A101
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:47 am

Klaus wrote:
A101 wrote:
No UK intent from the beginning has been to honour the GFA hence in the opening of negotiations that the UK would not place physical checks at the border

Tory politicians – notably including both contenders for the premiership! – categorically demand a timed fuse to be lit on the GFA, just blowing it up with some delay.

That is the opposite of what you're claiming, but given how embarrassing that reality is it is not surprising that you'd prefer everyone to forget it.

No such luck, though.



Timed fuse on the GFA??????
 
Klaus
Posts: 21229
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:23 am

A101 wrote:
Timed fuse on the GFA??????

That is exactly the demand by the Leave hardliners that's preventing the WA to be ratified in the Commons at this point because the EU won't accept that timed fuse on the GFA.
 
A101
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:37 am

Klaus wrote:
A101 wrote:
Timed fuse on the GFA??????

That is exactly the demand by the Leave hardliners that's preventing the WA to be ratified in the Commons at this point because the EU won't accept that timed fuse on the GFA.



Ah you mean a time limit on the WA, are you talking about the one the UK can only leave with the consent of the EU and goes against our parliamentary sovereignty on not binding your successor, I think that might have something to do with it don’t you :roll:
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:43 am

A101 wrote:
As per EU law?


?
How is that even relevant. No matter what law or treaty requires it, the UK voted for it.

As you know the GFA does say anything about a customs border so yes you can put it up if you want.


only if you can do with zero installations. Which you can´t. So stop that nonsense already.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
A101
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:22 am

tommy1808 wrote:

?
How is that even relevant. No matter what law or treaty requires it, the UK voted for it.



Relevant......... mmm EU law must be irrelevant than from an Irish perspective then.


tommy1808 wrote:

only if you can do with zero installations. Which you can´t. So stop that nonsense already.


:liar:
The only one talking nonsense is you, border customs check infrastructure are not security installations manned by the armed forces, so yes infrastructure can be placed at the border if one chooses to
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:25 am

A101 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

?
How is that even relevant. No matter what law or treaty requires it, the UK voted for it.



Relevant......... mmm EU law must be irrelevant than from an Irish perspective then.


The RoI also voted for all of it.


tommy1808 wrote:

only if you can do with zero installations. Which you can´t. So stop that nonsense already.


:liar:
The only one talking nonsense is you, border customs check infrastructure are not security installations manned by the armed forces, so yes infrastructure can be placed at the border if one chooses to


Food security isn´t security? Fraud protection isn´t?

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3016
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:45 am

A101 wrote:
Hence the need to negotiate and as per A50 sec2 take into account the future relationship, the EU wanted to bind the UK to a position without knowing the future terms and conditions, in other words putting the cart before the horse


This particular remark and proposal to the EU to take things forward without signing up to the WA keeps popping up, so I'd like to take the chance to ask a fairly simple question:
Given your opposition against certain provisions from the WA, notably those on staying fully alligned with the rules of the EU on the SM and its CU, how likely is it you're suddenly going to accept the same kind of provisions when they'd be copy-pasted into an overaching FTA?

As you know, the WA is accompanied by a political declaration which sets out the future terms and conditions and is fully modifiable still, so the outlines of whatever FTA which would have to include these WA provisions that you loathe can be -and are in fact mostly already- put in place, but if not, they can still be added to it on the UK's simple request, you know?

However, if you're against the WA not on the basis of its sequence like is often suggested, but rather on the basis of its content, then you have to be honnest with everybody and say you're also not going to be able to accept any FTA that is supposed to succeed it, since it will -by your own logic- largely contain the same constraints.

It's a fair position to take, not to be willing to be bound by the EU rules, but then you have to say so upfront to everybody, not try to lure others along as you go forward like Brexiteers have been doing for the past 3 years.
 
A101
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:09 am

tommy1808 wrote:
The RoI also voted for all of it.



You lost me what you are getting at, the UK/ROI agreed with customs laws while we are in the EU


tommy1808 wrote:

Food security isn´t security? Fraud protection isn´t?



Bio security is regulatory, must be fairly dangerous if you need to be armed to check paperwork or contents of cargo if you go down that route.

But you never know you might get a recalcitrant peice of livestock that might jump out of the stockcrate and run for freedom you got to hunt it down and kill it.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 9570
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:26 am

sabenapilot wrote:
However, if you're against the WA not on the basis of its sequence like is often suggested, but rather on the basis of its content, then you have to be honnest with everybody and say you're also not going to be able to accept any FTA that is supposed to succeed it, since it will -by your own logic- largely contain the same constraints.

It's a fair position to take, not to be willing to be bound by the EU rules, but then you have to say so upfront to everybody, not try to lure others along as you go forward like Brexiteers have been doing for the past 3 years.


This and you have to recognize that the UK isn't in this alone, the EU also has a say in this. For brexitremist it is far to self-centered on what they want. And of course has been creeping requirements, Norway was ok pre-referendum, now it needs to be a hard Brexit only.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 9570
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:58 am

A101 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
The RoI also voted for all of it.



You lost me what you are getting at, the UK/ROI agreed with customs laws while we are in the EU


Tommy probably meant that the ROI voted for the strategy, agreed to all of the things the EU said.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 8:04 am

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Yes you are correct that what happens on the EU side of the border would no longer be off concern to a country leave the institution but due to the unique circumstances of the Irish situation the EU is pushing to enforcement of EU laws onto a non member sovereign territory.

In a hypothetical situation if Scotland became independent would you expect the the UK to also accept EU law on sovereign uk territory because of a land border?


"Thanks" to Brexitremist it isn't a hypothetical situation for Scotland to leave your little union. Anyhow, if you want the border be as it is now, yes both sides needs to have the same regime, not too hard to understand. You know this because you have been told a zillion times. If - and that is a big if - ever there will be a totally electronic way to have 100% control of the border and no good "leaking" to the EU free trade zone, then fine, no hard border.

"no" border --> EU law on both sides.

But like i said before, you are like a child, export your problems and let grown-ups solve it for you, no responsibility for actions.



Well why has the ROI came out and said that there will be no hard infrastructure at the border even when the UK leaves without a deal doesn’t go against EU law?

Will Brussels sanction the Irish over the border issue


A101 wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:
A101 wrote:

Well why has the ROI came out and said that there will be no hard infrastructure at the border even when the UK leaves without a deal doesn’t go against EU law?


You know that your claim is only true specifying "at the border". That's what I mean when I said you, like most Brextremist, play with words.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... al-brexit/

Infrastructure is a must, a simple camera installation is an infrastructure. Like it or not, the moment UK deviate from EU regulation there is a need for infrastructure somewhere between NI and ROI.
That's a situation created by your (UK) will and you leave ROI, the EU, deal with it while burying your head in the sand. Pathetic.

Not so long ago I pointed you an article explaining exactly this. Why there is so few (nearly none) communication from EU side about what would look like the border in case of no deal. Maybe you should read it?

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-co ... eal-border

There is an understanding of the sensitivities, so there’s no intention of trying to force Ireland to show now what they’re going to do," says another EU diplomat.



