Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

par13del · Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:10 pm

.....to what end.....we need this crap to end....if only the English knew that they could leave the EU and reapply to join...do I really want to believe that they do not want to give up whatever concessions / carve outs they currently have?

A101 · Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:18 pm

par13del wrote:
.....to what end.....we need this crap to end....if only the English knew that they could leave the EU and reapply to join...do I really want to believe that they do not want to give up whatever concessions / carve outs they currently have?

Well since we have seen what parliament is capable of passing no deal in 4 days and the threats from Macron and Rinne, it may just Spook parliment into revoke.

Dutchy · Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:30 pm

Was no threat of Macron and Rinne, they just reinforced the timeline set by Boris Johnson, if you want to leave with a deal on the 31st of October, it needs to pass all Parlements, not just the one in the UK. That takes some time. You have to remember you negotiate with someone, it is not just one party who has to agree.

A101 · Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:12 am

Dutchy wrote:
Was no threat of Macron and Rinne, they just reinforced the timeline set by Boris Johnson, if you want to leave with a deal on the 31st of October, it needs to pass all Parlements, not just the one in the UK. That takes some time. You have to remember you negotiate with someone, it is not just one party who has to agree.

It’s an implied threat and it’s not directed towards Johnson but the UK Parliament, they are swinging it like the Sword of Damocles.

They know and have seen what Parliament has done to hobble Johnson now they are trying to push UK Parliament into doing something drastic as they know they most likely will to stop a no deal exit. They passed the no deal legislation in 4 days and they have two weeks after they sit again if not earlier pending the outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court

LJ · Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:33 am

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Was no threat of Macron and Rinne, they just reinforced the timeline set by Boris Johnson, if you want to leave with a deal on the 31st of October, it needs to pass all Parlements, not just the one in the UK. That takes some time. You have to remember you negotiate with someone, it is not just one party who has to agree.

It’s an implied threat and it’s not directed towards Johnson but the UK Parliament, they are swinging it like the Sword of Damocles.

They know and have seen what Parliament has done to hobble Johnson now they are trying to push UK Parliament into doing something drastic as they know they most likely will to stop a no deal exit. They passed the no deal legislation in 4 days and they have two weeks after they sit again if not earlier pending the outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court

Again, you only look at the UK side. There is also a Parliament on the EU side which you must take into account. Yes it's may be viewed as an implied threat, but on the other hand the UK must realise that two parties have to agree, not just one. You can also argue that the indecisiveness of the UK forces the EU into a corner (by waiting till the very last moment) where it may not want to be. Is it therefore so strange that the EU sets a clear deadline? I don't think so. See it as a clear sign that it's decision time.

BTW given that this is the first EU deadline, it probably means that it can be a few days later, though not by much. It's like what happens a lot in big corporations. You first get a deadline, followed by a hard deadline should they not be able to meet the first deadline. Not my preference, but anyone setting deadlines puts in some slack especially when you know the other party has a bad history in meeting its commitments.

Dutchy · Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:53 am

LJ wrote:
There is also a Parliament on the EU side which you must take into account.

I thought that all EU parliaments have to agree, so 27 Parliaments to take into account.

The Brits have send something over to the EU, don't know what it is and if it does comly with all the EU rules and goals.

A101 · Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:12 am

Dutchy wrote:
LJ wrote:
There is also a Parliament on the EU side which you must take into account.

I thought that all EU parliaments have to agree, so 27 Parliaments to take into account.

The Brits have send something over to the EU, don't know what it is and if it does comly with all the EU rules and goals.

Member nations have a veto on extension EU parliament has the same role as UK ratify or not cantnot make or amend the treaty

Dutchy · Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:24 am

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
LJ wrote:
There is also a Parliament on the EU side which you must take into account.

I thought that all EU parliaments have to agree, so 27 Parliaments to take into account.

The Brits have send something over to the EU, don't know what it is and if it does comly with all the EU rules and goals.

Member nations have a veto on extension EU parliament has the same role as UK ratify or not cantnot make or amend the treaty

We are not talking about the extension, we are talking about ratifying a deal or treaty if you like. Keep up, man. So the question is: does a deal have to clear the parliaments of the 27 member states? Or can the commission/council make such a deal? I do not think so. So yeah it takes time to get it through all the parliaments, not just the UK one.

