The Consequences of Brexit [Part 6] READ FIRST POST BEFORE COMMENTING

[woodview 10]

18 minutes ago, ads36 said:

Yet again, we English are making totally unreasonable demands on the people of Ireland - and blaming them for our own problems.

 

There are days when I do feel proud to be English. I haven't felt that way for a long time. 

What demands? Neither party wants a hard border.

If we had crashed out on March 29 , with no-deal , it's already been stated by everyone that there would be no border built. It isn't going to happen.

 

Imports into the UK from outside the EU happen now, and customs payments are made on electronically filed invoices. I know, I do it.

 

There is no need for a backstop. The more the EU writhe about it, the mor eit looks like it was there as some kind of future ploy. Not a safeguard.

 

This is the way forward. Go with the WA, rip out the backstop, get the new arrangement sorted in 2 years. Everybody happy (except those who will never be happy).

[Magilla 510]

12 minutes ago, woodview said:

What demands? Neither party wants a hard border.

If we had crashed out on March 29 , with no-deal , it's already been stated by everyone that there would be no border built.

They're only saying that because they expect trhe UK to abide by previous commitments to uphold the GFA.

 

Other than that, it's just talk, there will be a border in NI without some form of "customs union".

 

Quote

It isn't going to happen.

Wishful thinking.

 

12 minutes ago, woodview said:

Imports into the UK from outside the EU happen now, and customs payments are made on electronically filed invoices. I know, I do it. 

.. and when those invoices are deliberately fake?

 

How will that stop someone simply driving that hormone reared beef from NI to the south?

 

Edited January 30, 2019 by Magilla

[Cyclone 10]

13 minutes ago, woodview said:

What demands? Neither party wants a hard border.

If we had crashed out on March 29 , with no-deal , it's already been stated by everyone that there would be no border built. It isn't going to happen.

 

Imports into the UK from outside the EU happen now, and customs payments are made on electronically filed invoices. I know, I do it.

 

There is no need for a backstop. The more the EU writhe about it, the mor eit looks like it was there as some kind of future ploy. Not a safeguard.

 

This is the way forward. Go with the WA, rip out the backstop, get the new arrangement sorted in 2 years. Everybody happy (except those who will never be happy).

I expect that the EU is legally obliged to police it's borders to states that are not part of the EU.  And even if it wasn't, it will absolutely want to, as should we.  How can we go on about illegal immigrants and then leave a border to a foreign state simple unmonitored?

16 minutes ago, Magilla said:

Which is what?

 

Parliament still hasn't offered anything that is acceptable to them or the EU other than wishful thinking.

Parliament voted for an amendment that states that no-deal is not acceptable.

It's not binding on the government, but it makes the opinion of parliament clear.

[El Cid 220]

The Guardian seems the most level and informative, to me.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/30/theresas-triumph-what-the-papers-say-about-the-brexit-amendment-vote

 

Nothing has changed, yes the Tory party voted together, but that solves nothing. May and Corbyn are both still dead people walking.

The line from the EU is always going to be about border control, because that is what the UK voted for, that is what May wanted.

In practical term, it may be able to sort things out, if we have a soft Brexit; the difficult issue is getting rid of 'free movement'.

[Magilla 510]

10 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

I expect that the EU is legally obliged to police it's borders to states that are not part of the EU.

Absolutely, as members of the UN, that's before we get to WTO MFN rules. Every member nation would have a legitimate complaint against both the EU and the UK.

 

10 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

And even if it wasn't, it will absolutely want to, as should we.  How can we go on about illegal immigrants and then leave a border to a foreign state simple unmonitored?

Indeed, and of course the referendum was about securing our borders too.

 

10 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Parliament voted for an amendment that states that no-deal is not acceptable.

It's not binding on the government, but it makes the opinion of parliament clear.

Yeah, sorry I was refering to the NI border issue, but yeah, they did say no-deal isn't acceptable.

Edited January 30, 2019 by Magilla

[ads36 219]

Quote

woodview

 

What demands?

that Ireland accept the possibilty of a hard border.

 

no one wants a hard border, but it's a legal requirement in a no-deal exit.

 

unless we open all our borders? - which we could choose to do i suppose.

 

but then we're demanding Ireland/EU either open *their* side of the border, or break international trading rules.

 

it's one thing breaking the rules, it's quite another asking another country to do it for you.

 

so that's 2 demands we're imposing on Ireland, a hard border, or break the rules.

 

gosh aren't we nice neighbours?

Edited January 30, 2019 by ads36

[woodview 10]

26 minutes ago, Magilla said:

They're only saying that because they expect trhe UK to abide by previous commitments to uphold the GFA.

 

Other than that, it's just talk, there will be a border in NI without some form of "customs union".

 

Wishful thinking.

 

.. and when those invoices are deliberately fake?

 

How will that stop someone simply driving that hormone reared beef from NI to the south?

 

So you want a system in place to stop all illegal smuggling? And you have a starting point of a loser mentality that we'll have a fta with a place that allows that stuff?

Are you against the GFA by saying, what's to stop people driving drugs across the NI border? No. Anything can be a problem if you WANT it to be.

2 minutes ago, ads36 said:

that Ireland accept the possibilty of a hard border.

 

 

Nobody is 'demanding' a hard border. Nobody wants one. It isn't going to happen. You'll have to find another problem to try and de-rail it.

[ads36 219]

We're demanding the possibility of a hard border.

 

We want to re-negotiate the terms, to remove the bit that says 'no hard border on Ireland' - in other words, we want to include the possibility of a hard border. 

Edited January 30, 2019 by ads36

[Lockdoctor 10]

49 minutes ago, Magilla said:

Which is what?

 

Parliament still hasn't offered anything that is acceptable to them or the EU other than wishful thinking.

The EU know the Withdrawal Agreement on offer is acceptable to Parliament if the Backstop is removed.   If the EU won't budge or look for alternatives then the UK have no alternative but leave the EU on 29th March without a deal.

[ads36 219]

And if the back-stop is removed, the agreement allows for a hard border.

[Lockdoctor 10]

40 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

 

Parliament voted for an amendment that states that no-deal is not acceptable.

It's not binding on the government, but it makes the opinion of parliament clear.

Over 17 million  UK people made it clear to  Parliament that they want to leave the EU. Leave won the democratic referendum vote.  Parliament have rejected the current deal on offer which means  no deal is going to happen if the EU won't remove the Backstop. 

[ads36 219]

So you're asking the EU to remove the clause which makes a hard border un-necessary ?

 

All these things we're asking them to do/accept, all these rules we want them to break. For our 'project', not theirs, and we then we accuse them of being intransigent? - for only meeting us half-way?

 

Is that right?

Edited January 30, 2019 by ads36