Brexit - merged threads

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, Retsdon said:

As I've said before, talking Brexit with a hard Brexiter can be like discussing  comparative religion with a Wahabi from Qassim. Anything that doesn't conform to a narrow interpretation of the Quran is (from his perspective) de facto heresy, and consequently can be dismissed without the need to even look at it, let alone engage with it.

 

26 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

I think you'll find that works both ways.

 

4 minutes ago, oowee said:

OMG. 

My case in point

[Rewulf]

[Retsdon]

If the political deadlock in Westminster actually results in a hard Brexit, it'll be very interesting to see whether those currently cheering for that outcome will be prepared to own the results of their campaign, or whether instead they'll seek to divert blame for the inevitable negative consequences elsewhere. My guess is the latter - probably on to the EU. 

I doubt it'll work though..

[pinfireman]

17 hours ago, oowee said:

The Tories are in power and their fantasists in the corner have not allowed the process to develop in a business like manner. Forget remoaners and fantasists we should have first agreed what it is we wanted and our agreed negotiating position what ever it was. With a small or non existent majority they needed to bring others on board. Then discussed with the EU from a position of unity prior to article 50. If they could not agree what we wanted then they should not have taken on the job. 

Of course all the others are doing there thing which is why agreeing the basis of departure prior to kicking off was incumbent on the Tories.  If we have no deal or loose Brexit altogether it will be the fault of the Tories together with the costs, that go with it, as they have singularly failed to bring parliament together. No Government should play with the UK economy in such a high handed and frivolous way that the Tories have. 

"Others on board"........are you for real?  The others ALL wanted us to stay in the EU, and have done nothing but cause problems from day one! And wanting to be a FREE, SOVEREIGN NATION again does NOT make anyone a fantasist!

The fantasists are those who think they  are going to stop us getting OUT! It may not be this time, but it will happen!

17 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

Quite right - Tory and Labour are split, the LibDems, SNP, Greens and Plaid Cymru are all remainers.

If you want to leave the customs union and have some form of Brexit, the Tories are currently THE ONLY party who will have any chance of that.  Cameron promised the referendum to win the election from Milliband.  He expected the remainers to win the referendum - and got that badly wrong - so he (rightly) resigned.  NO OTHER PARTY (UKIP, - would have just left - no referendum) would even have had the referendum.

Since then - May has struggled to get a possible 'leave' solution that would pass Parliament (which was wished on her by Gina Miller's stirring - without which she might not have needed to go to Parliament).  Granted she has made a dreadful job - hence the mess she is in now - but NO OTHER PARTY would have got any further - and most nowhere at all.

The Remain 'saboteurs' are in all parties and the situation would be no better - and markedly worse in other areas if Labour were in power propped up by the 100% remain SNP and LibDems etc.  Labours 'six tests' virtually ensure we would be in Brexit In Name Only territory.

CORRECT! 

17 hours ago, oowee said:

So they should have paused to get agreement. If they could not do that then they needed to find another way forward maybe giving options to the electorate explaining how these might work. They chose to carry on regardless, playing fast and loose with the countries fortunes. 

The Tories have ..... this up and their is no excuse, there only interest is their party. Shameless.

 

RUBBISH! Absolute rubbish! There would NEVER have been a compromise, as 80% of the MPs would not have voted for it!  This is ALL about the politicians trying to show that they are above the democratic rights of the people!

[pinfireman]

17 hours ago, besty57 said:

The liebor party would never have gave us a referendum, because they knew what the answer would be,

Shame on them.

CORRECT!

[Rewulf]

5 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

If the political deadlock in Westminster actually results in a hard Brexit, it'll be very interesting to see whether those currently cheering for that outcome will be prepared to own the results of their campaign, or whether instead they'll seek to divert blame for the inevitable negative consequences elsewhere. My guess is the latter - probably on to the EU. 

I doubt it'll work though..

'Inevitable negative consequences' ?
Interesting thought process, so what if the consequences are positive ?
What if the EU throw all the toys out their gilded pram and MAKE it hard economically ? Would that still be the fault of the Brexiteers ?

The end result of this process will be what the majority want, nothing more nothing less, or thats not democracy.

[pinfireman]

16 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

Yeah but the remainers will only pick up that he is moving his HQ.

and that only TWO PEOPLE are  leaving here for Singapore!