A101 · Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:37 am

The EU parliament, including the MEPs from the UK, must consent by simple majority to the Withdrawal Agreement – but does not have the power to amend it. In this case, the Council of the EU needs to adopt it by super-qualified majority. This means it needs to get support of 72% of the 27 participating member states (or 20 member states), and the support must also represent 65% of the population of the 27 member states. Although the UK is still a full member of the EU with full rights in the Council of the EU, it is not participating or taking part in the council’s decisions concerning Brexit.

But there is no role for national parliaments of the 27 member states in the context of the Withdrawal Agreement, meaning for example that the French, Spanish or Polish parliaments do not have to agree to it.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/theconv ... nts-107127

Olddog · Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:00 am

So today a must read: Brexit: clutching at straws

Mainly for our american friends that are often a bit lost and don(t understand why the Brexit is so hard to negotiate. It seems that the British political class has spent 40 years in a construction they can't understand.

Extract

If one never learns anything else about the EU, it is that it is a rules-based organisation where process is everything. And it is the vain insistence of UK politicians that the EU should abandon it processes and adopt a freebooting, casual approach to the Irish question that is at the heart of the Brexit impasse.

Another nail in that same coffin comes in the piece in The Times, penned by leader-writer Simon Nixon.

By far the most jaw-dropping revelation so far to have emerged in the extracts from David Cameron's memoirs, Nixon writes, was buried in his account of the build-up to the Brexit referendum. Recalling his efforts to persuade Johnson to back "remain", the former prime minister noted that, "Boris had become fixated on whether we could pass legislation that said UK law was ultimately supreme over EU law".

Cameron duly dispatched Oliver Letwin on a "nightmare round of shuttle diplomacy" between Johnson and the government's lawyers to see if a way could be found to address his concerns by domestic legislation. "But those lawyers were determined to defend the purity of European law and kept watering down the wording". According to Cameron, this epitomised the problem at the heart of the UK's relationship with the EU: "Our officials were determined to play by the rules".

Says Nixon, what makes this extract extraordinary is that it confirms that six years after he became prime minister and just weeks before he gambled Britain's membership of the EU in a referendum, Cameron didn't understand how it worked. Indeed, "it appears he still hasn't grasped that the supremacy of EU law in the areas over which the EU has competence is not a bug but the essential feature without which it couldn't work".

Nixon then avers that Cameron's ignorance of the fundamental principles of how the EU operates is testimony to the enduring hold of one of the most powerful narratives in British politics. This idea that rules are for other people, that the EU's insistence on the integrity of its legal order is an alien and unnecessary continental obsession, continues to hold an unshakeable grip over a large swathe of Britain’s political class, despite all that has happened over the past three years.

In Nixon's view, Theresa May suffered from the same delusion and now Johnson is prime minister, he observes, the whole cycle has started again. Johnson took office in July, apparently determined to test the narrative to destruction, insisting that by threatening to leave the EU without a deal on 31 October he could convince Brussels to drop its insistence on the purity of EU law and a requirement that everyone play by the rules.

For all this, Nixon concludes that it is not just the fate of Brexit that is the issue here, but the credibility of the British state. Narratives, he says, don't just matter in domestic politics, they matter to markets, too.

And "when it is clear that three prime ministers in succession have reached the highest office with a flawed understanding of how the basic framework underpinning a G7 country's most important commercial and security relationships works", he adds, "it is clear something has gone profoundly awry in Britain's political system".

Dutchy · Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:48 am

A101 wrote:
As I said read what I wrote:

Ratifying a deal versus extension. Deflect what you want. Frame what you want, it doesn't matter to me.

LJ · Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:23 am

LJ wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

Member nations have a veto on extension EU parliament has the same role as UK ratify or not cantnot make or amend the treaty

We are not talking about the extension, we are talking about ratifying a deal or treaty if you like. Keep up, man. So the question is: does a deal have to clear the parliaments of the 27 member states? Or can the commission/council make such a deal? I do not think so. So yeah it takes time to get it through all the parliaments, not just the UK one.

