Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14950
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:34 pm

art wrote:
I recall that after the UK referendum the UK government 'imported' all EU law so that it became British law, too. I t hink tthat he idea was to ensure that when EU law ceased to apply in the UK, the UK would still have laws covering the same things. Out of curiosity, does anyone know what happened after the UK left the EU this year? Does EU law still apply during the transition period? For example - just imagine - if EU law said you could not own a cat below the age of 18, would that law still apply in the UK at the moment or could the UK government scrap the law during the transition period?


The UK can already scrap such a law. They only have to follow rules that affect the single market/are part of the WA. They could reinstate the death penalty today if they wanted (they'd have a problem with another entity than the EU, though, the EHCR/Council of Europe). BoJo can scrap environmental rules and allow farmers and companies to pollute rivers, the EU will not intervene.
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:53 pm

Statement by the European Commission following the extraordinary meeting of the EU-UK Joint Committee
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pressco ... nt_20_1607
Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič stated that if the Bill were to be adopted, it would constitute an extremely serious violation of the Withdrawal Agreement and of international law.
[...]
The EU does not accept the argument that the aim of the draft Bill is to protect the Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement. In fact, it is of the view that it does the opposite.
Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič called on the UK government to withdraw these measures from the draft Bill in the shortest time possible and in any case by the end of the month.
[...]
He reminded the UK government that the Withdrawal Agreement contains a number of mechanisms and legal remedies to address violations of the legal obligations contained in the text – which the European Union will not be shy in using.


We knew the crunch was coming :box: :box: , but I didn't expect it to start that violently !!!!
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4811
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:55 pm

olle wrote:
The summer 2020 will of course be remembered for the Covid but it also seems to be the major start of refugee flows with boats over the channel.

Until Brexit France and UK under the EU and dublin agreement worked together to avoid the channel to become a new stage for boats in different conditions passing like the case has been in greece, italy and partly spain.

Farage used the Syrian migration crisis flowing to Germany and Scandinavia in the 2016 election.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics ... d-politics

Yesterday the Uk government asked Royal navy to figure out how to stop the boats enter UK waters.

https://news.sky.com/story/uk-demands-f ... e-12044977

After Brexit last winter, has Brexit meant that UK can avoid illegal immigrants or refugees, is exit from EU and Dublin agreement where EU countries an send back migrants and andvatage as Mr Farage expressed or does it only mean that in this case France feels that it has one problem less?

As I understand it France is supposed to save migrant boats but if the migrants threats to throw them self over board they have instructions to not intervene but just verify that nothing bad happens.


This is a phoney "culture war" issue that the UK government is using to distract from the exam grades fiasco.

A101 wrote:
You only have to look at how NZ with once one of the highest subsidies agricultural dependent industries in NZ to a competitive industry with no subsidies
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/impact-nz’s-agricultural-reforms


And with essentially no tarrifs on imported goods into New Zealand as it is, what is the point of an FTA from the UK's point of view? Nothing other than Boris being able to prance about saying that he's signed a deal (and to then somehow imply that one FTA with a country such as NZ makes up for losing the FTA with the EU27). When you lower your tarrifs to zero (for better or for worse) you lose your cards at the negotiating table. Something that Britain will discover if they go ahead with no-deal and then lower all tarrifs to zero to try and counter the harm done to exporters with cheap foreign imports.

There's also the fact that most in NZ are bemused at the UK coming crawling back to us after throwing us to the wolves in 1973....

art wrote:
I think that in the long term the UK economy will grow faster than the EU economy because the UK is not so interested in protecting its businesses from the need to be competitive.


Am honestly curious about how you arrive at this conclusion when the UK is actively trying to circumvent state-aid rules agreed to in the Withdrawal Agreement so that they can pump in more state aid (IE protecting businesses from market realities).


LJ wrote:
Seems that the Uk has appointed former Australia PM Tony Abbot as senior trade envoy. Question: does this mean that nobody in the UK has some knowledge on concluding trade agreements?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12498386/tony-abbott-britain-trade-deal-supremo/
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/26/choosing-tony-abbott-uk-trade-envoy-staggering-says-labour


In 2017 Abbott explained in The Spectator Australia how he had struck Australia's trade deals with China, Japan and South Korea: "My contribution to our success was to ensure that we weren't side tracked by peripheral issues such as labour and environmental standards."

https://twitter.com/davidschneider/stat ... 7265833984

His record does not matter to Johnson because Abbott is a product of the global network of rightwing thinktanks that has learned how easy and cheap it is to manipulate British politics. I want to emphasise the cheapness. Britain is the Poundshop of European politics, where money goes further. Pecunia non olet – “money does not stink” – said the emperor Vespasian as he defended his tax on the sale of urine from Rome’s sewers to tanners who used it to soften animal skins.

It might be the motto for the Anglo-Saxon right, which will use money from any source to soften public opinion. The best text to reach for if you want to understand how Abbott, a blunder from down under, became a figure of consequence in London is Peter Geoghegan’s Democracy for Sale, which should be the most discussed political book of the year. It is by turns balanced, authoritative, revelatory and scandalous. As the web and unsourced money twist elections, the subject could not be more urgent. Too many politicians and journalists are too compromised to think about buying influence, however, and the book has not been mentioned outside the liberal press.

I’ll come to the reasons for the silence later. For the moment, let’s endure a few more minutes of Abbott’s company. His case illustrates our troubles in microcosm. Abbott could be influencing our government because he earned the essential qualification for promotion when he became a travelling player on the rightwing thinktank circuit. He defended Donald Trump at the Heritage Foundation in Washington and Brexit on behalf of the Policy Exchange and the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) in London. He was so far gone, he was willing to join Daniel Hannan, Andrew Roberts and a clown parade of other fruit loops in asserting that Britain could free itself from geography, leave Europe and become a part of “Canzuk” , an Anglo-Saxon Narnia formed by the merger of the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ony-abbott

RyanairGuru wrote:
I am no fan of Tony Abbott, indeed I got very drunk when he was deposed as Prime Minister, but the one thing I will not fault him for was his government's record of advancing Australian trade agreements. In the space of 12 months the Abbott government signed FTAs with Korea, Japan and China. That was a pretty phenomenal diplomatic effort.


In the Mad Monk's own words on signing FTAs "My contribution to our success was to ensure that we weren't side tracked by peripheral issues such as labour and environmental standards." Seems to be a bit of an own goal there.

Dutchy wrote:
Brexit Supporter Hate Shows All That's Left of Their Cause

That seems to be true. No benefits of Brexit left.
- Brexit isn't about freedom: UK citizens lose freedoms, no extra significant freedoms in return;
- Brexit isn't about wealth: the UK will become porer (only a few continuing deals representing less than 10%);

So what is it about? Apparently it is about laughing at other UK citizens who are pro-EU, Brexiteers have named all British institutions as their enemy one time or another. It is a crazy situation.


Yikes. There's no more straws left to clutch at so now it has become about cutting of their nose to spite the remainers.

olle wrote:
Ms Merkel is more popular then ever. She have all EU behind her and she outlplays UK at the moment.


Yeah but how could you not outplay the UK right now? They're hardly playing a blinder! :lol:

olle wrote:
Ms Merkel is playing the game that Brexit UK cannot support. Transparens, using time to think thinks over by not rush things. I must admit she is writing herself into the history books of EU for generations to come. Merkel the Great?

:checkmark:
 
Klaus
Posts: 21638
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:09 pm

zkojq wrote:
olle wrote:
Ms Merkel is more popular then ever. She have all EU behind her and she outlplays UK at the moment.


Yeah but how could you not outplay the UK right now? They're hardly playing a blinder! :lol:

There's effectively no debate about Brexit in the EU: We're all in agreement that the BoJo government in Westminster is just plain nuts and punching itself in the face on the regular. And almost nobody cares any more (we in this forum are the very rare exception to that!). There is no mood to give in to the insanity on the island.

olle wrote:
Ms Merkel is playing the game that Brexit UK cannot support. Transparens, using time to think thinks over by not rush things. I must admit she is writing herself into the history books of EU for generations to come. Merkel the Great?

:checkmark:

That is very, very far beyond the mark.

Merkel is rational, sober and instinctively averse to grandiose bullshit (and to its peddlers), but her government at home has left a lot to be desired and a lot of problems unresolved for arduous and expensive cleanup in the future.

