meaningful about Brexit that ain't even bullsh*t, its horsesh*t.

Best regards
Thomas

I can assure you that if even 40% of the British electorate had voted pro-remain in the EU parliamentary elections then a new vote on Brexit would be unavoidable. But, alas, less than 15% did.

Time to move on.

AeroVega wrote:

I can assure you that if even 40% of the British electorate had voted pro-remain in the EU parliamentary elections then a new vote on Brexit would be unavoidable. .

thats cute. Any Brexit deal, even if it means not having any deal at all, would make a new vote unavoidable because none of it was even remotely voted on. People voted on unlimited, unchanged access to the common market, making their own standards and trade rule, get rid of freedom of movement, none of which will or even could be delivered at once.
Yet whatever deal the UK citizens get is 100% top-down forced. The ONLY reason there is no vote on the exit conditions is that there won´t be a Brexit if people got a vote on what they end up getting....

Time to move on.

In deed, on that day in March it should have been "Oh, you don´t want to leave yet? You can withdraw your Art. 50 notification until 23:59, we make sure someone is guarding the phone just in case".

But we all know the call would have come, Brexit would not have happened, and the obstructionists would still have a say in the EU. Better grand an extension and make sure they leave prepared.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

The UK veering away from the EU in standards and regulations forces a controlled border.

Where in the GFA does it state the UK must be aligned with EU standards and regulations?

It doesn't need to. The EU treaties, freedom of movement and alignment of standards are what made GFA possible. The UK makes a decision that makes maintaining the GFA impossible, and leaving the common market does exactly that, they break the treaty. Just like it isn't the floor that breaks a glass, it is you dropping it. Even if the EU sets up the border, they have to because EU countries have to protect outside borders, the UK knows that and voted for it, it is still the UK in violation of the GFA. If the UK insists on it illegal course, the Hague will explain that in great detail in short order.

Best regards
Thomas

Of course it needs to define such things as it’s an international agreement, by your interpretation it’s the EU treaties that underpin the agreement, the basic tenet of being in the EU is being able to withdraw from it, no where in the GFA says that the UK must stay in regulatory alignment the only recourse on the border is that it does not become an armed security border, by all means take it to the Hague and they can only adjudicate on what is written in the actual agreement, not what you have transposed

A101 wrote:

No it’s free movement is there wether or not you choose to bring goods in that is subject to regulatory requirements is the individual choice Knowingly That the goods are subject to inspections

So, again, a border. A border where you will be checked. I bring you again the Gibraltar case, there's freedom of movement both for Gibraltarians into the EU and Spaniards into Gibraltar. There's still a border and occasional long lines for cars and commercial vehicles.

JJJ wrote:

Well, you may want to ask Ukraine why they challenged Russia's use of an art. XXI exception. Or the Qatar-UAE that's still pending decision. Or the USA measures on steel and aluminium (where XXI was used) that has been challenged by just about everyone.

Mmmm.........”According to the Panel, an “emergency in international relations” is a “situation of armed conflict, or of a latent armed conflict, or of heightened tension or crisis, or of general instability engulfing or surrounding a state“. The Panel was satisfied that the situation between Ukraine and Russia since 2014 constituted such an emergency. Since the measures were adopted between November 2014 and July 2016, they were clearly “taken in the time of” that emergency, thereby meeting the requirements of Article XXI(b)(iii).”

So they were challenged, and went to court., and there was a decision.

I notice you clipped the other two cases where multiple parties challenged, and decisions are still pending.

JJJ wrote:

So, again, a border. A border where you will be checked. I bring you again the Gibraltar case, there's freedom of movement both for Gibraltarians into the EU and Spaniards into Gibraltar. There's still a border and occasional long lines for cars and commercial vehicles.

And the defining differential is that Gibraltar is not part of the Schengen zone and therefore Spain is obliged to carry out checks on persons and on goods in accordance of EU law

JJJ wrote:

So they were challenged, and went to court., and there was a decision.