You can bet that any deal will incorporate an automatic extension request of the deadline as it's not possible to ratify a treaty within a few weeks. Hence that the extension must be granted first. Moreover, I doubt that any WA needs to be ratified by member states. AFAIK the WA is different than a trade agreement (the latter needs to be ratified by each country and thus needs to be approved by all member states + Wallonia). The WA wouldn't need to be approved unanimous as far as I can recall what the EU once mentioned.

BTW it's even worse: it's 27 nations + the Walloon government and the latter is not a given when the Belgium government signs off (as we've seen with ratifying CETA).

ltbewr · Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:34 am

Perhaps I am reading this wrong, but it would be in the best political and practical interest of both the EU & UK to have another extension of the 'drop dead' effective date as to the WA from 31 October to likely 31 January, 2020 to allow the review by the EU member countries, coordinate initial trade and other policies and how to deal with the ROI - NI issue. Problem is that PM Johnson has the pro-hard-Brexit forces breathing down his neck, he knows a sudden, hard Brexit would be terrible for the economy of the UK and likely no matter what, he will be out of a job in the next election. The EU members will be very concerned with the post-Brexit status of ROI, they have to protect all members as they should as well as trade with the UK, return of remaining EU citizens from the UK.

Of course this all could be muted by the UK Parliament saying 'never mind' and stop the Brexit process but too many MP's don't want to lose their gig in the next election. In the end some have to make hard decisions, politicians are not very good at that.

Olddog · Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:53 am

Just for perspective, if all the EU citizens come back in the EU, it is just 0,7 % of the EU population and they are mainly active workers

The other way it is roughly 2.5% of the UK population and for the most part retired and pensioners...

LJ · Fri Sep 20, 2019 11:49 am

ltbewr wrote:
Perhaps I am reading this wrong, but it would be in the best political and practical interest of both the EU & UK to have another extension of the 'drop dead' effective date as to the WA from 31 October to likely 31 January, 2020 to allow the review by the EU member countries, coordinate initial trade and other policies and how to deal with the ROI - NI issue. Problem is that PM Johnson has the pro-hard-Brexit forces breathing down his neck, he knows a sudden, hard Brexit would be terrible for the economy of the UK and likely no matter what, he will be out of a job in the next election. The EU members will be very concerned with the post-Brexit status of ROI, they have to protect all members as they should as well as trade with the UK, return of remaining EU citizens from the UK. .

This would only make sense if there actually is a deal. If you just postpone till January 31st you'll see that there isn't any pressure to do something before 2020. You'll need pressure to get a deal. Without a deal, the UK must ask for an extension before it can be granted.

Olddog wrote:
The other way it is roughly 2.5% of the UK population and for the most part retired and pensioners...

But will the pensioners and retired return to the UK (apart from when they need extensive medical treatment which isn't covered enough under their new situation)? There's still more sun in France, Spain and Portugal than there is in the UK. Just apply for a residence permit and your stay is assured.

Boeing74741R · Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:40 pm

LJ wrote:
But will the pensioners and retired return to the UK (apart from when they need extensive medical treatment which isn't covered enough under their new situation)? There's still more sun in France, Spain and Portugal than there is in the UK. Just apply for a residence permit and your stay is assured.

If those pensioners have saved up for a retirement in sunnier climes, are happy where they are and have gone through/willing to go through the necessary hoops to be assured of their continued residence, the most likely answer is no - or at least a good majority of them probably won't do. If I remember rightly, British citizens living in the EU didn't get a vote in the referendum, so some will be asking why they should have to move back because people in the UK voted to leave and considering they weren't entitled to vote.