So she will certainly be remembered with respect, but definitely without much if any of the reverence some people keep imagining. Compared to Trump, Johnson or Bolsonaro she's almost a saint, but apart from such extremes there are still lots of issues and blind spots.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21638
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:28 pm

The UK government have shot their excuses from the hip, very clearly:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... tement.pdf
These culminate in this:
It is an established principle of international law that a state is obliged to discharge its treaty obligations in good faith. This is, and will remain, the key principle in informing the UK’s approach to international relations.

Uh, yeah. We can see that right now...!

However, in the difficult and highly exceptional circumstances in which we find ourselves, it is important to remember the fundamental principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.
Parliament is sovereign as a matter of domestic law and can pass legislation which is in breach of the UK’s Treaty obligations. Parliament would not be acting unconstitutionally in enacting such legislation. This ‘dualist’ approach is shared by other, similar legal systems such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Under this approach, treaty obligations only become binding to the extent that they are enshrined in domestic legislation. Whether to enact or repeal legislation, and the content of that legislation, is for Parliament and Parliament alone. This principle was recently approved unanimously by the Supreme Court in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5.

Translation: "As long as the Tories have a majority in the UK Commons, we can violate any international treaty as we please!"

Well, technically they can on a certain level (only looking at domestic laws), but it's as with free speech: You have lots of freedoms there, but not the freedom from repercussions.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4811
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:24 pm

Reinhardt wrote:
All the polls are starting to shift that way. Can you blame them though, really? If I was Northern Irish or Scottish right now I'd be wondering what the hell was going on and looking to vote away.


More importantly, with the raging bonfire that is Westminster, why would anybody not at least want to have the right to decide, even if they don't specifically plan on voting yes? One might not specifically support independence, but with all the chaos going on you'd be mad to not be supportive of give yourself the choice. I've always said that BoJo would do more for the independence movement than Nicola or Alex could ever dream of.

Reinhardt wrote:
Realistically though I have no idea how Scotland could afford to do it, considering the state of the finances right now.


Image

The economic arguments against independence in GERS are mostly BS from Westminster. In the GERS report for example £4.5bn removed from Scotland's accounts to service Westminster debt, £3.4bn for defence, £1.8bn for UK 'service costs', £966m for 'international services'. They're just pulling numbers out of the sky to advance a Unionist political agenda. Ireland spends ~€750-800 million on defense for example.

JJJ wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
;

So what is it about? Apparently it is about laughing at other UK citizens who are pro-EU, Brexiteers have named all British institutions as their enemy one time or another. It is a crazy situation.


Apparently senior BBC journalist Andrew Marr thinks Scotland is only a few years away from breaking away from the Union.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18682 ... nion-2024/



Well it's all worth if for Brexit, apparently, so I guess everyone should be happy?

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/poll ... ?r=US&IR=T

LJ wrote:
Thus should Scotland want to become independent, it better takes much more time preparing for it than the UK with Brexit.


Well it did. The independence proposal was far, far more detailed and more grounded in reality than anything that brexiters put out. What it comes down two is that the Scottish independence proposal was a concrete proposal, whilst brexit was just meaningless platitudes which everybody tacked various un-keepable promises onto.

Image

Klaus wrote:
You're mistaken about that. Scotland could indeed use the Euro right away, just of course with no influence on the ECB before actual accession to the Eurozone.

:checkmark: Kosovo and Montenegro do just that. Another Unionist myth completely absent of facts.

JJJ wrote:
art wrote:
UK car production 2003-2019 was 1.25-1.7 million vehicles per annum (2008 excepted)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/298 ... d-kingdom/

UK car sales 2003-2019 were about 1.9-2.6 million per annum
https://www.statista.com/statistics/299 ... d-kingdom/

In other words, there is more UK demand than supply so UK car plants could switch to supplying the UK market with little reduction in output (if any overall).


And where are most of those cars headed to?

Honda has already announced they are closing Swindon. Do you think Toyota will keep making Corollas out of Burnaston if Japanese Corollas can be imported tariff-free to the EU?/quote]

Well let them drive Aston Martins and Range Rovers then! /s

Kiwirob wrote:
Aston Martin currently used MB engines, within a couple of years they will replace them with a new in house designed TTV6.


...If Lawrence Stroll can keep the company solvent.

noviorbis77 wrote:
sabenapilot wrote:

Wonder if the French will draw some inspiration from it regarding the border treaty of Calais at a convenient moment in future. ;)


Yeah if they want to shut down Eurotunnel, one of the largest employers in Northern France. There is no room in Folkstone to presently set up Immigration and Customs checks, but I am sure France would happily make thousands of French nationals unemployed who are employed by Eurotunnel. What a clever thought you have come up with.


You mean doing something that causes significant economic harm but justifying it because of platitudes about sovereignty? :scratchchin:

LJ wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
It is so fascinating that the WA is now under "attack" from the same people who negotiated it only a few months. It was a requirement for Torrie MP's to stand for election to vote for the deal. And some say, yeah this is a good idea. We live in a strange world.


In their defense, they didn't read it and/or couldn't comprehend the legal consequences. They just voted for it.


The most ridiculous end to this was Ian Duncan Smith who voted last year for the Withdrawal Agreement and voted against giving MPs extra time to scrutinize the legislation and now goes on to claim that there is 160bn quid of extra costs buried in the fine print. :roll:


LJ wrote:
It seems the UK has some money left as it's going to spend GBP 120mn on a "Festival of Brexit". I've to say, the timing is perfect.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/09/festival-of-brexit-organisers-launch-application-process


:rotfl: Bravo brexiteers, problem solved - and all it took was for people to believe hard enough in Brexit! ;)
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 2586
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:32 pm

May I remind you to post a link to your source for every kind of image you are posting except your own images (which are marked accordingly)? Thanks.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12848
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:32 pm

olle wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
A101 wrote:

Ah sorry my misunderstanding I was referring about the talking about the FTA

Technically no trade deal makes the WA incompatible with UK law


Incorrect.

The WA applies regardless of deal or no deal.

By virtue of being ratified by Parliament, the WA is already enshrined in UK law. It can only become incompatible with UK law if the UK passes laws that deliberately contradict it after it’s been ratified.

That is to say, it is compatible until it is deliberately made incompatible - an act that amounts to breaching international law.

Not that this should come as any surprise - it’s pretty much exactly as its played out.


While WA is already UK and International law, is the UK ministers actually breaking UK law as well?


Don't know. The UK is, of course, a signature of the Good Friday Agreement and that is what is at stake here.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12848
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:02 pm

A101 wrote:
It’s your prerogative to agree or not with anything posted on the forum.

No, facts should not be disputed, and it is not something to agree with or not, facts are just that.

A101 wrote:
You know Sir Jonathan Jones personally?

No, and that is irrelevant.

A101 wrote:
You have inside information on what the actual advice to Government was?

No, and that is irrelevant. What is relevant is what is said about it, I gave you the appropriate link if you want to delve into that.

A101 wrote:
His job is to give unbiased advice and it’s implications, he obviously didn’t agree with the way Government has taken the advice, it also doesn't mean that Government has to accept his advise.

No, of course not, but it is quite telling that the head of the legal service takes a personal consequence of this practice. So either you do not understand that this is very exceptional (last time 2003 with the Iraq war) or you just want to get your head around it and put it in your own narrative. Objectively it is very rare that a civil servant does this and thus openly disagrees with the government.

A101 wrote:
It also dosnt mean that his personal opinion on Brexit is the same as the Government’s. Without knowing the full background there also may have been disagreements in the past and this could be an accumulation on his personal views on the matter coming to the fore.

Oh boy. I really don't know how your mind works. Everything is prosible, although not very likely, especially since the reaction from about anybody else - except you - very much including the government is that this bill is against international law.

A101 wrote:
His has not disclosed the reason to resign has not been made public, but there are reports in FT of conflicting advice to government. But I far from being a legal eagle but try to make myself as knowledgeable as possible and read various legal text and gather information from nurmerous source to make informed judgement. I’m not saying I’m right but when you look at the entire picture and judgements with legal text it become clear to understand.

In this case you are just plane wrong. Again, everyone excepts that this is a breach of international law, all parties (except you).