As per EU law?


As you know the GFA does say anything about a customs border so yes you can put it up if you want.


You are the one claiming there will be no border because “ROI came out and said so”, that’s plain wrong. And if you think in such situation UK will not erect border either you are very wrong too. Unless, for example, you’re ready to receive uncontrolled junk from the continent ?
But that’s academic, UK will never engage in the no deal suicide anyway.

GFA again ? You know what, put this to rest if you want, let’s just say ROI officials fear that any infrastructure will revive the Trouble making it a red line for EU.
It’s an equally valid fear than the UK’s fear to be trapped in the backstop. Now what ?
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
A101
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 8:18 am

sabenapilot wrote:

This particular remark and proposal to the EU to take things forward without signing up to the WA keeps popping up, so I'd like to take the chance to ask a fairly simple question:
Given your opposition against certain provisions from the WA, notably those on staying fully alligned with the rules of the EU on the SM and its CU, how likely is it you're suddenly going to accept the same kind of provisions when they'd be copy-pasted into an overaching FTA?

As you know, the WA is accompanied by a political declaration which sets out the future terms and conditions and is fully modifiable still, so the outlines of whatever FTA which would have to include these WA provisions that you loathe can be -and are in fact mostly already- put in place, but if not, they can still be added to it on the UK's simple request, you know?

However, if you're against the WA not on the basis of its sequence like is often suggested, but rather on the basis of its content, then you have to be honnest with everybody and say you're also not going to be able to accept any FTA that is supposed to succeed it, since it will -by your own logic- largely contain the same constraints.

It's a fair position to take, not to be willing to be bound by the EU rules, but then you have to say so upfront to everybody, not try to lure others along as you go forward like Brexiteers have been doing for the past 3 years.



Let me put it this way I’m not in total opposition to the WA only certain aspects, I’m not against remain in full alignment during the transition period, it makes good economic and regulatory sence untill a firm date to change over to the new operating regime is implemented . My main beef is that there is no time limit to which the WA ends full stop and the UK leaves with or without agreement

The UK will no longer be in the CU/SM so a direct copy and past won’t work in its entirety as EU legislation and judicial powers will no longer hold supremacy over UK laws, the UK then can decide how laws will be implemented on such things as food standards or whatever.

A UK Free Trade Agreement would pretty much work in the same manner as any third country the EU has FTA with, but crucially holds no sway over sovereignty of say the Australian parliament, but Australian exports meet and respects EU regulatory rules and procedures, the EU cannot and does not impose laws on Australia that all cattle must be breed in a certain way or food standards or goods, only that the EU will only except cattle or goods that conforms to EU regulatory requirements,

Take it another way cars built in Germany have to meet German standards it’s the same for Australia, any car built for the Australian market has to meet Australian design rules they may have say 95% compatibility an FTA is a two way street on trade it talks standards quotas tariffs it might say you can’t import a certain type of cheese, an FTA is all about closer cooperation on trade or research or whatever but it does not impose on a nation political legislative or judicial supremacy
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:28 am

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
The RoI also voted for all of it.



You lost me what you are getting at, the UK/ROI agreed with customs laws while we are in the EU


Tommy probably meant that the ROI voted for the strategy, agreed to all of the things the EU said.


Bot the RoI, the UK and any other EU member, voted for those rules and are also WTO members.

It doesn´t matter that UK now wants to forget about those rules, they are supranational and there is no opt-out.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3016
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:08 am

A101 wrote:

Let me put it this way I’m not in total opposition to the WA only certain aspects, I’m not against remain in full alignment during the transition period, it makes good economic and regulatory sence untill a firm date to change over to the new operating regime is implemented . My main beef is that there is no time limit to which the WA ends full stop and the UK leaves with or without agreement


Thanks for your reply.
I understand what you're saying, but allow me to point out there is a time limit to the provisions of the WA on regulatory alignment: it is until the FTA kicks in.
When you are saying you want an measurable time limit set in the WA, it's actually the same as saying you're not (sure to be) signing up to a FTA, later.
I hope you can agree to that reading then?

A101 wrote:

The UK will no longer be in the CU/SM so a direct copy and past won’t work in its entirety as EU legislation and judicial powers will no longer hold supremacy over UK laws

Yes of course, but that's just a technicality: it's the same in the Trade Continuation Agreements the UK has signed with a couple of third countries so far.
There too, the EU's FTA with that third country got essentially rolled over to the exception of the references to certain EU legislative and juridical powers, which got replaced by the relevant UK authorities. But the rules are still very much the same, which is what it's all about really.
As long as the Trade Continuation Agreement is in place, the UK can not unilaterally diverge from the (EU) standards nor the rules set forth in it.
In fact, I don't know if you are aware, but if during the life time of any of these TCAs the standards or the rules set by the EU were to change, they are automatically mirrored into these said 'British' Trade Continuation Agreements even!
And interestingly enough, given what you've just said above about your main objections to the WA, not all of the Trade Continuation Agreements have a time limit set to them (the one with South Korea does, but others don't): they simply remain in place until a full FTA is reached, very similar to how the WA will be automatically succeeded by a full FTA when agreement is reached on that.
In fact, apart from settling the divorce bill and issues surrounding citizen rights, the WA is nothing but a Trade Continuation Agreement with the EU, you know?
I've never heard any objection to the UK signing those TCAs? Yet they were all signed on exactly the same basis as what is contained in the WA!? Very strange, to say the least!

A101 wrote:
A UK Free Trade Agreement would pretty much work in the same manner as any third country the EU has FTA with,

And that's where you are wrong, because you fail to grasp an important element of Europe's trade policy.
As a Brit, you've probably always been told to see the EU as a purely economic vehicle, a common market, which is there to facilitate trade both internally as well as externally for it's members.
Whereas that is certainly true indeed, it's not the sole purpose of the EU: the EU is seen by its founding members as the vehicle to promote EVER CLOSER UNION between the countries within Europe, something you should know all too well, since it has been an element of great irritation to many in the UK and the UK has explicitly succeeded in gaining an opt-out on this as a memberstate sitting around the table.
As such, the EU's trade policy towards countries the other end of the world has been significantly different than towards countries within Europe, and in fact the EU is always demanding more integration from nearby countries, than it does from say Canada or Japan, 2 countries often quoted by Brexiteers.
As an EU member, there were ways to gain opt-outs, but as a third country in Europe, the EU is NOT going to offer the UK a FTA which guarantees the frictionless access the UK's fully integrated economy needs without sufficient continued integration in return for that market access: let's just say it will be a political no go situation for them, as much as a technical issue.
And I'm pretty sure many leading Brexiteers know this for a fact too, which is why they are fairly certain that no government under their control is ever going to be able to conclude a comprehensive FTA with the EU which is also why the current WA (including its open-ended alignment demands) is unacceptable to them and why they are desperately trying to look for quick replacement trade deals elsewhere in the world. Just see all the 'Global Britain' nonsense of the past couple of years as well as the now almost pathetic facilitation of all of D. Trumps demands in return for some form of a FTA with the US, which is now officially labeled as "Brexit Britain's life boat" even, by BoJo himself!!!.