It will, however, mean that British generations after them who may have been aspiring for a similar retirement plan can't do that given freedom of movement will end, though I don't know what hoops they would need to jump through - suspect it will be easier if they already have an EU passport (e.g. Irish passport by way of Irish parents/grandparents, spouse from an EU nation, dual citizenship, entitlement due to birth(?)). It will also make life more difficult for British citizens lucky enough to have a second property in an EU country who intend to/currently split their time between the UK and the EU (e.g. folk who spend their winters in the Algarve region of Portugal due to the milder climate with the odd warm day in January/February) as there will no doubt be time limits dictating how long they can stay per trip without a visa and maybe a clamp down on those "abusing" the system by leaving and re-entering within a short space of time.

seahawk · Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:43 pm

If you have the money you will still be able to move to Spain anyway. They need British money and will do everything to keep it.

Olddog · Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:10 pm

Well at least the EU learned to not let the UK press talk about unicorns for long:

From the independant today

EU rejects Boris Johnson request for Brexit deal without Irish backstop

scbriml · Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:40 pm

Olddog wrote:
So today a must read: Brexit: clutching at straws

Mainly for our american friends that are often a bit lost and don(t understand why the Brexit is so hard to negotiate. It seems that the British political class has spent 40 years in a construction they can't understand.

It was hilarious hearing all the Brextremists crowing about the EU starting to cave in. The main problem is they don't read beyond the tabloid headlines. Every political analyst that I've listened to over the last couple of days has gone to great lengths to explain that nothing in the EU's position has changed and, more importantly, the EU has had nothing from Boris in the way of concrete proposals (just empty catchphrases and waffle - it's what he does best).

Olddog wrote:
From the independant today

EU rejects Boris Johnson request for Brexit deal without Irish backstop

I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked. :lol:

Dutchy · Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:58 pm

Olddog wrote:
Well at least the EU learned to not let the UK press talk about unicorns for long:

From the independant today

EU rejects Boris Johnson request for Brexit deal without Irish backstop

Do you have a link?

LJ · Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:12 pm

The UK doesn't want its proposals to be distributed among member states (who will have to approve any deal). Are they so afraid they'll be leaked as they're so bad? Or is this a sign that the UK government is willing to give something away which is politically sensitive in the UK? This secrecy makes it even more a challenge to figure out what UK's plans are.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/20/fresh-brexit-talks-row-uk-eu-proposals-secret

Olddog · Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:50 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Olddog wrote:
Well at least the EU learned to not let the UK press talk about unicorns for long:

From the independant today

EU rejects Boris Johnson request for Brexit deal without Irish backstop

Do you have a link?

I apologize dutchy I was thinking that the name of the source could be enough.

Here you go https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-deal-irish-backstop-border-boris-johnson-eu-barnier-stephen-barclay-a9113451.html

And now a new article on politico:
Michel Barnier rebuffs UK request to sort out backstop later

JJJ · Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:23 pm

Boeing74741R wrote:
LJ wrote:
But will the pensioners and retired return to the UK (apart from when they need extensive medical treatment which isn't covered enough under their new situation)? There's still more sun in France, Spain and Portugal than there is in the UK. Just apply for a residence permit and your stay is assured.

If those pensioners have saved up for a retirement in sunnier climes, are happy where they are and have gone through/willing to go through the necessary hoops to be assured of their continued residence, the most likely answer is no

One has to consider the effect on their pound-denominated savings/pension Brexit will have.

Dutchy · Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:32 pm

Olddog wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Olddog wrote:
Well at least the EU learned to not let the UK press talk about unicorns for long:

From the independant today

Do you have a link?

I apologize dutchy I was thinking that the name of the source could be enough.

Here you go https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-deal-irish-backstop-border-boris-johnson-eu-barnier-stephen-barclay-a9113451.html

And now a new article on politico:
Michel Barnier rebuffs UK request to sort out backstop later

No worries. I am fundamentally lazy, sorry

Interesting, this caught my eye though:

Brexit secretary Stephen Barclay on Thursday said the UK should be given until the end of 2020 to come up with a replacement for the policy – instead of the end-of-September deadline set by EU leaders.

So Barclay wants to postpone Brexit till the end of 2020 I guess?

Olddog · Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:44 pm

No, read the politico link. He wanted that the EU apply the WA without the backstop until the end of 2020.

scbriml · Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:50 pm

Dutchy wrote:
So Barclay wants to postpone Brexit till the end of 2020 I guess?