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
The facts are yes the UK is altering the WA in a way that breaks the agreement as signed


No but's, no if's, just a full stop. The UK withdraws unilaterally from a signed international treaty under international law. That is a fact - or at least the current intention of the UK government -.


Well from your own post it’s not a fact, where has it said in the new IM bill it unilaterally compel’s the UK from withdrawing from the WA?


Everyone says so, again denying facts. The fabrique of the WA is damaged with this bill. So adopting the bill itself is killing the WA, no need to withdraw from it, it will make the WA mute.

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Now we have established facts, we can argue over the appropriate consequences. Perhaps you could answer the following questions:
- do you think it is appropriate to do so and if so why?


appropriate To do what?


Breach international law with this bill.


A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

- what do you think the border between Ulster and Ireland will look like if this bill is adopted? How do you think the citizens of Ulster will react to it?


Exactly what the withdrawal agreement shows a border in the Irish Sea, I cant say how all will react but I imagine most would agree with it


So this bill doesn't do anything, you say? Or are you saying that the EU will just leave an external border open for the UK to exploit? If this bill is adopted, the EU cannot trust the UK government what will be let into Northern Ireland or not. So it is either one of those two, so what will you reagon it to be.

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

- do you think this action will make it easier to come to a trade agreement with the EU - remember BoJo has set a deadline for 15october - 5 weeks from now?


Not for me to decide that up to those from Barnier to decide

You decide nothing, luckily, but what do you think will happen.

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

- how do you think other nations will react to this when Great Britain can withdraw, unilaterally, from an international agreement with such ease? What will / has happen(ed) to the perception of the UK as a dependable partner?


I believe there are 116 state parties have ratified the Vienna convention, it will show that the UK will not be bullied into signing an unacceptable agreement


I donot understand what the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties has got to do with it, again all parties - except you - agree it is a breach of international law. What is unacceptable about the Withdrawal Agreement? Johnson did negotiate it after all.
 
LJ
Posts: 5470
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:58 pm

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
The facts are yes the UK is altering the WA in a way that breaks the agreement as signed, but it’s also a fact that there is a provision within the WA in which I posted that both sides can use to unilaterally change certain aspects of the agreement in which they have done.


You can quote anything you like. Jonathan Jones resigned over this. So you basically are arguing that you know it better than the head of the UK government’s legal department. So, who are you that you think you are such a legal mind that you know this stuff better than the top legal mind in her majesties government with a hole department to advise him. Why should we take any word of you above everyone else? I think it is a fair question to ask.



It’s your prerogative to agree or not with anything posted on the forum.

You know Sir Jonathan Jones personally?
You have inside information on what the actual advice to Government was?


Especially for A101.

The advice of all three law officers was summarised in the letter, which was sent by the attorney general’s office to a senior Whitehall official on 2 September.

It states that all three law officers agreed that the UK internal markets bill, which seeks to override portions of the Northern Ireland protocol in the event of no trade deal with the EU, would amount to a “clear breach” of the withdrawal agreement and international law.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/10/governments-top-legal-advisers-divided-over-move-to-override-brexit-deal
 
A101
Posts: 2714
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Thu Sep 10, 2020 7:55 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
Incorrect.

The WA applies regardless of deal or no deal.

By virtue of being ratified by Parliament, the WA is already enshrined in UK law. It can only become incompatible with UK law if the UK passes laws that deliberately contradict it after it’s been ratified.

That is to say, it is compatible until it is deliberately made incompatible - an act that amounts to breaching international law.

Not that this should come as any surprise - it’s pretty much exactly as its played out.



Only as far as it becomes incompatible with UK constitution law which binds the UK as one aka Acts of the Union 1800. In the event of trade agreement not being reached

“The subjects of Great Britain and Ireland shall be on the same footing in respect of trade and navigation, and in all treaties with foreign powers the subjects of Ireland shall have the same privileges as British subject.”

It’s quite clear without a trade deal which may surpass the friction between NI/GB it would infringe on the rights of NI to have same privileges in respect to the UK internal market. Something that the EU holds the SM to the highest level for itself but does not recognise the same for the UK and its own century old constitution makeup.

So either the UK repeals or makes modifications to the Union Act to make it unrecognisable which may create even bigger hostility between Irish unionist and nationalists or the UK would amends the WA or repeals it

You cannot marginalise unionist and nationalists over the other the IM Bill seeks minimise UK market-based administrative friction between GB and NI which the EU has elevated to the Belfast agreement, then that is a problem just as big as is the case with the IR and NI friction.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12848
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Thu Sep 10, 2020 8:08 pm

The EU is giving the United Kingdom until the end of September to remove the provision that makes it possible to overrule parts of the so-called Northern Ireland protocol from the controversial 'Brexit law'. Maros Sefcovic, who represents the EU when it comes to the implementation of the withdrawal agreement, announced this on Thursday.

Sefcovic calls on the British government to work on this as soon as possible or to have it completed by the end of this month at the latest. British Minister Michael Gove has indicated to Sefcovic that he will not comply with this.


Link in Dutch

We'll see the end of September what will happen to this proposed bill. Michael Gove isn't willing to comply with this request.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12848
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Thu Sep 10, 2020 8:11 pm

A101 wrote:
Only as far as it becomes incompatible with UK constitution law which binds the UK as one aka Acts of the Union 1800. In the event of trade agreement not being reached

“The subjects of Great Britain and Ireland shall be on the same footing in respect of trade and navigation, and in all treaties with foreign powers the subjects of Ireland shall have the same privileges as British subject.”

It’s quite clear without a trade deal which may surpass the friction between NI/GB it would infringe on the rights of NI to have same privileges in respect to the UK internal market. Something that the EU holds the SM to the highest level for itself but does not recognise the same for the UK and its own century old constitution makeup.

So either the UK repeals or makes modifications to the Union Act to make it unrecognisable which may create even bigger hostility between Irish unionist and nationalists or the UK would amends the WA or repeals it

You cannot marginalise unionist and nationalists over the other the IM Bill seeks minimise UK market-based administrative friction between GB and NI which the EU has elevated to the Belfast agreement, then that is a problem just as big as is the case with the IR and NI friction.


Having flash backs from reading this from you. I will repeat myself: "don't export the Brexit problem to others'
 
AeroVega
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:32 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Thu Sep 10, 2020 8:20 pm

A101 wrote:
It’s quite clear without a trade deal which may surpass the friction between NI/GB it would infringe on the rights of NI to have same privileges in respect to the UK internal market. Something that the EU holds the SM to the highest level for itself but does not recognise the same for the UK and its own century old constitution makeup.


Nice story, but nowhere in the WA does it say that its conditions are contingent on a trade deal. And the UK signed that document.

What it clear is that a UK signature is worthless. And knowing that there is nothing left to negotiate.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2469
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Thu Sep 10, 2020 9:11 pm

A101 wrote:
Only as far as it becomes incompatible with UK constitution law which binds the UK as one aka Acts of the Union 1800 .


Still incorrect. But I’m rather enjoying the way this Brexiteer spin overdrive is revealing the amusing inadequacies in Brexiteer logic.

A101 wrote:
In the event of trade agreement not being reached .


But, ummm, Brexiteers insisted that a trade agreement would always be on the table - WTO or Australia-style or some such. That hasn’t changed. Those are the de-facto trade agreement if nothing better comes along.

A101 wrote:
“The subjects of Great Britain and Ireland shall be on the same footing in respect of trade and navigation, and in all treaties with foreign powers the subjects of Ireland shall have the same privileges as British subject.”

It’s quite clear without a trade deal which may surpass the friction between NI/GB it would infringe on the rights of NI to have same privileges in respect to the UK internal market. Something that the EU holds the SM to the highest level for itself but does not recognise the same for the UK and its own century old constitution makeup.


See above. There is going to be a trade agreement. Governed by the WTO. Like Australia’s.

A101 wrote:
So either the UK repeals or makes modifications to the Union Act to make it unrecognisable which may create even bigger hostility between Irish unionist and nationalists or the UK would amends the WA or repeals it

You cannot marginalise unionist and nationalists over the other the IM Bill seeks minimise UK market-based administrative friction between GB and NI which the EU has elevated to the Belfast agreement, then that is a problem just as big as is the case with the IR and NI friction.