And the decision didn't go in Ukraine favour Russia was well within its rights to implement the Security Exception

JJJ wrote:

I notice you clipped the other two cases where multiple parties challenged, and decisions are still pending.

Challenged what?

Are you talking about pending WTO proceedings invoking the security exception between the EU China against the US, or the Qatar/Saudi Arabia dispute

A101 wrote:

Of course it needs to define such things as it’s an international agreement, by your interpretation it’s the EU treaties that underpin the agreement, the basic tenet of being in the EU is being able to withdraw from it, no where in the GFA says that the UK must stay in regulatory alignment the only recourse on the border is that it does not become an armed security border, by all means take it to the Hague and they can only adjudicate on what is written in the actual agreement, not what you have transposed

The UK deliberately shooting out the foundation from under the GFA would be a blatant act of bad faith towards an international peace treaty and would correspondingly damage the UK's standing in any future negotiations even further than it already is because it would demonstrate what the UK's given word is worth: Pretty much nothing.

Cheap argumentative tricks have no remedial value there when the actual substance is rotten to the core.

Klaus wrote:

The UK deliberately shooting out the foundation from under the GFA would be a blatant act of bad faith towards an international peace treaty and would correspondingly damage the UK's standing in any future negotiations even further than it already is because it would demonstrate what the UK's given word is worth: Pretty much nothing.

Cheap argumentative tricks have no remedial value there when the actual substance is rotten to the core.

There are no cheap argumentative tricks, I have only been dealing in facts from the GFA, so far you haven't countered anything I have said with any substance or proved were are in violation of the GFA.

A101 wrote:

There are no cheap argumentative tricks,

Your whole argumentation is the attempt to handwave away the explicit act of bad faith constituted by the deliberate destruction of the basis on which the GFA rests.

The assumption of good faith is one of the pillars on which most international treaties rest and that applies to trade agreements as well. Once you've shot that out from under you, life gets much more expensive fast.

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

There are no cheap argumentative tricks,

Your whole argumentation is the attempt to handwave away the explicit act of bad faith constituted by the deliberate destruction of the basis on which the GFA rests.

The assumption of good faith is one of the pillars on which most international treaties rest and that applies to trade agreements as well. Once you've shot that out from under you, life gets much more expensive fast.

No bad faith is involved what's so ever, the UK is within rights and no violation of the treaty has occurred,and is doing everything within its power to insure that the principles of the GFA are upheld. This whole process is entirely dependent not just on technical solutions but on political will and collaboration from both sides of the border

A101 wrote:

No bad faith is involved what's so ever, the UK is within rights and no violation of the treaty has occurred,and is doing everything within its power to insure that the principles of the GFA are upheld. This whole process is entirely dependent not just on technical solutions but on political will and collaboration from both sides of the border

Leavers keep treating Brexit as some kind of inevitable force of nature which just can't be helped, but it actually remains a deliberate political act which is perpetrated by UK politicians, and it has very real and very serious consequences, the active undermining of the Good Friday Agreement among them.

I know that this fact is very inconvenient to any Leaver, but so are most other facts as well.

Klaus wrote:

Leavers keep treating Brexit as some kind of inevitable force of nature which just can't be helped, but it actually remains a deliberate political act which is perpetrated by UK politicians, and it has very real and very serious consequences, the active undermining of the Good Friday Agreement among them.

I know that this fact is very inconvenient to any Leaver, but so are most other facts as well.

No, the deliberate act as you put it was to give the electorate a say in the direction of the UK which is a key tenet of being a democratic nation, where the citizens exercise power by voting on matters of national importance at the discretion of the government, The 2016 referenda gave the government a legitimate mandate and authority to act in a certain way as per the question put to the electorate and that was to leave the EU under the provisions in Article 50.

The international treaty provision in the treaty of Lisbon and with no provisions on regulatory alignment within the Good Friday Agreement allows the UK to do just that.