In that case, he'll have to ask for it, because Boris will be dead in a ditch. :rotfl:

Olddog · Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:11 pm

And a fun twitter link

Dutchy · Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:12 pm

Olddog wrote:
No, read the politico link. He wanted that the EU apply the WA without the backstop until the end of 2020.

Oh ok, than he had a non-proposal. Next.

LJ · Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:48 pm

Looks like the division in Labour about Brexit is emerging. Looks like the LIveral Democrats were smart in explicitly go for "Remain" and thus no seem the only option for those who want to Remain in the EU. One can only wonder why on earth Labour is so stupid to play in the hands of the Conswervatives and now probably help the Lib Dems to many votes in the next election.....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/21/tom-watson-plan-to-remove-me-as-deputy-leader-is-drive-by-shooting

Dutchy · Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:53 pm

Corbyn is a closet brexiteerd, so I guess that is in large part the reason Labor is acting like it does.

Anyhow, Britain looks like to be divided among the Brexit line, not labor/conservative anymore.

I don't know what kind of policies mr. Farage Brexit party want to do, more social policies or more neo-con? Most populist parties, like the Brexit . party, have a great social agenda, except of immigrants, so that would be my guess for the Brexit party.

Olddog · Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:03 pm

The economist today summed up nicely the negotiations:

JJJ · Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:15 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Corbyn is a closet brexiteerd, so I guess that is in large part the reason Labor is acting like it does.

There's nothing closeted about Corbyn's ideas about the EU.

Dutchy · Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:45 pm

Olddog wrote:
The economist today summed up nicely the negotiations:

oh man, that is brilliant, it sums it up perfectly.

Bostrom · Sat Sep 21, 2019 6:30 pm

JJJ wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Corbyn is a closet brexiteerd, so I guess that is in large part the reason Labor is acting like it does.

There's nothing closeted about Corbyn's ideas about the EU.

No, he's been against the EU until he become labour leader. After that is has become very hard for him to say what he thinks about the EU. I guess he wants to leave the EU, but to be able to blame any bad things on the Tories.

par13del · Sat Sep 21, 2019 11:11 pm

Bostrom wrote:
No, he's been against the EU until he become labour leader. After that is has become very hard for him to say what he thinks about the EU. I guess he wants to leave the EU, but to be able to blame any bad things on the Tories.

If the EU does not get in his way on nationalizing the economy and implementing his other economic and social policies, he will probably be happy to remain the in the EU.

Olddog · Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:33 am

The problem with Corbyn, like with the other brits, is does not understand how EU works. A lot of things he claims to not be allowed by the EU are in fact perfectly doable but he should first try to understand how it works really, not thru ideology.

Klaus · Sun Sep 22, 2019 6:50 pm

The problem with Corbyn is that he has fully subscribed to the lies on which Brexit is based and he's merely trying tactical tricks to get an advantage out of it, but he never challenges the core lies.

And that becomes ever harder with the actual reality ever more visibly refusing to go along with those lies.

Klaus · Sun Sep 22, 2019 6:54 pm

A101 wrote:
The remain camp keeps harping on how the EU laws are the foundation of the GFA so therefore A50 is part of that foundation, you can’t have it both ways.

That is yet another misrepresentation.

The GFA's foundations are based on membership of both Ireland and the UK in the EU.

The actual individual EU laws affect it only insofar as they make it possible to have reliably consistent rules and regulations across borders which in turn makes it possible to effectively dissolve those borders for practical purposes which then makes it even possible to have the GFA with its free choice for NI citizens to associate to either or both of the RI and UK.

Article 50 has nothing to do with the foundations of the GFA other than Brexit destroying those actual foundations by removing the UK from the EU so the whole point of the GFA can't be realized any more.

Aesma · Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:18 pm

Olddog wrote:
So today a must read: Brexit: clutching at straws

Mainly for our american friends that are often a bit lost and don(t understand why the Brexit is so hard to negotiate. It seems that the British political class has spent 40 years in a construction they can't understand.

Extract
If one never learns anything else about the EU, it is that it is a rules-based organisation where process is everything. And it is the vain insistence of UK politicians that the EU should abandon it processes and adopt a freebooting, casual approach to the Irish question that is at the heart of the Brexit impasse.