[Newbie to this]

24 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

If the political deadlock in Westminster actually results in a hard Brexit, it'll be very interesting to see whether those currently cheering for that outcome will be prepared to own the results of their campaign, or whether instead they'll seek to divert blame for the inevitable negative consequences elsewhere. My guess is the latter - probably on to the EU.  I doubt it'll work though..

Then you never believed in Brexit.

6 minutes ago, pinfireman said:

and that only TWO PEOPLE are  leaving here for Singapore!

I did mention that on a later post but wasn't sure if it was fact as I only heard it on LBC

Edited January 25, 2019 by Newbie to this

[oowee]

Just now, pinfireman said:

"Others on board"........are you for real?  The others ALL wanted us to stay in the EU, and have done nothing but cause problems from day one! And wanting to be a FREE, SOVEREIGN NATION again does NOT make anyone a fantasist!

The fantasists are those who think they  are going to stop us getting OUT! It may not be this time, but it will happen!

We are a free soverign nation but every time we strike a trade deal we give something in exchange. The more mature a nation the less it is free to decide everything for itself. Prosperity comes with responsibilities. 

If we are no deal free we will spend the next 20 years being everyone's pudenda membra. 

 

 

[pinfireman]

16 hours ago, oowee said:

You mean the knowledge and tax end of the business rather than the low cost manf. 

We are loosing high end jobs every day.  Look at a list of the companies I posted weeks ago and there are many more since. If you had an international business why would you keep it here in this mess. 

Have you read the no deal briefing papers. Just take a look at the subject headings and what companies are trying to grapple with. I thought the Tories were the party of business. 

My point is that all of this is unnecessary  handled properly. 

Dyson  has stated that, despite moving just 2 jobs to Singapore, (along with Head Office address) he will continue to invest in, and expand, his British base. He will also continue to expand and invest in his technology university.................

Perhaps you would care to share with us all the British, and international companies, that moved their manufacturing OUT OF BRITAIN, and moved it to EU countries, with the help of an EU grant! (Our money being used to devastate our manufacturing base!)

15 hours ago, oowee said:

I have dealt with Dyson in the past. There is no loyalty there to the UK. 

Here are the papers you will need lots of time to read them properly but what is good is that they give you an incite into what the Government is expecting companies to look at. My son says its endless.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/how-to-prepare-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-with-no-deal

Perhaps yopu could show the papers dealing with Dyson, not the link you continually try to shove down our throats?

8 hours ago, Retsdon said:

There's a lot of breadth, but not much depth. For example, if you're a farmer the government has apparently guaranteed to continue the equivalent of CAP payments until the end of the 2020 - but after that is anyone's guess. Consequently for the next couple of years nobody in their right mind is going to spend anything but the absolute bare minimum on buildings, machinery or stock. The farmers themselves might not get hit (unless exporting breeding stock to the EU and then they're stuffed) , but I don't mind betting the agricultural services sector gets absolutely hammered.

Glancing through your link, it seems to be pretty much the same everywhere else. Lots and lots of new paperwork and lots and lots of uncertainty. I'm still predicting USD - GBP parity within 2 years.

 

You will not get good odds on that from William Hill....I know, I just tried!

[Newbie to this]

2 minutes ago, oowee said:

We are a free soverign nation but every time we strike a trade deal we give something in exchange. The more mature a nation the less it is free to decide everything for itself. Prosperity comes with responsibilities. 

If we are no deal free we will spend the next 20 years being everyone's pudenda membra. 

 

 

If we are a free sovereign nation, then how does the EU have a say in our laws and border controls etc.

Why can't we strike a free trade deal with the USA or anyone else outside the EU for that matter, oh wait we don't have a free trade deal with the EU either we pay for the privilege.

Your idea of a free sovereign nation and mine are completely different.

[pinfireman]

6 hours ago, Yellow Bear said:

I suspect the Dyson HQ move has nothing to do with Berxit and everything to do with the looming treat of a pseudo marxist government, mainly, I suggest caused by the activities of the remain camp.   The irony is that these people are actually rampant remainers but are alienating the brexit side against the tories.

A lot of truth there!

4 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

From an article by Paul Goodman;

"The sequence of events is as follows.  First, earlier this week, Margaritis Schinas, the EU Commission’s chief spokesman, said: “If you push me to speculate what will happen in Ireland after a no deal Brexit I think it is pretty obvious, there will be a hard border.”  Next, Michel Barnier, in seeking to calm the troubled waters that Schinas had stirred, succeeded only in lashing them up even more: “my team have worked hard to study how controls can be made paperless or decentralised, which will be useful in all circumstances,” he said.