It’s weird how no one caught on to this.

Oh wait, they did. In fact the DUP even refused to vote for the WA almost a year ago. Granted that counted for nought among Brexiteers. Some even showed up here to revel in Boris Johnson’s “triumph“, getting the EU to reopen negotiations and all.

No matter how Brexiteers try to spin this mess, they’re not going to come out looking good. Either the negotiations were undertaken by the UK in bad faith (buying time through the WA they never intended to respect), or they literally did not comprehend what they were signing up to despite warnings from every possible angle - including, dare I say, the Unionists Brexiteers are suddenly so concerned about.

Brexiteers would do well to take some time to reconcile their past actions with their present position, because they’ve managed to cook up a holy mess this week with what they themselves declared was a “great deal”. Cant have it both ways.
 
A101
Posts: 2714
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Thu Sep 10, 2020 9:40 pm

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Only as far as it becomes incompatible with UK constitution law which binds the UK as one aka Acts of the Union 1800. In the event of trade agreement not being reached

“The subjects of Great Britain and Ireland shall be on the same footing in respect of trade and navigation, and in all treaties with foreign powers the subjects of Ireland shall have the same privileges as British subject.”

It’s quite clear without a trade deal which may surpass the friction between NI/GB it would infringe on the rights of NI to have same privileges in respect to the UK internal market. Something that the EU holds the SM to the highest level for itself but does not recognise the same for the UK and its own century old constitution makeup.

So either the UK repeals or makes modifications to the Union Act to make it unrecognisable which may create even bigger hostility between Irish unionist and nationalists or the UK would amends the WA or repeals it

You cannot marginalise unionist and nationalists over the other the IM Bill seeks minimise UK market-based administrative friction between GB and NI which the EU has elevated to the Belfast agreement, then that is a problem just as big as is the case with the IR and NI friction.


Having flash backs from reading this from you. I will repeat myself: "don't export the Brexit problem to others'


It’s oneand the same problem under your interpretation of the Belfast agreement
 
A101
Posts: 2714
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 11, 2020 1:15 am

ElPistolero wrote:

Still incorrect. But I’m rather enjoying the way this Brexiteer spin overdrive is revealing the amusing inadequacies in Brexiteer logic.


Yeah it does have an element of amusement waiting to see the replies on the forum, see who’s frothing at the mouth and who’s not

So you deny that they are incompatible with each other, would be interesting to see how you come to that conclusion. When it clearly states that “all treaties with foreign powers the subjects of Ireland shall have the same privileges as British subject”



ElPistolero wrote:

But, ummm, Brexiteers insisted that a trade agreement would always be on the table - WTO or Australia-style or some such. That hasn’t changed. Those are the de-facto trade agreement if nothing better comes along.


Yes using a recognised de-facto instrument ratified under WTO, but you are not taking into account that NI will still have seperate trade barriers to the UK internal market with the WA so two distinct regulatory rules certainly not the same as the remaining parts of the GB

ElPistolero wrote:
See above. There is going to be a trade agreement. Governed by the WTO. Like Australia’s.



Correct if the EU/UK cannot come to an agreement

ElPistolero wrote:
It’s weird how no one caught on to this.

Oh wait, they did. In fact the DUP even refused to vote for the WA almost a year ago. Granted that counted for nought among Brexiteers. Some even showed up here to revel in Boris Johnson’s “triumph“, getting the EU to reopen negotiations and all.

No matter how Brexiteers try to spin this mess, they’re not going to come out looking good. Either the negotiations were undertaken by the UK in bad faith (buying time through the WA they never intended to respect), or they literally did not comprehend what they were signing up to despite warnings from every possible angle - including, dare I say, the Unionists Brexiteers are suddenly so concerned about.

Brexiteers would do well to take some time to reconcile their past actions with their present position, because they’ve managed to cook up a holy mess this week with what they themselves declared was a “great deal”. Cant have it both ways.


It was caught onto long ago hence the reason why TM made a UK wide backstop, but as we know that also left the UK in a BRINO, the aspirations whilst we are in transition there is no incompatibility, the withdrawal agreement also has provision that when the UK make a trade agreement NI will also be a part of that agreement so hence when if an agreement is/was reached between the UK/EU the same privileges applied no incompatibly

And I most certainly agree the whole process from the start has been a dogs breakfast, as Cameron had no plan post referenda, May was an EU apologist and Johnson reacting to the shenanigans of a hostile Parliament and EU, with the latest try to manoeuvre the poison pills whithin the WA. I said it from the beginning the only thing that should have been in the WA was the divorce payments
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2469
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 11, 2020 3:15 am

A101 wrote:
Yeah it does have an element of amusement waiting to see the replies on the forum, see who’s frothing at the mouth and who’s not

So you deny that they are incompatible with each other, would be interesting to see how you come to that conclusion. When it clearly states that “all treaties with foreign powers the subjects of Ireland shall have the same privileges as British subject”


Red herring. They are no more or less incompatible than they would have been under a Canada-style agreement, which is what Brexiteers were explicitly seeking when they signed / voted for / cheered on the WA.

I guess you could argue that they didn’t realize what they were doing at the time, but it’s hardly a flattering look. If anything, it provides credibility to the worst stereotypes about Brexiteers.

A101 wrote:
Yes using a recognised de-facto instrument ratified under WTO, but you are not taking into account that NI will still have seperate trade barriers to the UK internal market with the WA so two distinct regulatory rules certainly not the same as the remaining parts of the GB


See above. That would have happened anyway under the Brexiteers preferred Canada-style model (no customs union etc). In fact, Theresa May’s original WA was aimed at squaring that circle. Before it was replaced with the “great new deal” that put a border down the Irish Sea. As virtually everyone has been pointing out for months.

And yet Brexiteers evidently didn’t notice this reality until, well, now. Like I said, none of this is lost on anyone. And it does not reflect well on Brexiteers.

A101 wrote:
It was caught onto long ago hence the reason why TM made a UK wide backstop, but as we know that also left the UK in a BRINO, the aspirations whilst we are in transition there is no incompatibility, the withdrawal agreement also has provision that when the UK make a trade agreement NI will also be a part of that agreement so hence when if an agreement is/was reached between the UK/EU the same privileges applied no incompatibly


Then they knew that this would all be irrelevant under under a Canada-style FTA that would still require customs checks.

Alternatively, they didn’t have a clue, and only figured it out in the last two weeks. Pick your unflattering look.

A101 wrote:
And I most certainly agree the whole process from the start has been a dogs breakfast, as Cameron had no plan post referenda, May was an EU apologist and Johnson reacting to the shenanigans of a hostile Parliament and EU, with the latest try to manoeuvre the poison pills whithin the WA. I said it from the beginning the only thing that should have been in the WA was the divorce payments


That’s a rather long winded way of saying that the government negotiated the WA in bad faith. If it wanted to go off the cliff edge, it should have done so last year. Instead the it appears to have pretended to commit to something else to win an election and buy time to prepare for the cliff edge.

This short-termism inherent in Brexit ideology might work well if your only goal is to “own” ”frothing remainers” and please the “somewheres”, but in the long term, well, good luck telling others to respect international treaties on climate change etc. I can think of at least one government that will throw Brendan Lewis’ words right back at the UK the next time it asks them to respect an international treaty (hint: its a big country).
 
A101
Posts: 2714
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 11, 2020 4:17 am

ElPistolero wrote:

Red herring. They are no more or less incompatible than they would have been under a Canada-style agreement, which is what Brexiteers were explicitly seeking when they signed / voted for / cheered on the WA.

&

See above. That would have happened anyway under the Brexiteers preferred Canada-style model (no customs union etc). In fact, Theresa May’s original WA was aimed at squaring that circle. Before it was replaced with the “great new deal” that put a border down the Irish Sea. As virtually everyone has been pointing out for months.


Red herring LOL: if the EU/UK agree to an FTA it also applies to NI so any trade restrictions will be the same when moving commodities into NI from GB. It’s when there is no FTA the incompatibility starts after the transition period.

ElPistolero wrote:
Then they knew that this would all be irrelevant under under a Canada-style FTA that would still require customs checks.