Seriously, it's all fine to be saying you don't want any EU interference in domestic matters in future, but then you need to be crystal clear about it and also say you're not going to be able to conclude a FTA with the EU ever and be forthcoming with telling the British people they now have to prepare for a massive economic hit, as well as a complete social, legal and economic internal readjustment to make their country fit to become a US style economy, including givinh up much of the perks common to Europeans, like free healthcare, minimum wage, state pensions, consumer protection rights, etc etc
Not so sure the ordinary people in Britain are so fond of that outlook however, as it risks making Mrs. Tatcher's reforms look like peanuts only, and clearly those in the control room of Brexit aren't sure either, which is why they are using the technique of a creaping brexit, in which the goalpost is moved each time: from Norway+ (in the SM), to Switzerland (outside but with many ties), to CETA (just the comprehensive FTA), to finally and my bet ultimately nothing at all, other than a sell-out deal with the US, which will be to the massive profit of some of the Brexit fat cats and top sponsors of the first hour!
I bet that once October comes and Britain is on it's way out for a very hard brexit, on of the first things that will come back to the table is to void or quickly renegotiate all those TCA which are still very much based on a EU style trade system, and which will then suddenly 'be holding Britain back' in concluding a far more advantageous FTA with the US instead... obviously conveniently forgetting about the one it has just completely lost, that with the EU.

Sad to see how millions of ordinary working people are being taken for a ride here by a bunch of shameless millionaires!
 
A101
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 11:03 am

Grizzly410 wrote:

You are the one claiming there will be no border because “ROI came out and said so”, that’s plain wrong.



Well either Foreign Minister Simon Coveney is telling porkies or Padraic Halpin Reuters correspondent misquoted, the choice is you to decide which is which


Grizzly410 wrote:

And if you think in such situation UK will not erect border either you are very wrong too.


The UK's position has been very consistent on the matter from the beginning


Grizzly410 wrote:

Unless, for example, you’re ready to receive uncontrolled junk from the continent ?



if someone orders it and pays for it are you really concerned

Grizzly410 wrote:
But that’s academic, UK will never engage in the no deal suicide anyway.


well we will find out sooner enough


Grizzly410 wrote:

GFA again ? You know what, put this to rest if you want,

let’s just say ROI officials fear that any infrastructure will revive the Trouble making it a red line for EU.


No if people post mistruths on the subject then I will continue to call it out


Grizzly410 wrote:

let’s just say ROI officials fear that any infrastructure will revive the Trouble making it a red line for EU.


Officials always have to work on worst case planning, no one wants to see a return of the violence

Grizzly410 wrote:

It’s an equally valid fear than the UK’s fear to be trapped in the backstop. Now what ?



I thought that was obvious
 
A101
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 11:12 am

@ sabenapilot I just read your post I haven't got the time at the moment for a proper reply, but ill get back to you ASAP
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3016
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 11:18 am

A101 wrote:
@ sabenapilot I just read your post I haven't got the time at the moment for a proper reply, but ill get back to you ASAP


No worries, it's not like we're going to solve anything here, are we? :)
 
sbworcs
Posts: 795
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:19 pm

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 11:24 am

noviorbis77 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:

Well, it is how you look at it.

The US has always been our closest friend and ally. That is how we can see it. You may want to pooh pooh it as we seem them as closer friends than the EU nations, but thats how it is.

And long I hope it continues.


It is the way you look at it, you can't speak for the nation, my friend.


True. I cannot speak for a nation.

But I know a lot more about life in the UK than you my friend, and I am almost certain most people in the UK will recognise that the US is our historical closest ally.

You can deny it and argue against it for whatever weird reasons you want, that is entirely your right.


Historical ally - maybe. Going forward though I cannot see any relationship surviing intact with Bojo and Trump in power
The best way forwards is upwards!
 
sbworcs
Posts: 795
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:19 pm

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 11:30 am

With regards to suspening parliament or refusing to table bills to ensure MP's cannot have a say i have often thought for the fanatical "Brexit at any cost" crowd the democracy is their percived end point - it does not necessarily need to be part of the process as long as Brexit is achieved
The best way forwards is upwards!
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3016
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 11:45 am

sbworcs wrote:
With regards to suspening parliament or refusing to table bills to ensure MP's cannot have a say i have often thought for the fanatical "Brexit at any cost" crowd the democracy is their percived end point - it does not necessarily need to be part of the process as long as Brexit is achieved


I agree, it's a very weird attitute indeed!

It just proves Brexit is not a goal in itself, but rather just a mean to achieve something far bigger which is currently not publically mentioned (yet), although more of it is slowly and prematurely starting to be revealed…

People in Britain are being taken for a ride, and when they will find out where they will end up, I'm not entirely sure they will still like the ride very much.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8687
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:14 pm

sabenapilot wrote:
sbworcs wrote:
With regards to suspening parliament or refusing to table bills to ensure MP's cannot have a say i have often thought for the fanatical "Brexit at any cost" crowd the democracy is their percived end point - it does not necessarily need to be part of the process as long as Brexit is achieved


I agree, it's a very weird attitute indeed!

It just proves Brexit is not a goal in itself, but rather just a mean to achieve something far bigger which is currently not publically mentioned (yet), although more of it is slowly and prematurely starting to be revealed…

People in Britain are being taken for a ride, and when they will find out where they will end up, I'm not entirely sure they will still like the ride very much.

Let's imagine where we would be in this process right now if the back-stabbing had not occurred and Bojo was PM instead of TM?
At present, Brexit is not about what people, business or parliament wants, it just about grandstanding.
If someone was in charge who had made a decision and rammed it through, everyone by now would be able to see and feel the effects and speculation would be minimal at best.
Ramming through could be anything from No Deal, Noway, New Vote, Remain, abandon DC honor commitment, etc. what was needed after the referendum was someone in charge to make decisions.
The split cabinet that TM established in my opinion was the first link in the disaster chain, after such a huge vote, having a cabinet at war with itself meant that the entire nation followed suit. It maybe simple to say but a leader was needed after the vote, whichever side of the fence they were on, a leader was needed, not a facilitator.
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3016
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:21 pm

Ok, but what kind of a decision would that have to be, and on who's authority was this decision to be taken then?
Either you're a democracy and you're trying to build concensus around a majority position, or you're actually advocating a dictatorship in which 1 person pushes through his point-of-view, and all the rest just shut up!

The referendum (question) was ill conceived, everything else follows from that really
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8687
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:09 pm

sabenapilot wrote:
Ok, but what kind of a decision would that have to be, and on who's authority was this decision to be taken then?
Either you're a democracy and you're trying to build concensus around a majority position, or you're actually advocating a dictatorship in which 1 person pushes through his point-of-view, and all the rest just shut up!