It’s important to add that he also did so quite some time ago – arguing that customs, tax and regulatory checks wouldn’t need to be done at the border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  (For the deal that the Government has reached with the EU, of course, posits precisely such a border in regulatory and arguably customs terms.)  If a Northern Ireland border with Great Britain can be other than hard, why can’t a border between Ireland and Northern Ireland?  When is a unicorn not a unicorn?

Furthermore, the Irish Government knows perfectly well that there will be a hard border between the United Kingdom and Ireland in the event of No Deal.  Simon Coveney, the Tánaiste, was caught out admitting so recently.  Or rather, we should say, a harder border.  After all, there is a tax, VAT, currency, excise and security border already.  But checks are not usually done on it: given its 300 crossing points, that would not be possible as a rule.  Instead, they tend to be done away from it.  So could customs checks, given a bit of time.

What has happened since the Brexit negotiation began is that no-one has wanted to take responsibility for admitting that the border will be harder – not the Irish Government, not our own, not the Commission.  None the less, the stark fact is that the EU, led in this matter by France and the Commission itself, is not going to allow an unpoliced land border to open up between itself and the EU, into which a mass of unregulated goods and products could pour into the Single Market unchecked.

Now it is important not to assume that customs is the only contentious issue relating to the border’s future – and that if it could be solved, everything else could be solved, too.  There is also the question of future sanitary and phytosanitary arrangements on animals and plants, product compliance, and cross-border arrangements on transport, healthcare, and other matters.  It is all this and more that gave rise to the proposal for a border in the Irish Sea – and, of course, the backstop.

As March 29 draws closer and the possibility of No Deal lingers, there is rising concern – even a touch of panic – not just in Downing Street, or on Labour’s front bench, or among the drawers-up of the Cooper/Boles amendment, but in Ireland and Brussels, too.  Leo Varadkar knows that his gamble could backfire: that Brexit may not be revoked or even postponed but take place on the due date, whether a deal is in place or not.  And if even a deal would be damaging to Ireland, compared to the status quo, No Deal could be devastating.

This rising pressure on Ireland – its central bank is reported today as saying that No Deal could lead to food shortages – may explain the Taoiseach’s weird suggestion yesterday that there would have to be “full alignment on customs and regulations” in the event of No Deal.  This is precisely the wrong way round.  There will not be full alignment in the event of No Deal – because No Deal means No Deal. And if No Deal happens, it may well be precisely because of the proposal in the deal for full alignment: i.e, the backstop.

We apologise to our readers. The spectacle of Barnier astride his unicorn has distracted us from the end of the story we began.  The Irish Government was straightaway on the blower after Schinas’s original remarks, and he was duly forced to issue a “clarification”.  “The EU is determined to do all it can, deal or no deal, to avoid the need for a border and to protect peace in Northern Ireland. The EU is fully behind Ireland and has expressed, on numerous occasions, full solidarity with Ireland,” he then said, perhaps through gritted teeth.

But yesterday, James Crisp of the Daily Telegraph quizzed Schinas about Barnier’s remarks, making precisely the same point as we seek to do today. He writes: “I asked the commission why the backstop was needed at all if it is possible to carry out checks and controls without putting a hard border in place, as Mr Barnier suggested.”  At which point, Schinas appears simply to have given up: “Write what you like”, he replied.  Crisp has duly taken up the invitation.

We are about to find out, as the EU ponders Brexit, whether theology or politics will win out.  If the former, the EU will make no move on the backstop, wait hopefully for a second referendum and revocation, and be inclined only to extend the deadline briefly, in the event of a request being received.  If the latter, it will make a meaningful concession on the backstop, and May will then have a fighting chance of getting her deal through the Commons.

If the Government had paid Ireland proper attention; if Downing Street were better versed in Northern Ireland’s affairs; if DexEU had been more engaged with the island, and if the Northern Ireland Office had more collective expertise, we might not be where we are now.  Number Ten would have spotted the significance of the backstop.  It would have called in David Trimble and other veterans of the Belfast Agreement.  It might have nipped the problem in the bud: instead, no-one is now in a position from which they want to back down."

No doubt oowee knows better!

4 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

You mean the paper written by someone who stands to lose his job and lots of money and the same paper written on a European Institute paper.

I think it may be a tad biased 

A LOT biased!