That depends on the agreement but yes if goods entering only NI have a need for customs check then it breaches the Acts of the Union 1800



ElPistolero wrote:
That’s a rather long winded way of saying that the government negotiated the WA in bad faith. If it wanted to go off the cliff edge, it should have done so last year. Instead the it appears to have pretended to commit to something else to win an election and buy time to prepare for the cliff edge.

This short-termism inherent in Brexit ideology might work well if your only goal is to “own” ”frothing remainers” and please the “somewheres”, but in the long term, well, good luck telling others to respect international treaties on climate change etc. I can think of at least one government that will throw Brendan Lewis’ words right back at the UK the next time it asks them to respect an international treaty (hint: its a big country).


It shows how hostile Parliament was to the result of the referenda in its pursuit of remaining in the EU at any cost
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:02 am

A101 wrote last year;

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Boris has sorted the internal mess and prior to that got the backstop changed which was what was actually holding up UK Parliament from ratification of the Withdrawl Agreement in the first place . It’s now Guy Verhofstadt who is claiming the EU Parliament will not ratify the Withdrawl Agreement 2 days before exit day you also seem to be under the misconception that the UK is worried if the EU ratifies the Agreement or not, one guess where the blame lies after all this time on trying to appear the EU is not to blame only for it to fall over at the last hurdle if Guy Verhofstadt can persuade the rest of the parliament :rotfl: ..........I personally don’t care if the EU Parliament does not ratify the agreement it’s the EU who will forfeit the divorce payments when we passed the agreement into law Boris will be hoping Guy can do what he says at the same time rubbing his hands with glee.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A101 was mess did Boris solved and if he solved the mess with the WA why do UK want to make WA agreement absolete?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12848
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:24 am

A101 wrote:
And I most certainly agree the whole process from the start has been a dogs breakfast, as Cameron had no plan post referenda, May was an EU apologist and Johnson reacting to the shenanigans of a hostile Parliament and EU, with the latest try to manoeuvre the poison pills whithin the WA.


A WA agreement with just a deforce bill was not possible. As we have said from the beginning, Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement is the problem. I remember to have this discussion ions ago. You came with your usual "legal" mumble jumbo, I said simply: don't export your Brexit problem. By your own admission, you are not legally trained, so you can quote any treaty you like, but it's not your expertise and having legal arguments, you kind of need to have real expertise to make those. Legal is very much about the fine print and interpretations, especially in international treaties. So you can dazzle all you want with quoting articles from legal texts - probably quoted from some Brexit site or something -, but it is best to ignore those from anyone but trained professionals.

Would be kind of "fun" to quote you form those threads, but I do not want to put the effort into that.

A101 wrote:
I said it from the beginning the only thing that should have been in the WA was the divorce payments

Yes, so you said. And with saying that you showed you grossly misunderstood the EU, what it will do and what its values are. So you misjudged the situation completely and the power of the UK compared to the EU. The A in WA stands for Agreement and for an agreement you do understand you need both parties, right?
The EU stood firm with one of its members, Ireland and de facto was more involved with the citizens of Northern Ireland than you or nr. 10.
England will rule the waves, albeit very small ones and just very close to shore.

Can we bet yet on when the British union will fall apart from the reckless and incompetent behavior from current British politics?

Actions have consequences and if you are not prepared to live with the consequences, you are best adviced not to take that action.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1945
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:10 am

Dutchy wrote:
you can dazzle all you want with quoting articles from legal texts - probably quoted from some Brexit site or something -, but it is best to ignore those from anyone but trained professionals.


This is the main reason I tend to ignore those verbose posts. I'm sure certain people are impressed by randomly-dropped legalistic-sounding mumbo jumbo, but I recognise it for the meaningless Start Trek techno-babble it is...

Lots of confusing words, nothing of insight.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12848
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:54 am

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
you can dazzle all you want with quoting articles from legal texts - probably quoted from some Brexit site or something -, but it is best to ignore those from anyone but trained professionals.


This is the main reason I tend to ignore those verbose posts. I'm sure certain people are impressed by randomly-dropped legalistic-sounding mumbo jumbo, but I recognise it for the meaningless Start Trek techno-babble it is...

Lots of confusing words, nothing of insight.


A tend to agree with your insight. One problem is, of course, that leaving the 'randomly-dropped legalistic-sounding mumbo jumbo' unchallenged, some will take it for a fact. The most prominent example in the Brexit saga has to be the "regulation of the curvature of banana's". As we all know that has been a fabrication of Mr. Johnson himself at the time he was the EU correspondent. Now and again, this myth has been popping up. So yeah, what to do when people use "randomly-dropped legalistic-sounding mumbo jumbo" as an impressive-sounding argument? Call it out for what it is, or leave it?
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14950
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:57 am

Klaus wrote:
Guardian: Leaked EU cables reveal growing mistrust of UK in Brexit talks

Besides the further plummeting trust in this UK government (and it's already been at basement level), this is the most interesting part to me:

UK officials on Monday morning repeatedly stressed how minor the changes will be in the three key areas. The internal market bill will give ministers the power to decide whether or not potential state subsidies need to be reported to the EU, what counts as “at risk” goods that will need to be checked when crossing the Irish Sea, and whether export summary declarations need to be filled in.

If no mutual agreement can be reached by the joint committee with the EU, then ministers are likely to define those terms very narrowly, in the UK’s interests.

The withdrawal agreement currently stipulates, in contrast, that all goods should be deemed at risk of tariffs in the event of a lack of agreement within the committee.

“These are not changes made in good faith,” one EU official said. “But we will see what they actually do.”

So what these clowns are doing is proposing to legislate to unilaterally impose their own decisions and rules on the EU's internal market. That is what all three stipulations actually mean.

That, of course, would be an obviously unacceptable intrusion into the EU's own sovereignty and that of its 27 member states. This is clearly intended as a provocation to blow up the negotiations – or at the very least as a chunk of raw meat to throw to their rabid backbenchers before ultimately still caving to the EU's requests just like BoJo did on the Withdrawal Agreement.

This is exactly as hamfisted, puerile and outright incompetent as could have been expected, and having to deal with such low-grade nonsense (most probably) without losing his temper earns Michel Barnier not just every single Euro of his salary but also my respect and gratitude.


The content of you answer doesn't change, but for clarification, the internal market the UK government is talking about is the UK internal market. In fact it plans to streamline some regulations that currently aren't the same between England, Wales, Scotland and NI (but are all compatible with EU regulations). Without asking to these entities if they actually agree...

But yes, at the same time they want to screw with the WA, to "honor" the promise of no/minimal controls/paperwork/fees between Britain and NI.

This is all the more futile that the EU is setting up custom facilities at ports in NI so what the UK decides unilaterally won't matter.
 
A101
Posts: 2714
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 11, 2020 8:07 am

olle wrote:


A101 was mess did Boris solved




You will need to read the original agreement and see the changes between the two, it will give you a better idea even the very most pro remain Parliament put the kibosh to it 3 times.


olle wrote:
why do UK want to make WA agreement absolete?


That’s pretty generic saying the UK, BJ hasn’t put the WA to the sword infact he is trying to keep the WA with his IMB, in fact it would be quite easy for him to walk away from the lot.

But yes there are numerous factions that would like to see the WA gone, each have there own views as I do
 
A101
Posts: 2714
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:01 am

Dutchy wrote:
A WA agreement with just a deforce bill was not possible. As we have said from the beginning, Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement is the problem



Care to expand why you believe it was not possible

Dutchy wrote:
You came with your usual "legal" mumble jumbo,


The Legal mumbo jumbo as you put it actually puts the facts into perspective, After all you do like facts

Dutchy wrote:
So you can dazzle all you want with quoting articles from legal texts - probably quoted from some Brexit site or something -, but it is best to ignore those from anyone but trained professionals.


I don’t quote legal texts from articles, when I post legal text it is the actual legislation on the books from the Government.

And yes I do read articles from prominent people with the expertise in there chosen fields, just as I read articles from journalist who also do not have the legal expertise, but they also put their 2 bobs worth


Dutchy wrote:

Yes, so you said. And with saying that you showed you grossly misunderstood the EU, what it will do and what its values are. So you misjudged the situation completely and the power of the UK compared to the EU.


I didn’t miss judge anything, I’ve put forward my views on certain matters. I am in no position within the Government to offer my advice except forward correspondence to my local MP


Dutchy wrote:

The A in WA stands for Agreement and for an agreement you do understand you need both parties, right?