The referendum (question) was ill conceived, everything else follows from that really

If TM had appointed a majority cabinet that would have been the decision. TM is Remain, if she had appointed a Remain Cabinet on the guise that she was ensuring that the Remain side had input on the Leave, they could have been working from day one on Remain, Revote, Norway Style, Closer Union or all the Remain idea's, the Brexiters would have been outside of Cabinet making noise.
If she had chosen a majority Leave cabinet, then the reverse.
My point is / was that the split cabinet ensured that there was no one leading the charge, no consensus coming from the head of the government / country, as a result, the parliament and whoever failed or succeeded in influencing the vote were given more power as the ship was floundering around without a rudder.
One of the things with the UK government system is consensus within cabinet, they may have internal disagreements, but when decisions are made, they are supposed to stand behind them and move forward with the decisions, this was not helped by a cabinet split down the middle.
No dictatorship involved, it just how the UK system of government is supposed to work.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8687
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:16 pm

I should have added, just take a look at how the parliament is now, you cannot get any decision out of them for anything which makes sense, they are talking about motions to renegotiate, with who, parliament does not negotiate, the government does. No option can be selected because all sides are empowered because the government wasted almost a year before invoking Article 50 with absolutely no plan because the split cabinet could not make a decision.
Even if another general election is called within the next few months, the entire nation is still split and the parliament will be also, and nothing will be decided on Brexit, the mass confusion will continue. At present, whoever the next PM will be has a chance to be the sacrificial lamb, revoke article 50, call another vote, knowing full well that his seat will be lost and his party most likely will loose the next election, now do you see anyone out there right now willing to fall on his / her sword for the sake of the country?
I don't but I have been wrong many times.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:09 pm

sabenapilot wrote:
And interestingly enough, given what you've just said above about your main objections to the WA, not all of the Trade Continuation Agreements have a time limit set to them (the one with South Korea does, but others don't): they simply remain in place until a full FTA is reached, very similar to how the WA will be automatically succeeded by a full FTA when agreement is reached on that.


And gosh, gee ..... once a new FTA replacing that EU regulation tie-in TCA it's nice, but for economic uncertainty to go away it also needs to be WTO certified, which can take 10+ years and is pretty much a pipe dream unless it serves any trading partner just as well as the agreement via the EU.

I've never heard any objection to the UK signing those TCAs? Yet they were all signed on exactly the same basis as what is contained in the WA!? Very strange, to say the least!


Well, as long they don't call it WA-TCA few people notice that they are essentially equivalent to the WA and they can sell it as win.....

"We voted to leave the EU completely, and we already signed agreements with X countries to essentially continue our EU membership for the time being!".

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3005
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:48 pm

And I will repeat - every trade agreement voluntarily agreed to involves a diminution of sovereignty.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
Olddog
Topic Author
Posts: 1149
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:50 pm

[quote="par13del"]quote]

If TM was remain; explain her red lines!
When UK was in it wanted a lot of opt-outs, now it is out it wants opt-ins
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8687
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:44 pm

Remind us again of how many of them she stood on, none.
Points to make the Brexiters support her, she never intended to stand behind any of them, or to put it another way, explain why she never defended any of her red lines.
 
Olddog
Topic Author
Posts: 1149
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:02 pm

She stood by all and that's why the UK is in this situation more than 3 years after. Nick Timothy and his gang set red lies so the EU would have to break to accommodate them. They made that gamble and lost.
When UK was in it wanted a lot of opt-outs, now it is out it wants opt-ins
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8687
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:29 pm

Not in my opinion, if you look at her red lines, they all lead to one place, no deal Brexit which she does not now or ever supported, talking points only.
Besides, if she really wanted to defend those red lines she would never have signed up to the WA which cannot pass parliament.
Now that is a topic worth trashing about, why sign something that she most likely knew had no shot of passing, a strategy that would result in more delay, ultimate fatigue, the end result being remain a member and revisit Brexit 20 years down the road?
In any event, whatever her thoughts are / were, a split cabinet was a mistake, it should have been dominant on one side.
 
A101
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:51 pm

sabenapilot wrote:

I understand what you're saying, but allow me to point out there is a time limit to the provisions of the WA on regulatory alignment: it is until the FTA kicks in.
When you are saying you want an measurable time limit set in the WA, it's actually the same as saying you're not (sure to be) signing up to a FTA, later.
I hope you can agree to that reading then?


As you have said and I agree that the UK remains in alignment while negotiations are taking place until the end of the transition period after that the no unilateral exit clause comes into force, the UK cannot exit without the express permission from the EU. it places an unfair advantage to the EU in a future trade relations negotiations for the UK to conclude an agreement before the protocol comes in force, its like saying to a main event boxer that your opponent can only box with one arm while you keep the advantage of both arms.




sabenapilot wrote:

Yes of course, but that's just a technicality: it's the same in the Trade Continuation Agreements the UK has signed with a couple of third countries so far.
There too, the EU's FTA with that third country got essentially rolled over to the exception of the references to certain EU legislative and juridical powers, which got replaced by the relevant UK authorities. But the rules are still very much the same, which is what it's all about really.


No the Mutual Recognition Agreement/Trade Continuation Agreements or just stop gap measures to ensure the continued flow of trade post-Brexit until a formal Free Trade agreement can be signed. Reference to EU law and Judicial power are taken out for obvious reason, and I also believe some quotas have changed within agreement to stop each other flooding the market with each other product for obvious reasons

sabenapilot wrote:
As long as the Trade Continuation Agreement is in place, the UK can not unilaterally diverge from the (EU) standards nor the rules set forth in it.
In fact, I don't know if you are aware, but if during the life time of any of these TCAs the standards or the rules set by the EU were to change, they are automatically mirrored into these said 'British' Trade Continuation Agreements even!


Not entirely correct once the UK leaves the bounds of EU jurisdiction then amendments can be put in place if both parties agree until formal FTA's are in place

sabenapilot wrote:
And interestingly enough, given what you've just said above about your main objections to the WA, not all of the Trade Continuation Agreements have a time limit set to them (the one with South Korea does, but others don't): they simply remain in place until a full FTA is reached, very similar to how the WA will be automatically succeeded by a full FTA when agreement is reached on that.


You also have to take into account if the UK signed the WA that once the protocol had been enforced we are still bound in full to EU authority we cannot even begin negotiations with other nations, not to mention the legislative and judicial supremacy of the EU over the UK for an indefinite amount of period and it also supplants the TEU A50which gives a member state to withdraw voluntarily from the EU, and also goes against UK parliamentary sovereignty of not "binding your successor"




sabenapilot wrote:
In fact, apart from settling the divorce bill and issues surrounding citizen rights, the WA is nothing but a Trade Continuation Agreement with the EU, you know?
I've never heard any objection to the UK signing those TCAs? Yet they were all signed on exactly the same basis as what is contained in the WA!? Very strange, to say the least!