4 hours ago, Dave-G said:

No biass here either: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12059280/BBC-has-received-2m-in-EU-funding-in-run-up-to-referendum-fueling-accusations-of-bias.html?fbclid=IwAR0ef0xmbRzDSQb5MsDhNEBD5XWxO0txmVcq7lhTlbpovXjWrHKe9kub6M8

The BBC biased? Who would have thought it............? Bet oowee doesn,t think they are biased!

[pinfireman]

4 hours ago, Retsdon said:

As I've said before, talking Brexit with a hard Brexiter can be like discussing  comparative religion with a Wahabi from Qassim. Anything that doesn't conform to a narrow interpretation of the Quran is (from his perspective) de facto heresy, and consequently can be dismissed without the need to even look at it, let alone engage with it.

Interestingly it's a point that Sir Ivan made in his speech. Namely that in nearly all revolutions (and he classifies Brexit as a species of revolution),  as time goes by both revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries become polarized on the the wings. So now there is virtually no middle ground anymore, just a Hard Brexit on one side or a cancellation of the notice to leave under Article 50 on the other. And he's correct. Look how often the words 'traitor' or 'betray' are now used on both sides. The danger from that -as he sees it - is that both of these positions are predicated on a self-constructed reality that doesn't hold up to scrutiny in the real world, and unless people ON BOTH SIDES get their heads out of these unreal bubbles they've created the country is heading for one hell of a smash, the political and economic consequences of which will endure for decades. 

But hey, ho...

It,s the difference of being a Free Sovereign nation, or a vassal state in the Federal EU........................It,s that simple!

3 hours ago, Rewulf said:

From the text.

Any negotiation has, in negotiators’ jargon, a ZOPA, a Zone of Possible Agreement, which is defined by where the interests, incentives and bottom lines of the sides can intersect. From the Prime Minister’s point of view, the deal struck on November 25th with the EU is in the ZOPA. Indeed, it’s the only deal acceptable to her which could be. As it was indeed within the ZOPA for the EU too – it’s a good deal for them – which meant it was not hard at all to line up Michel Barnier and Heads of State and Government to say that this was the only deal they would do. 

The only deal acceptable to HER , excuse me , but doesnt she have to get it past parliament and the country , which, as became blatently apparent , was not going to happen ?
But hey ho , trudge on, aslong as the EU are happy with it.

The message to both extremes in the debate was – is – you risk ending up with your worst nightmare world if you push your first preference all the way. You must accept my compromise. As it is the ONLY compromise which: - To the Brexiteers: “delivers Brexit over the line, and renders it irreversible except by a fresh accession process, even if it is not the Brexit you want;” - To the Remainers: “avoids a disorderly no deal Brexit and delivers a softer Brexit than many in my Party want”. - If that is your strategy, you of course refuse to take “no deal” off the table, as having it on the table has been completely central all along to attempting to force through the deal you want. 

So vote for my deal, in which Ive tried to please everybody, but ended up pleasing nobody, because at the end of the day I want to be little miss popular.

Although, let’s be honest, the other party in this negotiation – the EU - has never for one minute believed that the UK would go through with “no deal” as it is self-evidently a lot worse – in economic terms - for the UK than the deal, and a lot worse for the UK than it is for the EU. They can see we might just do it by accident, indecision or incompetence. But not on purpose.

 Really ? Yet the polls tell a completely different story, did no one notice this, or doesnt it matter what the people want ?
Again, a classic case of politicos being detached from the mob.

It’s never been a credible threat in EU eyes, because the consequences are obviously so damaging to a Government that inflicts a “no deal” outcome on the country when an alternative negotiated outcome is available, that they are relaxed that no Government could do it and survive.

Again Sir Ivan, detached from reality.
Its NEVER been a credible threat ? Its a harsh reality now 😂
The consequences ? How about the consequences of producing no Brexit at all ? I suppose the people will just take that on the chin ? No no no.
No government could do it and survive ? I beg to differ.

because WTO terms are so unpalatable and the damage from going there so asymmetrical - much worse for the UK than the EU. Nothing in the last 2 1⁄2 years has shaken that mindset, and much has reinforced it. 

Rubbish !

Why would a Government which was seriously prepared to go for “no deal” be pressing them so strongly from late 2017 onwards for what is clearly a deeply unappealing “status quo without voice” transition of 2 years - which it wrongly terms an “implementation period” to cover its desperation in pleading for it - unless it knew that “no deal” is, in the recent words of the Foreign and Business Secretaries, “cataclysmic” and “disastrous”?