LOL

Dutchy wrote:
The EU stood firm with one of its members, Ireland and de facto was more involved with the citizens of Northern Ireland than you or nr. 10.


That’s open to conjecture


Dutchy wrote:
England will rule the waves, albeit very small ones and just very close to shore.


Well according to the PD, the EU wants to continue working with the UK defence with its power projection capabilities, can’t be all that bad can it.

But if you are happy for the UK to not be part of any EU military operations I’m happy to go along with that.

Dutchy wrote:

Can we bet yet on when the British union will fall apart from the reckless and incompetent behavior from current British politics?


If you want too

Dutchy wrote:
Actions have consequences and if you are not prepared to live with the consequences, you are best adviced not to take that action.


I knew what the worst case scenario was when I voted to leave the EU, and I was happy with it if it turned out that way and still happy if we move on without a FTA and rescind the WA
 
noviorbis77
Posts: 1177
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:23 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:11 am

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/shet ... 44606.html

With Orkney Islands also wanting it, looks like parts of Scotland want independence from Scotland.
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3719
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:52 am

noviorbis77 wrote:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/shetland-islands-independence-scotland-a4544606.html

With Orkney Islands also wanting it, looks like parts of Scotland want independence from Scotland.


As far as I know, it's not to rejoin the UK if and when Scotland leaves they UK: rather they might want to brake away from both the UK and Scotland and become sovereign on their own.

Seems to me like the UK is increasingly just England and Wales only, while every other bit and piece of the Kingdom is seriously looking at ways to split from it in an orderly fashion.

Will the UK still be around in say 10 years from now?
And will it still comprise the same territory as it does today?
I would be very reluctant to reply yes to both of these questions...
 
noviorbis77
Posts: 1177
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:23 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 11, 2020 11:42 am

sabenapilot wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/shetland-islands-independence-scotland-a4544606.html

With Orkney Islands also wanting it, looks like parts of Scotland want independence from Scotland.


As far as I know, it's not to rejoin the UK if and when Scotland leaves they UK: rather they might want to brake away from both the UK and Scotland and become sovereign on their own.

Seems to me like the UK is increasingly just England and Wales only, while every other bit and piece of the Kingdom is seriously looking at ways to split from it in an orderly fashion.

Will the UK still be around in say 10 years from now?
And will it still comprise the same territory as it does today?
I would be very reluctant to reply yes to both of these questions...


That was my intepretation. No more UK, no more Scotland.

As for the UK breaking up, quite possible.

Certainly Northern Ireland, is it time for them to join the ROI?

Scotland indepedence calls are growing by the day. Not sure we’ll see Wales wanting independence

Maybe we’ll have the United Kingdom of England and Wales?
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2469
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:25 pm

A101 wrote:
Red herring LOL: if the EU/UK agree to an FTA it also applies to NI so any trade restrictions will be the same when moving commodities into NI from GB. It’s when there is no FTA the incompatibility starts after the transition period.


Nope. And still a red herring. Any agreement (FTA or otherwise) that doesn’t include a customs union would place a hard border in the Irish Sea or on the island of Ireland. The WA was signed to ensure that there would be no hard border on the island of Ireland (subject to regular Stormont approval) regardless of whether any such agreement ever came into being.

A101 wrote:
That depends on the agreement but yes if goods entering only NI have a need for customs check then it breaches the Acts of the Union 1800


See above. Any agreement short of a customs union necessitates customs checks. This was all well-known when the WA was signed with CETA as the preferred option, and a customs border placed down the Irish Sea.

Did you/Brexiteers not know about the Acts of the Union 1800 at the time, or was Brexiteer celebration of the “great new” WA spectacularly misjudged because they didnt actually understand what was going on around them.

A101 wrote:
It shows how hostile Parliament was to the result of the referenda in its pursuit of remaining in the EU at any cost


Indeed, the unfortunate reality is that Parliament has to balance what the majority wants with what is actually best for the whole country. It’s why democracies are built on the notion of checks and balances, not majoritarian rule.

It’s Also why leading Brexiteers such as Howard and Lamont don’t just see this bill as an EU/Brexit issue, but rather as a fundamental issue of UK credibility globally. And in fairness to them, we were told that some Brits were driven to vote for Brexit by a “global Britain” agenda, rather than an insular vision of Britain (with all the negative stereotypes that go with it). Not that it needs to be said, but breaching international law is incompatible with the former.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2469
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:37 pm

A101 wrote:

That’s pretty generic saying the UK, BJ hasn’t put the WA to the sword infact he is trying to keep the WA with his IMB, in fact it would be quite easy for him to walk away from the lot.

But yes there are numerous factions that would like to see the WA gone, each have there own views as I do


Huh?

Brexiteers introduced a bill to unilaterally change the operation of an international treaty.

A treaty they called a “great new deal”.

Seems more like Brexiteers want the talks to collapse, but for the sake of international and domestic standing, need the EU to shoulder the blame.

To the extent that that was possible, it became meaningless the moment the UK admitted it was planning to break international law and, by default, that it had negotiated in bad faith. Seems Brexiteers were too smart by half. With predictable consequences.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2469
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:52 pm

noviorbis77 wrote:
sabenapilot wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/shetland-islands-independence-scotland-a4544606.html

With Orkney Islands also wanting it, looks like parts of Scotland want independence from Scotland.


As far as I know, it's not to rejoin the UK if and when Scotland leaves they UK: rather they might want to brake away from both the UK and Scotland and become sovereign on their own.

Seems to me like the UK is increasingly just England and Wales only, while every other bit and piece of the Kingdom is seriously looking at ways to split from it in an orderly fashion.

Will the UK still be around in say 10 years from now?
And will it still comprise the same territory as it does today?
I would be very reluctant to reply yes to both of these questions...


That was my intepretation. No more UK, no more Scotland.

As for the UK breaking up, quite possible.

Certainly Northern Ireland, is it time for them to join the ROI?

Scotland indepedence calls are growing by the day. Not sure we’ll see Wales wanting independence

Maybe we’ll have the United Kingdom of England and Wales?


The United Kingdom of England and Wales could work. That assumes, though, that London will stick around instead of angling for Singapore-style city-state status. From what I gather on ConHome and TCW and the Telegraph, there’s no love lost between London and the Brexit England. “Too many immigrants/foreigners” etc.

I suppose the United Kingdom of English counties and Wales might work. I was going to go for Brexitland, but if Scotland leaves, Britain stops being a thing, rendering Brexit meaningless.
 
noviorbis77
Posts: 1177
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:23 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 11, 2020 1:56 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:
sabenapilot wrote:

As far as I know, it's not to rejoin the UK if and when Scotland leaves they UK: rather they might want to brake away from both the UK and Scotland and become sovereign on their own.

Seems to me like the UK is increasingly just England and Wales only, while every other bit and piece of the Kingdom is seriously looking at ways to split from it in an orderly fashion.

Will the UK still be around in say 10 years from now?
And will it still comprise the same territory as it does today?
I would be very reluctant to reply yes to both of these questions...


That was my intepretation. No more UK, no more Scotland.

As for the UK breaking up, quite possible.

Certainly Northern Ireland, is it time for them to join the ROI?

Scotland indepedence calls are growing by the day. Not sure we’ll see Wales wanting independence

Maybe we’ll have the United Kingdom of England and Wales?


The United Kingdom of England and Wales could work. That assumes, though, that London will stick around instead of angling for Singapore-style city-state status. From what I gather on ConHome and TCW and the Telegraph, there’s no love lost between London and the Brexit England. “Too many immigrants/foreigners” etc.

I suppose the United Kingdom of English counties and Wales might work. I was going to go for Brexitland, but if Scotland leaves, Britain stops being a thing, rendering Brexit meaningless.


Great Britain and the UK are seperate things.

Great Britain will always be Great Britain. It is the name of the islands.

What made Britain ‘Great’?

The word ‘Great’ becoming attached to ‘Britain’ comes from medieval practice and not the classical authors. This became a common practice in the twelfth century to distinguish the island of Britannia maior (Greater Britain) from Britannia minor (Lesser Britain), the other medieval Britain Brittany. Brittany gained its name from the British migrants who moved there in the post-Roman period.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12848
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 11, 2020 1:59 pm

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Actions have consequences and if you are not prepared to live with the consequences, you are best adviced not to take that action.