Another nail in that same coffin comes in the piece in The Times, penned by leader-writer Simon Nixon.

By far the most jaw-dropping revelation so far to have emerged in the extracts from David Cameron's memoirs, Nixon writes, was buried in his account of the build-up to the Brexit referendum. Recalling his efforts to persuade Johnson to back "remain", the former prime minister noted that, "Boris had become fixated on whether we could pass legislation that said UK law was ultimately supreme over EU law".

Cameron duly dispatched Oliver Letwin on a "nightmare round of shuttle diplomacy" between Johnson and the government's lawyers to see if a way could be found to address his concerns by domestic legislation. "But those lawyers were determined to defend the purity of European law and kept watering down the wording". According to Cameron, this epitomised the problem at the heart of the UK's relationship with the EU: "Our officials were determined to play by the rules".

Says Nixon, what makes this extract extraordinary is that it confirms that six years after he became prime minister and just weeks before he gambled Britain's membership of the EU in a referendum, Cameron didn't understand how it worked. Indeed, "it appears he still hasn't grasped that the supremacy of EU law in the areas over which the EU has competence is not a bug but the essential feature without which it couldn't work".

Nixon then avers that Cameron's ignorance of the fundamental principles of how the EU operates is testimony to the enduring hold of one of the most powerful narratives in British politics. This idea that rules are for other people, that the EU's insistence on the integrity of its legal order is an alien and unnecessary continental obsession, continues to hold an unshakeable grip over a large swathe of Britain’s political class, despite all that has happened over the past three years.

In Nixon's view, Theresa May suffered from the same delusion and now Johnson is prime minister, he observes, the whole cycle has started again. Johnson took office in July, apparently determined to test the narrative to destruction, insisting that by threatening to leave the EU without a deal on 31 October he could convince Brussels to drop its insistence on the purity of EU law and a requirement that everyone play by the rules.

For all this, Nixon concludes that it is not just the fate of Brexit that is the issue here, but the credibility of the British state. Narratives, he says, don't just matter in domestic politics, they matter to markets, too.

And "when it is clear that three prime ministers in succession have reached the highest office with a flawed understanding of how the basic framework underpinning a G7 country's most important commercial and security relationships works", he adds, "it is clear something has gone profoundly awry in Britain's political system".

I'll add to that the fact that one big reason the UK is business friendly is the rule of law, rules are rules. That somehow they now think the EU should work differently, in a more latin way, is amazing.

A101 · Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:36 pm

Klaus wrote:
A101 wrote:
The remain camp keeps harping on how the EU laws are the foundation of the GFA so therefore A50 is part of that foundation, you can’t have it both ways.

That is yet another misrepresentation.

The GFA's foundations are based on membership of both Ireland and the UK in the EU.

The actual individual EU laws affect it only insofar as they make it possible to have reliably consistent rules and regulations across borders which in turn makes it possible to effectively dissolve those borders for practical purposes which then makes it even possible to have the GFA with its free choice for NI citizens to associate to either or both of the RI and UK.

Article 50 has nothing to do with the foundations of the GFA other than Brexit destroying those actual foundations by removing the UK from the EU so the whole point of the GFA can't be realized any more.

No misrepresentation at all, being members of the EU made it easier for GFA to reach its outcome but that also means the foundations are based on all aspects of the treaty not just certain points. And part of the treaty gave members the ability to withdraw from the treaty (TEU) the GFA has never stipulated that the UK must remain in the TEU just like it does not stipulate that customs border controls cannot be put in place, as has been shown in the past they can.

Klaus · Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:51 pm

A101 wrote:
No misrepresentation at all, being members of the EU made it easier for GFA to reach its outcome

It made the GFA possible!

but that also means the foundations are based on all aspects of the treaty not just certain points.

Nope. The GFA is based specifically on the possibility to have an almost fully transparent border which is a very specific aspect of joint EU membership which in turn is based on a very specific section of EU rules and regulations.

True is that you can't have that section without all the rest, but that is not the same as being a precondition, which you keep confusing.