If the other side’s threats in a negotiation make no sense and contradict all the evidence of what they are actually doing, in my experience, you just ignore them.

Besides the fact that bliar and soros's love child Ms Miller forced the default position to be 'no deal'  some sort of free trade deal, even if it cost something would have been preferable , but thats the position, and it isnt all down to the tory government.
Sir Ivan could do well to apply his threats rule to the EU too.

 Those who don’t want “no deal” think it so self-evidently self-harming on a grand scale that no responsible Government will do it. They think they easily have the numbers in the Commons to stop it happening anyway; and think that the more “no deal” hoves into public view, the greater their chance of persuading the public that Brexit is going badly 6 wrong, and may prove a disaster. And that a new referendum is needed, as the public was hoodwinked the first time about how Brexit could turn out. 

They THINK they know best, they are doing it for US 

And this is where we get down to the crux.
We live in a 'free' society, a democracy, we have a choice in the path our lives take, we get a vote on which way our country , our society takes. Be it a council or general election, or indeed a referendum.
Sometimes we make mistakes, sometimes we vote for people or parties that really didnt have our interests at heart, was Blairs war, borrowing and uncontrolled immigration in the nations interest ?
Was Thatchers smashing of the unions and hard lines against the working class good for us ?
It doesnt matter, because its done, we recovered and we learn.

So to then say we 'didnt know what we were voting for' is rather insulting and pointless.
We voted, WE decided , and it needs to be carried out, I dont care what happens, I hope its good , but if its bad then we learn and move on.
To try and subvert it, to protect us from ourselves , like we're children, is the worst form of condescending behaviour, and will cost the perpetrators plenty.

Ive no doubt there will be pain, there always is, and there always will be when one partner doesnt really want you to leave.
But sometimes it has to be done, and afterwards it never seems so bad.
Personally, as March looms, the EU is now settling down from its hard line rhetoric, and facing the reality of life after no deal.
No divorce money , a budget black hole, a crumbling economy in some countries, whilst others are very close to open rebellion.
They are out of ammunition, we are not, have faith.
 

Brilliant, Rewulf, bloody brilliant!

[pinfireman]

18 minutes ago, oowee said:

We are a free soverign nation but every time we strike a trade deal we give something in exchange. The more mature a nation the less it is free to decide everything for itself. Prosperity comes with responsibilities. 

If we are no deal free we will spend the next 20 years being everyone's pudenda membra. 

 

 

Rubbish!

The President of the Hauts-de-France Region, Xavier Bertrand, has given a pointed interview to Sky News confirming that Calais, Bolougne and Dunkirk are ready for Brexit whatever happens, but questioning whether the UK is prepared too. Remainers are doing their best to ensure that the UK isn’t…

It follows his article in yesterday’s Telegraph confirming that his administration has done the work to ensure that the French ports and Eurotunnel will have “100 per cent fluidity on day one in the event of a no-deal Brexit”, while Eurotunnel themselves confirmed last week that they are ready “with or without a deal”. Completely contradicting Remainers who are still determined to talk up the possibility of disruption…

[oowee]

4 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

If we are a free sovereign nation, then how does the EU have a say in our laws and border controls etc.

Why can't we strike a free trade deal with the USA or anyone else outside the EU for that matter, oh wait we don't have a free trade deal with the EU either we pay for the privilege.

Your idea of a free sovereign nation and mine are completely different.

OK.We can do a trade deal with whoever we want but when we do it comes with strings. We have a choice do the deal and take the strings or do not take the deal. When we take the deal we loose a little bit of control. The more deals the more control we conceed. 

 

2 minutes ago, pinfireman said:

Rubbish!

Why. 

[pinfireman]

The President of the Hauts-de-France Region, Xavier Bertrand, has given a pointed interview to Sky News confirming that Calais, Bolougne and Dunkirk are ready for Brexit whatever happens, but questioning whether the UK is prepared too. Remainers are doing their best to ensure that the UK isn’t…

It follows his article in yesterday’s Telegraph confirming that his administration has done the work to ensure that the French ports and Eurotunnel will have “100 per cent fluidity on day one in the event of a no-deal Brexit”, while Eurotunnel themselves confirmed last week that they are ready “with or without a deal”. Completely contradicting Remainers who are still determined to talk up the possibility of disruption…

2 minutes ago, oowee said:

OK.We can do a trade deal with whoever we want but when we do it comes with strings. We have a choice do the deal and take the strings or do not take the deal. When we take the deal we loose a little bit of control. The more deals the more control we conceed. 