Can you tell me the benefit that the EU will receive if the EU negotiated a Free Trade Agreement with the UK compared to stalling talks and waiting for the backstop protocol to take affect, I can tell you that now none what so ever. The EU is about to take a hit to its budget and face greater competition without the EU tariff wall overall the WA in its current form was never going to let the UK leave the EU

sabenapilot wrote:
And that's where you are wrong, because you fail to grasp an important element of Europe's trade policy.
As a Brit, you've probably always been told to see the EU as a purely economic vehicle, a common market, which is there to facilitate trade both internally as well as externally for it's members.


And that is what it basically was and told when we first joined as there was no Maastricht Treaty,Lisbon Treaty and European Parliament, in the 75 referenda Heath told voters that the EEC was merely a free trade association

sabenapilot wrote:
Whereas that is certainly true indeed, it's not the sole purpose of the EU: the EU is seen by its founding members as the vehicle to promote EVER CLOSER UNION between the countries within Europe, something you should know all too well, since it has been an element of great irritation to many in the UK and the UK has explicitly succeeded in gaining an opt-out on this as a memberstate sitting around the table.


If the UK had been given a referenda before enacting 1972 European Communities Bill, the 1970 GE in which Edward Heath became PM stated that" it would be wrong if any Government contemplating membership of the European Community were to take this step without `the full hearted consent of Parliament and people'. Back then opinion polls at the time 1972 showed people were hugely opposed to joining the Common Market.

sabenapilot wrote:
As such, the EU's trade policy towards countries the other end of the world has been significantly different than towards countries within Europe, and in fact the EU is always demanding more integration from nearby countries, than it does from say Canada or Japan, 2 countries often quoted by Brexiteers.


That's the underlining problem with the EU, just because a sovereign nation is geographically placed in Europe does not mean that they should become closer politically

sabenapilot wrote:

As an EU member, there were ways to gain opt-outs, but as a third country in Europe, the EU is NOT going to offer the UK a FTA which guarantees the frictionless access the UK's fully integrated economy needs without sufficient continued integration in return for that market access: let's just say it will be a political no go situation for them, as much as a technical issue.

And I'm pretty sure many leading Brexiteers know this for a fact too, which is why they are fairly certain that no government under their control is ever going to be able to conclude a comprehensive FTA with the EU which is also why the current WA (including its open-ended alignment demands) is unacceptable to them and why they are desperately trying to look for quick replacement trade deals elsewhere in the world. Just see all the 'Global Britain' nonsense of the past couple of years as well as the now almost pathetic facilitation of all of D. Trumps demands in return for some form of a FTA with the US, which is now officially labeled as "Brexit Britain's life boat" even, by BoJo himself!!!.


Yes opt-out are available now, but there has been no shortage of the intent to become ever closer as you say to the point of people calling for the end of veto powers federalisation of the union European Army how far will it go in the future.

As to the FTA's that's a wish list of TM , the most striking thing with remain camp is that you tar anyone who wants to leave the EU with the same broad brush with the likes of May/Johnson and co, the only frictionless access relates to movement across the border in Ireland, I have no doubt a free trade agreement can be concluded that is acceptable to everyone as its in everyone's interest, as pointed out before Mutual Recognition Agreements are short term continuation agreements so trade can continue unhindered in the short term and in theory can be used as templates with amendments until formal agreements are in place




sabenapilot wrote:
Seriously, it's all fine to be saying you don't want any EU interference in domestic matters in future, but then you need to be crystal clear about it and also say you're not going to be able to conclude a FTA with the EU ever and be forthcoming with telling the British people they now have to prepare for a massive economic hit, as well as a complete social, legal and economic internal readjustment to make their country fit to become a US style economy, including givinh up much of the perks common to Europeans, like free healthcare, minimum wage, state pensions, consumer protection rights, etc etc
Not so sure the ordinary people in Britain are so fond of that outlook however, as it risks making Mrs. Tatcher's reforms look like peanuts only, and clearly those in the control room of Brexit aren't sure either, which is why they are using the technique of a creaping brexit, in which the goalpost is moved each time: from Norway+ (in the SM), to Switzerland (outside but with many ties), to CETA (just the comprehensive FTA), to finally and my bet ultimately nothing at all, other than a sell-out deal with the US, which will be to the massive profit of some of the Brexit fat cats and top sponsors of the first hour!
I bet that once October comes and Britain is on it's way out for a very hard brexit, on of the first things that will come back to the table is to void or quickly renegotiate all those TCA which are still very much based on a EU style trade system, and which will then suddenly 'be holding Britain back' in concluding a far more advantageous FTA with the US instead... obviously conveniently forgetting about the one it has just completely lost, that with the EU.

Sad to see how millions of ordinary working people are being taken for a ride here by a bunch of shameless millionaires!



The only way a Free Trade agreement will not be forthcoming if one of the parties does not want it to happen, and its crystal clear to whom that party is and want the status quo to remain, as to your assertion that we have to become more like the US is opinion not based on fact, when conjecture is not fact you also could have used the Australian model like free healthcare, minimum wage, state pensions, consumer protection rights, etc etc are the norm. I am of no doubt that things will be difficult and markets will react but trade will go on just not on the current terms with the EU. In any agreement there will be people who profit more than others that's the nature of the beast in a capitalist country
 
A101
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:08 pm

par13del wrote:
Not in my opinion, if you look at her red lines, they all lead to one place, no deal Brexit which she does not now or ever supported, talking points only.
Besides, if she really wanted to defend those red lines she would never have signed up to the WA which cannot pass parliament.
Now that is a topic worth trashing about, why sign something that she most likely knew had no shot of passing, a strategy that would result in more delay, ultimate fatigue, the end result being remain a member and revisit Brexit 20 years down the road?
In any event, whatever her thoughts are / were, a split cabinet was a mistake, it should have been dominant on one side.



Yep she either the worst negotiator in UK history or the most successful con artist in power
 
Olddog
Topic Author
Posts: 1149
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Sat Jul 13, 2019 7:58 am

par13del wrote:
Not in my opinion, if you look at her red lines, they all lead to one place, no deal Brexit which she does not now or ever supported, talking points only.


What you seem to miss is that theses red lines made the WA what it is, not the other way. The fact that the parliament rejected it is an internal brit problem with unicorns singing rule britannia.
When UK was in it wanted a lot of opt-outs, now it is out it wants opt-ins
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3016
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:56 am

A101 wrote:
sabenapilot wrote:
I understand what you're saying, but allow me to point out there is a time limit to the provisions of the WA on regulatory alignment: it is until the FTA kicks in.
When you are saying you want an measurable time limit set in the WA, it's actually the same as saying you're not (sure to be) signing up to a FTA, later.
I hope you can agree to that reading then?

As you have said and I agree that the UK remains in alignment while negotiations are taking place until the end of the transition period after that the no unilateral exit clause comes into force, the UK cannot exit without the express permission from the EU. it places an unfair advantage to the EU in a future trade relations negotiations for the UK to conclude an agreement before the protocol comes in force, its like saying to a main event boxer that your opponent can only box with one arm while you keep the advantage of both arms.