And part of the treaty gave members the ability to withdraw from the treaty (TEU) the GFA has never stipulated that the UK must remain in the TEU just like it does not stipulate that customs border controls cannot be put in place, as has been shown in the past they can.

You're very obviously desperate to somehow twist the GFA and article 50 into something completely different from what they actually are but the whole reason why Brexit has hit the buffers is that the buffers are solidly where they are and actual facts and actual reality are not arbitrary and one cannot just replace them with made up nonsense just because one likes that nonsense better than the actual reality.

A101 · Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:56 pm

Klaus wrote:
A101 wrote:
No misrepresentation at all, being members of the EU made it easier for GFA to reach its outcome

It made the GFA possible!

Being already aligned in EU law made it easier, it didn't make it possible

Klaus wrote:
A101 wrote:
but that also means the foundations are based on all aspects of the treaty not just certain points.

Nope. The GFA is based specifically on the possibility to have an almost fully transparent border which is a very specific aspect of joint EU membership which in turn is based on a very specific section of EU rules and regulations.

That would be true if it was a trade agreement which its not

Klaus wrote:
True is that you can't have that section without all the rest, but that is not the same as being a precondition, which you keep confusing.

No aspect of the TEU is a precondition is the point you cannot grasp, otherwise continued membership would have be a binding fact of the accord

Klaus wrote:
A101 wrote:
And part of the treaty gave members the ability to withdraw from the treaty (TEU) the GFA has never stipulated that the UK must remain in the TEU just like it does not stipulate that customs border controls cannot be put in place, as has been shown in the past they can.

You're very obviously desperate to somehow twist the GFA and article 50 into something completely different from what they actually are but the whole reason why Brexit has hit the buffers is that the buffers are solidly where they are and actual facts and actual reality are not arbitrary and one cannot just replace them with made up nonsense just because one likes that nonsense better than the actual reality.

Nope GFA/TEU are stand alone treaties for both the ROI/UK both treaties can stand own their own two feet independently, they are not a mutually supporting act

The buffer you refer to is an understanding of what the EU/ROI/UK would like to see happen at the border in regards to customs and goods move nothing more nothing less and is not a reflection on the GFA, its the EU making it a condition of the WA before knowing the future relationship

Boeing74741R · Tue Sep 24, 2019 7:53 am

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49789938

Labour's clear as mud strategy lives on for another general election. Seems farcical to decide such a major policy by a show of hands too, particularly given how close it was. It's clear for some people that supporting Corbyn is more important than deciding what's best for the country and they wonder why they're flagging in the polls. :roll:

A101 · Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:52 am

Mmmm, I’m expecting the silence to be deafening on this one

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49807401

Dutchy · Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:57 am

A101 wrote:
Klaus wrote:
A101 wrote:
No misrepresentation at all, being members of the EU made it easier for GFA to reach its outcome

It made the GFA possible!

Being already aligned in EU law made it easier, it didn't make it possible

Given this is still the biggest hurdle for the UK to leave the EU with a deal, I would say it made it possible because both sides were aligned regitolary so no need for a hard border.

Of course, you will say, well other possibilities are there, we can have a super duper electronic border and all is fine, but that solution still remains elusive till this day, so still it remains an unicorn. Even your Brexit minister wants to postpone a decision till end of next year with his non-proposal.

Dutchy · Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:01 am

A101 wrote:
Mmmm, I’m expecting the silence to be deafening on this one

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49807401

So insufficient evidence to continue a criminal investigation. Good that it has been investigated. But what is your point? They still lied in the campaign, they lied to the electorate.

tommy1808 · Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:48 am

And the ruling came down...

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/se ... s-prorogue

Best regards
Thomas

Dutchy · Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:55 am

Ye, unlawful, so the speaker of the house can reconvene Parliament. It turns out Parliament wasn't prorogued after all.

Draken21fx · Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:58 am

Dutchy wrote:
Ye, unlawful, so the speaker of the house can reconvene Parliament. It turns out Parliament wasn't prorogued after all.

He is already on the case.

Dutchy · Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:03 am

Good, and the question still stands, what are they going to do with that power.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net