 

Why. 

Guido can reveal that at least one major industry group is planning to come out early next week and call for the backstop to be scrapped or substantially amended to include a short time limit. The industry is closely linked to Brexit issues and the business group which represents it is intending to call for negotiations on the backstop to be reopened in order to get a “sensible resolution” to the Brexit process.

An industry insider told Guido:

“The withdrawal agreement without the backstop would be a good negotiating result for the U.K. It delivers the Brexit that many Leavers want, and is the only way to guarantee No Deal is taken off the table. So the removal of the backstop could be the cause that finally unites Parliament. Barnier and the Commission have accidentally shown they agreed with David Davis all along. There does not have to be a hard physical border with Ireland, and Max Fac is not ‘wishful thinking’ but a common sense approach. This is the best chance all sides have to a sensible resolution.”

After the EU’s torrid week where they fatally undermined their own rationale for needing the backstop at all, this is looking like an increasingly viable path to a workable deal. Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris have hinted that they might be preparedto come round to the deal if the backstop was substantially altered or removed, and it has been the DUP’s main demand for months.

Significantly, Tory backbench chief Sir Graham Brady tabled a new amendment last night with the backing of Remainer May ally Damian Green, Andrew Murrison and all the officers of the 1922 Committee, which:

“requires the Northern Ireland backstop to be replaced with alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border; supports leaving the European Union with a deal and would therefore support the Withdrawal Agreement subject to this change.”

There will no doubt be plenty of huffing and puffing from the EU side about how changes aren’t possible, but if this amended deal is approved by the House of Commons, the EU will inevitably come under serious pressure to modify its own position. This could finally be the route that gets the UK out of the exit door on time…

[pinfireman]

                                                                                                                                                       Airbus have always been more than willing to rant about Brexit, even when they aren’t being prodded by the Government. Surely their enthusiasm for relentless remoaning at politically convenient moments can’t be anything to do with the astonishing sum of €64,172,543 Airbus have received from the EU in just the last five years. Almost €13 million of taxpayers money was funnelled their way last year alone. No wonder they like the EU so much…

Airbus’s Senior UK Vice President Katherine Bennett let slip a key nugget of information live on Sky News this afternoon as part of their anti-No Deal media blitz. When challenged over whether “the government put you up to this,” after initially deflecting the question, Bennett confirmed that the Government had indeed asked them to up the ante on Project Fear:

“They did say could you make sure that you make clear the potential impact of a No Deal, and we are happy to do that because No Deal is potentially going to be catastrophic for us.”

Well, that settles that then…

 

Edited January 25, 2019 by pinfireman
spelling

[Retsdon]

17 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

What if the EU throw all the toys out their gilded pram and MAKE it hard economically ? Would that still be the fault of the Brexiteers ?

But what do you mean by 'MAKE it hard'? Do you mean the EU not being prepared to undermine its Single Market to accommodate Britain which, on its own volition, just left the self same Market, but which now is whining for access without having to abide by the regulations?

The EU will act in its own interests, just as the UK will. No toys, no prams, just normal, hard-nosed negotiating professionalism. For what it's worth, my guess is that the EU will unilaterally allow access in certain sectors for as long as it suits them (dressed up as a grace period), and then, when the capabilities in those sectors within the EU itself have been expanded sufficiency to take up the slack, slowly close the doors sector by sector.

In other words, the EU will do what it's supposed to do which is act for its member states.

 

 

[pinfireman]

The EU’s long-running duplicity over the Irish border has finally come to a head this week with the Commission wrapping itself up in knots trying to maintain its spurious position on the backstop after Commission Spokesman Margaritas Schinas caused a major fuss on Tuesday by saying that the EU would force Ireland to erect a hard border in the event of no deal. Not going to happen.

Michel Barnier then let the cat out of the bag yesterday while trying to reverse the diplomatic damage, admitting that in the event of no deal “we will have to find an operational way of carrying out checks and controls without putting back in place a border”, going on to say that “my team have worked hard to study how controls can be made paperless or decentralised, which will be useful in all circumstances.” Thus blowing apart the entire fiction that the backstop is necessary to avoid a hard border…

The Telegraph’s James Crisp grilled Schinas on this very point today, who ended up so flustered by the question that he eventually snapped back: “write what you like”. The sham of needing the backstop to avoid a hard border is finally starting to unravel in Brussels. Time the sycophantic British media and political establishment woke up too…

Brittany Ferries have moved to slap down Remainer scaremongering about international travel beyond March, and reassure passenmgers. The iconic ferry company accused the BBC of peddling “nonsense” and reassured potential passengers that they can book beyond March.