I knew what the worst case scenario was when I voted to leave the EU, and I was happy with it if it turned out that way and still happy if we move on without a FTA and rescind the WA


Really? Anyhow, I doubt very much that everyone who voted for Brexit, voted for the worst-case scenario.

We still haven't seen the true worst case scenario and its consequences. For that we have to wait 2 or 3 years after the hard Brexit. See what the economy is doing, see what is left of Great Britain etc. etc. etc.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2469
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 11, 2020 3:13 pm

noviorbis77 wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:

That was my intepretation. No more UK, no more Scotland.

As for the UK breaking up, quite possible.

Certainly Northern Ireland, is it time for them to join the ROI?

Scotland indepedence calls are growing by the day. Not sure we’ll see Wales wanting independence

Maybe we’ll have the United Kingdom of England and Wales?


The United Kingdom of England and Wales could work. That assumes, though, that London will stick around instead of angling for Singapore-style city-state status. From what I gather on ConHome and TCW and the Telegraph, there’s no love lost between London and the Brexit England. “Too many immigrants/foreigners” etc.

I suppose the United Kingdom of English counties and Wales might work. I was going to go for Brexitland, but if Scotland leaves, Britain stops being a thing, rendering Brexit meaningless.


Great Britain and the UK are seperate things.

Great Britain will always be Great Britain. It is the name of the islands.

What made Britain ‘Great’?

The word ‘Great’ becoming attached to ‘Britain’ comes from medieval practice and not the classical authors. This became a common practice in the twelfth century to distinguish the island of Britannia maior (Greater Britain) from Britannia minor (Lesser Britain), the other medieval Britain Brittany. Brittany gained its name from the British migrants who moved there in the post-Roman period.


Should have been clearer. The island called Britain would continue to exist but, like Hispaniola, it would stop being a reference point for, well, just about everything. It would just become Scotland plus whatever’s left of England and Wales once the localized identity-driven impulse of Brexit runs its course at the national (Scexit, Wexit) and sub-national level (Cornexit, Lexit).

It’s ironic that Brexit’s inherent identity-based exceptionalism and anti-unionism provide all of the ingredients for dismantling the union that made Britain a thing. If/when it does come to pass, brexiteers will no doubt blame everyone but themselves.
 
noviorbis77
Posts: 1177
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:23 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:09 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:

The United Kingdom of England and Wales could work. That assumes, though, that London will stick around instead of angling for Singapore-style city-state status. From what I gather on ConHome and TCW and the Telegraph, there’s no love lost between London and the Brexit England. “Too many immigrants/foreigners” etc.

I suppose the United Kingdom of English counties and Wales might work. I was going to go for Brexitland, but if Scotland leaves, Britain stops being a thing, rendering Brexit meaningless.


Great Britain and the UK are seperate things.

Great Britain will always be Great Britain. It is the name of the islands.

What made Britain ‘Great’?

The word ‘Great’ becoming attached to ‘Britain’ comes from medieval practice and not the classical authors. This became a common practice in the twelfth century to distinguish the island of Britannia maior (Greater Britain) from Britannia minor (Lesser Britain), the other medieval Britain Brittany. Brittany gained its name from the British migrants who moved there in the post-Roman period.


Should have been clearer. The island called Britain would continue to exist but, like Hispaniola, it would stop being a reference point for, well, just about everything. It would just become Scotland plus whatever’s left of England and Wales once the localized identity-driven impulse of Brexit runs its course at the national (Scexit, Wexit) and sub-national level (Cornexit, Lexit).

It’s ironic that Brexit’s inherent identity-based exceptionalism and anti-unionism provide all of the ingredients for dismantling the union that made Britain a thing. If/when it does come to pass, brexiteers will no doubt blame everyone but themselves.


I am sure whatever happens, many people will still identify themselves as British.

No different the minority in the UK who describe themselves as European. Post Brexit they will still probably identify themselves as European.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12848
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:26 pm

noviorbis77 wrote:
I am sure whatever happens, many people will still identify themselves as British


An honest question, would you care if the United Kingdom would fall apart because of Brexit?
 
A101
Posts: 2714
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 11, 2020 8:40 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
A101 wrote:
Red herring LOL: if the EU/UK agree to an FTA it also applies to NI so any trade restrictions will be the same when moving commodities into NI from GB. It’s when there is no FTA the incompatibility starts after the transition period.


Nope. And still a red herring. Any agreement (FTA or otherwise) that doesn’t include a customs union would place a hard border in the Irish Sea or on the island of Ireland. The WA was signed to ensure that there would be no hard border on the island of Ireland (subject to regular Stormont approval) regardless of whether any such agreement ever came into being.

A101 wrote:
That depends on the agreement but yes if goods entering only NI have a need for customs check then it breaches the Acts of the Union 1800


See above. Any agreement short of a customs union necessitates customs checks. This was all well-known when the WA was signed with CETA as the preferred option, and a customs border placed down the Irish Sea.

Did you/Brexiteers not know about the Acts of the Union 1800 at the time, or was Brexiteer celebration of the “great new” WA spectacularly misjudged because they didnt actually understand what was going on around them.

A101 wrote:
It shows how hostile Parliament was to the result of the referenda in its pursuit of remaining in the EU at any cost


Indeed, the unfortunate reality is that Parliament has to balance what the majority wants with what is actually best for the whole country. It’s why democracies are built on the notion of checks and balances, not majoritarian rule.

It’s Also why leading Brexiteers such as Howard and Lamont don’t just see this bill as an EU/Brexit issue, but rather as a fundamental issue of UK credibility globally. And in fairness to them, we were told that some Brits were driven to vote for Brexit by a “global Britain” agenda, rather than an insular vision of Britain (with all the negative stereotypes that go with it). Not that it needs to be said, but breaching international law is incompatible with the former.


I guess it’s time to agree to disagree
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:08 pm

Sorry stupid question but, technically now a "remainer" doesn't exist anymore.
Is there a nickname for those who simply wants to soften the very hard Brexit in sight ?
 
A101
Posts: 2714
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:12 pm

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Actions have consequences and if you are not prepared to live with the consequences, you are best adviced not to take that action.


I knew what the worst case scenario was when I voted to leave the EU, and I was happy with it if it turned out that way and still happy if we move on without a FTA and rescind the WA


Really? Anyhow, I doubt very much that everyone who voted for Brexit, voted for the worst-case scenario.

We still haven't seen the true worst case scenario and its consequences. For that we have to wait 2 or 3 years after the hard Brexit. See what the economy is doing, see what is left of Great Britain etc. etc. etc.



You are trying to twist it again, you asked a direct question to me “if you are not prepared to live with the consequences, you are best adviced not to take that action.” and I stand by what i said and that was I knew the consequences if we could not reach an agreement.


Are you not going to explain how an agreement just on the financial settlement could not be achieved?
 
noviorbis77
Posts: 1177
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:23 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 11, 2020 10:00 pm

Dutchy wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:
I am sure whatever happens, many people will still identify themselves as British


An honest question, would you care if the United Kingdom would fall apart because of Brexit?


I am genuinely indifferent to all of it TBH.

If the Scots want independence, good luck to them. Brexit or no Brexit, Scottish Independence calls would always be floating around and Brexit plays right into the hands of the SNP who want Independence at all costs.

Northern Ireland. Well surely a united Ireland is the right thing for the future?

Wales? There isn’t a strong Independence movement presently and I am not sure how they’d manage on their own. But maybe a strong independence movement will grow?
 
AeroVega
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:32 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sat Sep 12, 2020 5:58 am

A101 wrote:
Are you not going to explain how an agreement just on the financial settlement could not be achieved?


That's because the UK wanted a trade deal with the EU. If the UK had said that they only wanted a financial settlement then that's what it would have been.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12848
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sat Sep 12, 2020 7:14 am

A101 wrote:
You are trying to twist it again, you asked a direct question to me “if you are not prepared to live with the consequences, you are best advised not to take that action.” and I stand by what i said and that was I knew the consequences if we could not reach an agreement.


No twist, only a one-word reaction: 'really'. I doubt it, but sure, you had a crystal ball and you knew exactly what the consequences were before you casted your Brexit vote. 4 years on and we still not know what will happen. Troubles might return, we do not know, but you accept it. UK might be dissolved, we do not know, but you accept it. Economically there might be stagnation or depression for the next ten years, we do not know, but you accept it.