Seems that British incompetence is hitting an all-time high. How can confidential correspondence between an Ambassador and its civil servants, which will impact the UK-USA relationship, leak out? It looks like not only the UK government is out of control, but also its employees.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7220335/Britains-man-says-Trump-inept-Cables-ambassador-say-dysfunctional.html

LJ wrote:

Seems that British incompetence is hitting an all-time high. How can confidential correspondence between an Ambassador and its civil servants, which will impact the UK-USA relationship, leak out? It looks like not only the UK government is out of control, but also its employees.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7220335/Britains-man-says-Trump-inept-Cables-ambassador-say-dysfunctional.html

Not the 1st time and won’t be the last time someone leaks confidential memos when someone’s got a beef

The backstop issue was resolved and agreed by the UK government years ago. Long before the withdrawal agreement was discussed.

BestWestern wrote:

The backstop issue was resolved and agreed by the UK government years ago. Long before the withdrawal agreement was discussed.

Really, care to elaborate

A101 wrote:

BestWestern wrote:

The backstop issue was resolved and agreed by the UK government years ago. Long before the withdrawal agreement was discussed.

Really, care to elaborate

Of course.

https://fullfact.org/europe/irish-backstop/


https://www.google.com.hk/amp/s/www.bbc ... s-44615404

LJ wrote:

Seems that British incompetence is hitting an all-time high. How can confidential correspondence between an Ambassador and its civil servants, which will impact the UK-USA relationship, leak out? It looks like not only the UK government is out of control, but also its employees.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7220335/Britains-man-says-Trump-inept-Cables-ambassador-say-dysfunctional.html

Read about this today, and auch. This could hurt British - American relationships at a crucial time. The current occupant of the White House will not take this correct assessment lightly, given his temper, he will not look favorable towards a trade deal after Brexit.

LJ wrote:

Seems that British incompetence is hitting an all-time high. How can confidential correspondence between an Ambassador and its civil servants, which will impact the UK-USA relationship, leak out? It looks like not only the UK government is out of control, but also its employees.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7220335/Britains-man-says-Trump-inept-Cables-ambassador-say-dysfunctional.html

Read about this today, and auch. This could hurt British - American relationships at a crucial time. The current occupant of the White House will not take this correct assessment lightly, given his temper, he will not look favorable towards a trade deal after Brexit.

The Moscow handlers have told their Brexit spokespersons what the red line is. They must deny that the GFA is in peril. This is the simplest explanation. There may be another, but we haven't found anything.

The UK is been seen as an unreliable negotiator - one that agrees to a compromise and then changes their mind soon afterwards.

This is the most frustrating style of negotiations as it never ends until one side says enough of the negotiations.

Agreeing to the British border issue was a prerequisite to stating negotiations on the withdrawal agreement.

Like the boy who cried wolf, the EU are tired of this. It doesn’t help when the boy is calling those he wants to negotiate with ‘turds’.

BestWestern wrote:

A101 wrote:

BestWestern wrote:

The backstop issue was resolved and agreed by the UK government years ago. Long before the withdrawal agreement was discussed.

Really, care to elaborate

Of course.

https://fullfact.org/europe/irish-backstop/


https://www.google.com.hk/amp/s/www.bbc ... s-44615404

So it wasn’t negotiated long before the WA, but during negotiations. So your basic assertion is wrong.

Gee here I thought you were talking about some sort of pre negotiations before A50 was invoked

My basic assertion is correct. It was a prerequisite that the British border issues were resolved prior to the WA negotiations could commence.

This was in 2017. Since 2017, nobody in the UK government has come up with an acceptable alternative to what was negotiated and agreed to.

BestWestern wrote:

The UK is been seen as an unreliable negotiator - one that agrees to a compromise and then changes their mind soon afterwards.