I understand what you're saying,
but realilty is the UK is going to be in a very a weak position regarding ALL of its future trade negotiations - not just those with the EU - regardless the WA.
Besides, do you honnestly think that when you'd have to negotiate with the EU from a position of hard Brexit first, you'll be in a more favouable position?
Given the much higher economic shock this will likely have brought along? I doubt it...
In fact -and they could be dead wrong of course-, the EU has said they expect the UK to become far more lenient after a hard Brexit due to the sense of urgency which will be much higher.
Seriously, it's Brexit which puts the UK in an unfavourable position, not the WA that somehow has to go with Brexit, as the whole 'they need us more than we need them' mantra is now shown to be a false claim, I hope you can agree to that.
BTW- If you fear the EU to take advantage of the position the UK is is during the future trade negotiations, you better not enter into negotiations with other countries then.

A101 wrote:
No, the Mutual Recognition Agreement/Trade Continuation Agreements are just stop gap measures to ensure the continued flow of trade post-Brexit until a formal Free Trade agreement can be signed.

Indeed, so exactly as the WA then in fact, isnt it?
Where's the guarantee that those countries will be willing to replace those TCAs quickly and fairly with FTAs on those mythical better terms?
What you say about the WA and the FTA with the EU that is supposed to succeed it, goes for any of those TCAs just as well, you know?
That's because the WA is in essence a TCA, plus a treaty on continued citizen rights plus a settlement of the accounts.
It's highly remarkable that the analogy is completely lost on Brexiteers, and the UK politicians are just focussing on the TCA with the EU (aka the WA) whereas they clearly have no problem to enter into identical arrangements with others, meanwhile...
A TCA effectively locks you into a permanent standstill on EU based rules between the UK and a third country, until and unless that third country agrees to change anything to it, to the single exception of the TCA with South Korea so far, which has a very brief period of validity only, purely because Seoul has already said openly it thinks it can extract far better terms from the UK than it enjoys now! Sobering prospect, isn't it?

A101 wrote:
Once the UK leaves the bounds of EU jurisdiction then amendments can be put in place if both parties agree until formal FTA's are in place

Not to nitpick but that is not entirely correct.
In fact, there's a whole bunch of unresolved issues surrounding those TCAs in case of a no-deal departure even, ranging from 'silly' things as copy-right violations of the texts (rights which are held by the EU, not the UK) to very real things like quota etc...
The TCAs are signed on the assumption that there's a deal between the EU and the UK on all these matters, first; if not, it's yet another can of worms to deal with for your politicians, one they clearly haven't spent much time thinking on, so far, obsessed with the single one with the EU at present!
Besides, the idea the UK will have time to adapt any of those TCAs while also negotiate a bunch of FTAs is quite entertaining, but purely theoretical: for the next 15 years, the trade department will be overloaded with work just to prevent it from falling behind on the basics; there won't be much time for finetuning or faciful updates, let that be clear!

A101 wrote:
Can you tell me the benefit that the EU will receive if the EU negotiated a Free Trade Agreement with the UK compared to stalling talks and waiting for the backstop protocol to take affect, I can tell you that now none what so ever.

Could you tell me why you think others who've entered in a TCA with the UK are going to be willing to sign up to a FTA which is supposed to be more favourable to the UK, than that TCA is? Again, all of your reasoning against the EU's bad faith, is equally valid for all those third countries in the world too, you know?

It really strikes me how much bad faith you put in the EU, whereas it is the only trading partner in the whole wide world who's willing to sign up to a formal commitment not to act in bad faith through the political declaration, whereas all those others you clearly see as run by Mr. Nice Guys. Sure, the "life boat of Brexit Britain", Trump's USofA, might come to the rescue… if he's still around by then, because we're talking of 2021 here, remember, and even then, it remains to be seen what's his temper on that specific day then.

Anyway, I hope you can at least see the asymmetry in your reasoning here, and admit it comes from a negative mindset towards the EU more than anything else...
All the bad things you see the EU capable of doing during trade negotiations with the WA in its hands first, you can just as well attribute with far more certainty to any other country the UK has meanwhile signed a TCA with and even more so to those who are not even willing to sign one, like Canada for instance, which has explicitly said it doesn't want to sign any TCA because it hopes to extract maximum profit from its position of rejection, later!

Seriously, if I were an MP, it'd vote for the TCA with the EU, called the WA, asap, to avoid even greater humiliation later!
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11667
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:29 am

sbworcs wrote:
With regards to suspening parliament or refusing to table bills to ensure MP's cannot have a say i have often thought for the fanatical "Brexit at any cost" crowd the democracy is their percived end point - it does not necessarily need to be part of the process as long as Brexit is achieved


Democracy is a talking point, as long as they get to be in power (even if behind the scenes) then they don't care about it.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
A101
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Sat Jul 13, 2019 1:50 pm

sabenapilot wrote:

but realilty is the UK is going to be in a very a weak position regarding ALL of its future trade negotiations - not just those with the EU - regardless the WA.
Besides, do you honnestly think that when you'd have to negotiate with the EU from a position of hard Brexit first, you'll be in a more favouable position?



I have to disagree here negotiations with other nations will not have the animosity and malevolence.displayed like the current relations of the EU/UK, the UK negotiations will be no different from the perspective of a smaller economy like say Australia or New Zealand each will have their goals and interest to protect its just a matter if they can find an equal equilibrium.

sabenapilot wrote:
Given the much higher economic shock this will likely have brought along? I doubt it...
In fact -and they could be dead wrong of course-, the EU has said they expect the UK to become far more lenient after a hard Brexit due to the sense of urgency which will be much higher.


That's open to speculation, commentary on economic conditions on a hard exist vary wildly from economists depending on their own bias to the situation, yes initially I expect hiccups and mistakes made its to be expected even in the best economic times government laws can have unexpected consequences

sabenapilot wrote:
Seriously, it's Brexit which puts the UK in an unfavourable position, not the WA that somehow has to go with Brexit, as the whole 'they need us more than we need them' mantra is now shown to be a false claim, I hope you can agree to that.

The WA always had the potential to put us in an unfavourable and untenable position to the final objective of leaving the CU/SM.That's never been my slogan/mantra but one trotted out by both sides when they cant make their own rational argument

sabenapilot wrote:
BTW- If you fear the EU to take advantage of the position the UK is is during the future trade negotiations, you better not enter into negotiations with other countries then.


Its the nature of the beast all sides try to get an advantage however slight trade offs in one area might be gains in another, you have to work out are they worth it or walk away something TM didn't learn was to walk away from a bad deal


sabenapilot wrote:
Indeed, so exactly as the WA then in fact, isnt it?


No once the backstop provisions are enacted in the WA it becomes an international treaty with no unilateral exit clause built in only with joint consent can the UK leave. The UK will be bound to comply with it under international law, regardless of the wishes of a future government or Parliament hence it binds our successor

sabenapilot wrote:
Where's the guarantee that those countries will be willing to replace those TCAs quickly and fairly with FTAs on those mythical better terms?

Their is none, that's why they are called negotiations


sabenapilot wrote:
What you say about the WA and the FTA with the EU that is supposed to succeed it, goes for any of those TCAs just as well, you know?