But fine, I cannot look into your head and if the most extreme consequences are becoming reality, you are still happy with your Brexit. Good for you, have a happy life down under.

All I say, you cannot speak for 17million of Brexit voters and that in the perception of many Brexit voters there was promised much other things, not in the last place by mr Johnson.

Image

link
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12848
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sat Sep 12, 2020 7:26 am

AeroVega wrote:
A101 wrote:
Are you not going to explain how an agreement just on the financial settlement could not be achieved?


That's because the UK wanted a trade deal with the EU. If the UK had said that they only wanted a financial settlement then that's what it would have been.


That is indeed what the UK wanted. And I would say that just a financial settlement would not have been possible. Ireland must ratify any agreement, given they have a direct interest in peace in Northern Ireland, I would say that no withdrawal agreement could be reached without taking that into account. That is just following plain logic. Or the hand another possibility was a true Brino, but that was politically not achievable in Britain. But sure, that is my assessment, I do claim to have a crystal ball.
 
AeroVega
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:32 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sat Sep 12, 2020 7:44 am

Dutchy wrote:
AeroVega wrote:
A101 wrote:
Are you not going to explain how an agreement just on the financial settlement could not be achieved?


That's because the UK wanted a trade deal with the EU. If the UK had said that they only wanted a financial settlement then that's what it would have been.


That is indeed what the UK wanted. And I would say that just a financial settlement would not have been possible. Ireland must ratify any agreement, given they have a direct interest in peace in Northern Ireland, I would say that no withdrawal agreement could be reached without taking that into account. That is just following plain logic. Or the hand another possibility was a true Brino, but that was politically not achievable in Britain. But sure, that is my assessment, I do claim to have a crystal ball.


The EU cannot not force a leaving member to sign a withdrawal agreement. The UK could have triggered article 50 and decide not to negotiate any withdrawal agreement in the following two years. They could have put an unconditional financial settlement proposal on the table instead. You are right that the EU could have rejected that proposal because it lacks any guarantees on EU citizen's rights or the Irish border. But the only thing that would achieve is the UK not having to pay anything to the EU at all. They would arguably be in a better position than they are now.
 
A101
Posts: 2714
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sat Sep 12, 2020 7:48 am

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
You are trying to twist it again, you asked a direct question to me “if you are not prepared to live with the consequences, you are best advised not to take that action.” and I stand by what i said and that was I knew the consequences if we could not reach an agreement.


No twist, only a one-word reaction: 'really'. I doubt it, but sure, you had a crystal ball and you knew exactly what the consequences were before you casted your Brexit vote. 4 years on and we still not know what will happen. Troubles might return, we do not know, but you accept it. UK might be dissolved, we do not know, but you accept it. Economically there might be stagnation or depression for the next ten years, we do not know, but you accept it.

But fine, I cannot look into your head and if the most extreme consequences are becoming reality, you are still happy with your Brexit. Good for you, have a happy life down under.

All I say, you cannot speak for 17million of Brexit voters and that in the perception of many Brexit voters there was promised much other things, not in the last place by mr Johnson.

Image

link



Of course I knew the worst case, we didn’t have to make an agreement at all to leave. Just have to look at A50 to see that
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12848
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sat Sep 12, 2020 8:07 am

The UKCG and the EP political group leaders issued the following statement after meeting with Chief EU Negotiator Michel Barnier and Joint Committee Co-Chair Maroš Šefčovič, on Friday.
The European Parliament’s UK Coordination Group (UKCG) met today to assess the impact of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill on the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement with EU-UK Joint Committee Co-Chair Maroš Šefčovič and to evaluate the ongoing negotiations on the future EU-UK relationship with EU Chief Negotiator Michel Barnier.

EP political group leaders and UKCG members are deeply concerned and disappointed that the UK Government published an Internal Market Bill that clearly represents a serious and unacceptable breach of international law. It violates the Withdrawal Agreement that was signed and ratified by the current UK Government and Parliament less than a year ago. The Internal Market Bill gravely damages the trust and credibility that the European Parliament has already said is “an essential element of any negotiation”, thus putting at risk the ongoing negotiations on the future relationship.

The European Parliament supports EU Chief Negotiator Michel Barnier and Commission Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič in asking the UK government to withdraw these measures from the bill immediately; by the end of September, at the very latest. The European Parliament’s UK Coordination Group stresses that:

the Withdrawal Agreement, including the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, has legally binding force regardless of whether or not the EU and the UK conclude any new treaty governing their future relationship; and

any issue regarding the implementation of its provisions should be addressed by the Joint Committee and in no case unilaterally by any party to the agreement.
The European Parliament expects the UK government to uphold the rule of law and demands nothing less than the full implementation of all provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement, including the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, which is essential to protect the Good Friday Agreement and peace and stability on the island of Ireland.

Should the UK authorities breach – or threaten to breach – the Withdrawal Agreement, through the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill in its current form or in any other way, the European Parliament will, under no circumstances, ratify any agreement between the EU and the UK.

Regarding the outcome of the eighth negotiating round, the European Parliament remains committed to an ambitious partnership with the UK. We are disappointed with the continued lack of reciprocal engagement from the UK side on fundamental EU principles and interests.

The European Parliament calls on the UK to work with the EU constructively and find compromises that are in the interests of our citizens and companies on both sides. Any potential deal should not only preserve our interests, but also respect the integrity of the European Union and its single market.

For any deal to take effect, democratic oversight institutions on both sides of the Channel must be able to carry out a meaningful assessment, as stated in the Withdrawal Agreement. The European Parliament recalls that its consent to any deal will only be granted after detailed scrutiny of the legal provisions. The European Parliament will not accept having its democratic oversight curbed by a last-minute deal beyond the end of October.


Link

And the official reaction from the EU parliament: modify this bill in order to align it with the WA, or don't adopt it, or the consequence is 'no-deal' Brexit. And the EP needs to ratify any agreement. I cannot imagine that the House of Lords will pass this bill or that there aren't 40-50 conservatives in Parliament will vote effectively against a hard Brexit, thus voting this bill down.

I heard an interesting theory - can't find the article anywhere, unfortunately - that the ERG made a deal with. BoJo that they would back the WA to get Brexit done, in the understanding that BoJo would tear it up before it came into effect. If true, wow just wow, speaking of negotiations in bad fate and it would explain a lot though. Would explain this bill, designed to break the WA. Apparently the ERG said to BoJo either get the WA of the table or expect a leadership challenge. Would explain a lot.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12848
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sat Sep 12, 2020 8:10 am

AeroVega wrote:
The EU cannot not force a leaving member to sign a withdrawal agreement. The UK could have triggered article 50 and decide not to negotiate any withdrawal agreement in the following two years. They could have put an unconditional financial settlement proposal on the table instead. You are right that the EU could have rejected that proposal because it lacks any guarantees on EU citizen's rights or the Irish border. But the only thing that would achieve is the UK not having to pay anything to the EU at all. They would arguably be in a better position than they are now.


That might have been the outcome, I would argue the EU would not have signed anything and just leave it at that. It would have put GB in a terrible position, just look at the reaction to this latest thing coming out of Nr 10.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12848
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sat Sep 12, 2020 8:15 am

A101 wrote:
Of course I knew the worst case, we didn’t have to make an agreement at all to leave. Just have to look at A50 to see that


Ok, so you are fine with:
- Troubles returning
- UK dissolving
- Economic stagnation or depression for the next ten years

You took all that into account and perhaps other things we do not foresee at the moment, just to leave the EU. Putting one thing above anything else, above any consequences is an extremistic point of view to take.

I am forced to conclude that Brexit is an ideology for you, not anything rational. Ah well, that is your opinion and you are entitled to your opinion. But you cannot convince me that 17million people voted with this extremist point of view in mind, there is no evidence for that at all.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12848
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sat Sep 12, 2020 8:21 am

Grizzly410 wrote:
Sorry stupid question but, technically now a "remainer" doesn't exist anymore.
Is there a nickname for those who simply wants to soften the very hard Brexit in sight ?


rejoiner?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hoons90, Kiwirob, Virtual737 and 20 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