“The company would like to make clear that passengers can book crossings to France and Spain, and sail-and-stay holidays as normal. There is absolutely no truth in speculation that passengers are being advised not to book because all space has been allocated to freight.

The reality is that Brittany Ferries has added 19 crossings on three of its nine routes leaving the UK. The additional sailings create more space for freight, as requested by the DfT. As a consequence, there is now more choice for passengers rather than less.”

Maybe it’s time for the BBC to start listening to the experts?

[pinfireman]

As every day passes, more evidence comes to light of the EU failing.........it needs our money, without it, it will crumble!

[oowee]

The back stop does not have to be in place if the trade deal the UK want's does not require it. The UK has not set out it's proposals for a trade deal so as a result the backstop is there just in case. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

But the biggest problem with the "Backstop" is that if triggered, the end would be at the discretion of the EU!

Edited January 25, 2019 by TIGHTCHOKE
Syntax

[Newbie to this]

37 minutes ago, oowee said:

OK.We can do a trade deal with whoever we want but when we do it comes with strings. We have a choice do the deal and take the strings or do not take the deal. When we take the deal we loose a little bit of control. The more deals the more control we conceed. 

You kind of missed my point.

You can't be a free sovereign nation and not be in control.

So we are at this moment in time NOT a free sovereign nation.

Edited January 25, 2019 by Newbie to this

[oowee]

1 hour ago, pinfireman said:

Rubbish!

The President of the Hauts-de-France Region, Xavier Bertrand, has given a pointed interview to Sky News confirming that Calais, Bolougne and Dunkirk are ready for Brexit whatever happens, but questioning whether the UK is prepared too. Remainers are doing their best to ensure that the UK isn’t…

It follows his article in yesterday’s Telegraph confirming that his administration has done the work to ensure that the French ports and Eurotunnel will have “100 per cent fluidity on day one in the event of a no-deal Brexit”, while Eurotunnel themselves confirmed last week that they are ready “with or without a deal”. Completely contradicting Remainers who are still determined to talk up the possibility of disruption…

Who the ..... is he? He has zero to do with the matter. We are not talking about lorry parking. 

There is no agreement on what arrangements will be in place. Under WTO rules it would be illegal for the UK and the EU to flout the 'Most Favoured Nation 'principles, carry on as before and waive stuff through the border.

We are still talking about trading goods where we are in deficit and not services where we are in positive trade territory and there is even more paperwork to complete. Companies are as we speak moving to Europe to set up to get around this. 

27 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

But the biggest problem with the "Backstop" is that if triggered, the end would be at the discretion of the EU!

Not true. We cannot have free unfettered international trade with who we like without having border control on the border, in the north sea or in the ROI. 

Edited January 25, 2019 by oowee

[oowee]

3 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

You kind of misses my point.

You can't be a free sovereign nation and not be in control.

So we are at this moment in time NOT a free sovereign nation.

We are a free soverign nation. We are in control. We just voted to leave. If we were not free we surely could not do that? When I got married I was still a free man but I agreed to give up some of my options. 

When we leave we will still want to trade. When we trade we agree to abide by new rules. Those rules will cover everything from the product, to where it came from, what's in it, what happens with the waste, how the workers are treated, what tax rates apply, what subsidies were used, and what laws are applied, all the stuff that we have now with the EU. We will replicate all this with our new EU trade deal. If we do not agree a deal with the EU in advance of departure on favourable terms we will be negotiating as a third country. We will then do the same again with the States. 

Every deal we negotiate we will do on our own, with our smaller market. Liam Fox is trying to put in place the 40 odd trade deals that the EU currently has with other countries that we currently take advantage of. He has yet to sign one off. It is a huge task. 

We will still trade post no deal, there will not be the complete termination of trade and investment flows or of every flight. What there would be – it already exists - is shelves of legislation, EU and national, to deliver continuity where it most mattered to them, and to public safety and health here, but to deliver enough discontinuity and pain where it matters to force the UK back to the table to agree the same or worse terms.