No routinely free trade agreement will either have a time limit built in where both parties have to agree to continue or contain termination clauses, where no such mechanism is built in then Article 56 Denunciation of or withdrawal from a treaty containing no provision regarding termination, from the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 can be invoked, this provision does not apply to the WA as the treaty expressly saus the UK cannot leave without consent from both parties


sabenapilot wrote:
That's because the WA is in essence a TCA, plus a treaty on continued citizen rights plus a settlement of the accounts.


See above

sabenapilot wrote:
It's highly remarkable that the analogy is completely lost on Brexiteers, and the UK politicians are just focussing on the TCA with the EU (aka the WA) whereas they clearly have no problem to enter into identical arrangements with others, meanwhile...


That's because you are correct as we have a different perspective as you said we view it as a trade association and not a political union

sabenapilot wrote:
A TCA effectively locks you into a permanent standstill on EU based rules between the UK and a third country, until and unless that third country agrees to change anything to it, to the single exception of the TCA with South Korea so far, which has a very brief period of validity only, purely because Seoul has already said openly it thinks it can extract far better terms from the UK than it enjoys now! Sobering prospect, isn't it?


Remember when I said the they can be changed with consent between both parties as we will no longer be under legislative or judicial supremacy of the EU and either party can withdraw at any time that's what sovereignty is all about, unlike the WA which turns the UK into a vassal state of the EU

sabenapilot wrote:
Not to nitpick but that is not entirely correct.
In fact, there's a whole bunch of unresolved issues surrounding those TCAs in case of a no-deal departure even, ranging from 'silly' things as copy-right violations of the texts (rights which are held by the EU, not the UK) to very real things like quota etc...


They wont be word for word copy and past, copyright is exactly like the house plans from home builders you only have to change one wall and then it no longer infringes on copyright. I know that from when I built my house

sabenapilot wrote:
The TCAs are signed on the assumption that there's a deal between the EU and the UK on all these matters, first; if not, it's yet another can of worms to deal with for your politicians, one they clearly haven't spent much time thinking on, so far, obsessed with the single one with the EU at present!


The obsession is to leave with a fair deal and to leave the EU, As has been the case of the currently signed Mutual Recognition Agreement/Trade Continuation Agreements their are prior negations to make them relevant to the situation.

sabenapilot wrote:

Besides, the idea the UK will have time to adapt any of those TCAs while also negotiate a bunch of FTAs is quite entertaining, but purely theoretical: for the next 15 years, the trade department will be overloaded with work just to prevent it from falling behind on the basics; there won't be much time for finetuning or faciful updates, let that be clear!


This is really turning into a rant on your behalf, so what on how long it take to complete each individual agreement you just have to look at how long the EU has taken to ratify agreements, EU agreements are notoriously difficult to negotiate we only have to come to an agreement between 2 parties not 28. But their are a host of nations which have already indicated that they want to make agreements when the UK is free to do so

sabenapilot wrote:
Could you tell me why you think others who've entered in a TCA with the UK are going to be willing to sign up to a FTA which is supposed to be more favourable to the UK, than that TCA is? Again, all of your reasoning against the EU's bad faith, is equally valid for all those third countries in the world too, you know?


I have never said that we will get agreements on better terms, but its only logical agreements will be replicated as near as to the terms as current, do you think that nations will want to increase the cost of their products within the UK because of higher tariffs and possibly lose market share to their competitor.



sabenapilot wrote:
It really strikes me how much bad faith you put in the EU, whereas it is the only trading partner in the whole wide world who's willing to sign up to a formal commitment not to act in bad faith through the political declaration, whereas all those others you clearly see as run by Mr. Nice Guys. Sure, the "life boat of Brexit Britain", Trump's USofA, might come to the rescue… if he's still around by then, because we're talking of 2021 here, remember, and even then, it remains to be seen what's his temper on that specific day then.


oh please really take a good look on what you have written, like in any parliament and country in the world their are internal factions which have their own interests above all others, the European union is no different. its in the Europeans own interest to keep the UK as a part of it for budgetary and internal trade purposes


sabenapilot wrote:
Anyway, I hope you can at least see the asymmetry in your reasoning here, and admit it comes from a negative mindset towards the EU more than anything else...
All the bad things you see the EU capable of doing during trade negotiations with the WA in its hands first, you can just as well attribute with far more certainty to any other country the UK has meanwhile signed a TCA with and even more so to those who are not even willing to sign one, like Canada for instance, which has explicitly said it doesn't want to sign any TCA because it hopes to extract maximum profit from its position of rejection, later!


It takes 2 to tango, and like parliament has shown if an agreement is not in our interest it wont be ratified

sabenapilot wrote:
Seriously, if I were an MP, it'd vote for the TCA with the EU, called the WA, asap, to avoid even greater humiliation later!



That's because you are looking thru rose tinted glasses
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 9570
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:02 pm

A101 wrote:
It takes 2 to tango, and like parliament has shown if an agreement is not in our interest it wont be ratified


Same goes for the EU26, if the agreement is not in our interest, it won't be ratified. So the WA was the negotiated position, given the GFA, what do you think is acceptable to the remaining countries?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
sbworcs
Posts: 795
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:19 pm

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:03 pm

A101 wrote:
Klaus wrote:
A101 wrote:
Timed fuse on the GFA??????

That is exactly the demand by the Leave hardliners that's preventing the WA to be ratified in the Commons at this point because the EU won't accept that timed fuse on the GFA.



Ah you mean a time limit on the WA, are you talking about the one the UK can only leave with the consent of the EU and goes against our parliamentary sovereignty on not binding your successor, I think that might have something to do with it don’t you :roll:


Proroguing goes against Parliamentary sovereignty but you have said (as a last resort) that you would accept this - surely double standards or should sovereignty only be respected when it suits?
The best way forwards is upwards!
 
A101
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:25 pm

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
It takes 2 to tango, and like parliament has shown if an agreement is not in our interest it wont be ratified


Same goes for the EU26, if the agreement is not in our interest, it won't be ratified. So the WA was the negotiated position, given the GFA, what do you think is acceptable to the remaining countries?


Really I'm suppose to know what is acceptable for 26 other countries because the WA was not ratified :rotfl:
 
A101
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:31 pm

sbworcs wrote:

Proroguing goes against Parliamentary sovereignty but you have said (as a last resort) that you would accept this - surely double standards or should sovereignty only be respected when it suits?


Proroguing is actually part of parliamentary sovereign process in certain circumstances, its actually not illegal
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 9570
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:46 pm

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
It takes 2 to tango, and like parliament has shown if an agreement is not in our interest it wont be ratified


Same goes for the EU26, if the agreement is not in our interest, it won't be ratified. So the WA was the negotiated position, given the GFA, what do you think is acceptable to the remaining countries?