No TM didn’t change her mind did she, she pushed and pushed for it, but a little thing called parliment saw it was a bad deal and decided not to ratify it, it also just dosnt happen in the UK, it’s just the Brexit is a huge news story and all the eyes of the world are watching

BestWestern wrote:

Agreeing to the British border issue was a prerequisite to stating negotiations on the withdrawal agreement.

No it wasn’t it was the EU who brought it up first in
working paper byMichel Barnier's team 8th Nov 2017.

BestWestern wrote:

My basic assertion is correct. It was a prerequisite that the British border issues were resolved prior to the WA negotiations could commence.

This was in 2017. Since 2017, nobody in the UK government has come up with an acceptable alternative to what was negotiated and agreed to.

Can you please provide sources for your claims

The British wanted the backstop and then said (mostly due to objections within the Tory party) "no, forget that bit". This is very widely documented; several senior Tories, including both of the current leadership candidates (Boris, most vocally) have said this. It was Boris who suggested an electronic system, but the technology simply isn't there. Their wants are clearly inconsistent; they want to protect the soft border, but don't want the insurance policy. That's largely because of who is holding their leash - the DUP, who put the union above the votes of their electorate.

If for no other reason that it would get the DUP monkey off the Tories backs, the new Tory leader should seek a mandate; the fact that the lead candidate is openly calling for something parliament has rejected several times (a no deal Brexit) is another key reason why Boris should seek his own mandate.

A101 wrote:

No, the deliberate act as you put it was to give the electorate a say in the direction of the UK which is a key tenet of being a democratic nation, where the citizens exercise power by voting on matters of national importance at the discretion of the government, The 2016 referenda gave the government a legitimate mandate and authority to act in a certain way as per the question put to the electorate and that was to leave the EU under the provisions in Article 50.

The rest of the world doesn't care one bit what the domestic internal reasons are why the UK is threatening to switch from supporting the Good Friday Agreement to undermining it.

Only that the UK is threatening that is of any relevance.

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

No, the deliberate act as you put it was to give the electorate a say in the direction of the UK which is a key tenet of being a democratic nation, where the citizens exercise power by voting on matters of national importance at the discretion of the government, The 2016 referenda gave the government a legitimate mandate and authority to act in a certain way as per the question put to the electorate and that was to leave the EU under the provisions in Article 50.

The rest of the world doesn't care one bit what the domestic internal reasons are why the UK is threatening to switch from supporting the Good Friday Agreement to undermining it.

Only that the UK is threatening that is of any relevance.

I bit hypocritical isn’t it, you say the EU is all about being a rules based union, but when a democratic nation use the rules which underpins parliamentary process you don’t like it.

What do you want a country ruled by dictatorship or democratic values?

https://www.google.com.hk/amp/s/amp.the ... ens-rights

Source for above



http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/p ... ish-border

kaitak wrote:

The British wanted the backstop and then said (mostly due to objections within the Tory party) "no, forget that bit". This is very widely documented; several senior Tories, including both of the current leadership candidates (Boris, most vocally) have said this. It was Boris who suggested an electronic system, but the technology simply isn't there. Their wants are clearly inconsistent; they want to protect the soft border, but don't want the insurance policy. That's largely because of who is holding their leash - the DUP, who put the union above the votes of their electorate.

If for no other reason that it would get the DUP monkey off the Tories backs, the new Tory leader should seek a mandate; the fact that the lead candidate is openly calling for something parliament has rejected several times (a no deal Brexit) is another key reason why Boris should seek his own mandate.

The UK is happy to stay in regulatory alignment for the UK overall with a fixed time limit, not one that keeps us in the EU indefinitely, the only reason the UK being in the backstop in its entirety was to be for greater cohesion in UK sovereign territory

BestWestern wrote:

https://www.google.com.hk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/04/brexit-key-sticking-points-uk-divorce-deal-with-eu-irish-border-citizens-rights

Source for above



http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/p ... ish-border

Source for which claim?