Really I'm suppose to know what is acceptable for 26 other countries because the WA was not ratified :rotfl:


Well, given your desire to trade on WTO rules and to have all kinds of trade deals which are better than within the EU, so you seem to know what is acceptable to the 175odd other countries.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 9570
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:52 pm

A101 wrote:
sbworcs wrote:

Proroguing goes against Parliamentary sovereignty but you have said (as a last resort) that you would accept this - surely double standards or should sovereignty only be respected when it suits?


Proroguing is actually part of parliamentary sovereign process in certain circumstances, its actually not illegal


Not being illegal, doesn't mean it is democratic. It is un-democratic, nobody would claim it is democratic to send Parliament way in order that it can't do its job.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
sbworcs
Posts: 795
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:19 pm

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:53 pm

A101 wrote:
sbworcs wrote:

Proroguing goes against Parliamentary sovereignty but you have said (as a last resort) that you would accept this - surely double standards or should sovereignty only be respected when it suits?


Proroguing is actually part of parliamentary sovereign process in certain circumstances, its actually not illegal


I did not say it was illegal - i said that bypassing parliament to ensure that a contentious piece of legislation cannot be debated is anti-democratic. If parliament is soevereign then they should be able to debate all legilsation and not be bypassed
The best way forwards is upwards!
 
A101
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:20 pm

sbworcs wrote:
A101 wrote:
sbworcs wrote:

Proroguing goes against Parliamentary sovereignty but you have said (as a last resort) that you would accept this - surely double standards or should sovereignty only be respected when it suits?


Proroguing is actually part of parliamentary sovereign process in certain circumstances, its actually not illegal


I did not say it was illegal - i said that bypassing parliament to ensure that a contentious piece of legislation cannot be debated is anti-democratic. If parliament is soevereign then they should be able to debate all legilsation and not be bypassed



Parliament has had numerous voting opportunities to gain momentum for a outcome but has yet failed to do so, opposition parties have indicated they intend to produce more of the same, the new PM deserves clear fresh air to either renegotiate with the EU or leave as per European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 & European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018/9 as the government has complied and continues to with the new provisions of the act

Section 1 of the Act requires the Government to allow Parliament to debate a motion to require the prime minister to seek an extension to the period in which the United Kingdom is to negotiate the terms of its withdrawal from the European Union ("Brexit") under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union. The motion must be moved on the day the Act received royal assent or on the next day, so 8 or 9 April 2019. If Parliament passes the motion then the prime minister is legally obliged to comply with it and seek an extension to a date chosen by Parliament (although the extension must still be agreed to by the EU).

Section 2 streamlines the procedure for amending UK law to reflect the new date for "exit day," the date on which the UK is to leave the EU.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 9570
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:40 pm

A101 wrote:
Parliament has had numerous voting opportunities to gain momentum for a outcome but has yet failed to do so, opposition parties have indicated they intend to produce more of the same, the new PM deserves clear fresh air to either renegotiate with the EU or leave as per European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 & European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018/9 as the government has complied and continues to with the new provisions of the act


PARLIAMENT is divided, so is the general population, so pushing for one outcome clearly without the backing of the majority of Parliament of the population is undemocratic. It doesn't matter what kind of legislation you pull out of your had, it remains undemocratic and you answered the question if you are in favor it with yes. You are missing the bigger picture when you lose yourself in juristical details.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
A101
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:14 pm

Dutchy wrote:

PARLIAMENT is divided, so is the general population, so pushing for one outcome clearly without the backing of the majority of Parliament of the population is undemocratic. It doesn't matter what kind of legislation you pull out of your had, it remains undemocratic and you answered the question if you are in favor it with yes. You are missing the bigger picture when you lose yourself in juristical details.



That's the problem isn't it, Parliament even had a vote on making revoke A50 the default position in the event of no deal to be enshrined in law and still could not get a majority, what's that telling you :wave:

And yes the Majority of the population did turn out for a vote, in fact 71.8% of the population, and 51.9% expressed that they desired to leave the EU
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 9570
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:27 pm

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

PARLIAMENT is divided, so is the general population, so pushing for one outcome clearly without the backing of the majority of Parliament of the population is undemocratic. It doesn't matter what kind of legislation you pull out of your had, it remains undemocratic and you answered the question if you are in favor it with yes. You are missing the bigger picture when you lose yourself in juristical details.



That's the problem isn't it, Parliament even had a vote on making revoke A50 the default position in the event of no deal to be enshrined in law and still could not get a majority, what's that telling you :wave:

And yes the Majority of the population did turn out for a vote, in fact 71.8% of the population, and 51.9% expressed that they desired to leave the EU


So moving back in circles again...... Vote = 3 years ago, the general public know a lot more now.
You can't bring up the vote as an argument since you have taken an anti-democratic position to be in favor of proroguing to push through your desired outcome.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
A101
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:54 pm

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

PARLIAMENT is divided, so is the general population, so pushing for one outcome clearly without the backing of the majority of Parliament of the population is undemocratic. It doesn't matter what kind of legislation you pull out of your had, it remains undemocratic and you answered the question if you are in favor it with yes. You are missing the bigger picture when you lose yourself in juristical details.



That's the problem isn't it, Parliament even had a vote on making revoke A50 the default position in the event of no deal to be enshrined in law and still could not get a majority, what's that telling you :wave:

And yes the Majority of the population did turn out for a vote, in fact 71.8% of the population, and 51.9% expressed that they desired to leave the EU


So moving back in circles again...... Vote = 3 years ago, the general public know a lot more now.
You can't bring up the vote as an argument since you have taken an anti-democratic position to be in favor of proroguing to push through your desired outcome.



I most certainly can, as the government has given parliament conscience voting across the spectrum of possible outcomes which also included a confirmatory public vote and none received a majority.

As it is currently enshrined in law parliament has debated and has the extension a new exit date in line with the parliaments wish to try and negotiate a new withdrawal agreement the only options enshrined in law is for the new PM to push for renegotiate the WA (without interference from parliament in giving mixed signal about UK intensions) and a firm exit date to leave the European Union in which parliament actually and legally voted for.
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:45 am

A101 wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:
You are the one claiming there will be no border because “ROI came out and said so”, that’s plain wrong.

Well either Foreign Minister Simon Coveney is telling porkies or Padraic Halpin Reuters correspondent misquoted, the choice is you to decide which is which
Grizzly410 wrote:
And if you think in such situation UK will not erect border either you are very wrong too.

The UK's position has been very consistent on the matter from the beginning


If UK position is consistent from the beginning, yours isn't. Look what you said end of 2018...

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1406417&start=1600#p20966607
scrimbl wrote:
And what's the solution to the RoI/NI border issue under WTO rules? You need a hard border to implement WTO rules.
A101 wrote:
Both side would like no hard border but if the rules are different there only two answers and both arnt going to be up and running in time.
1) A hard Border
2) Reunification of Ireland


What made you change your mind ?
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
bennett123
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Brexit part 6: Encore un moment Monsieur le Bourreau

Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:51 am

If there is no need for a border between the ROI and GB, does that mean that there are no border checks on Eurosta.

After all, both are borders between GB and EU countries.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GDB, SomebodyInTLS and 31 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos