Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
west didsblue said:
If you read the article it says that it would be up to the UK and the ROI/EU to make sure border checks are carried out. This would necessitate some infrastructure. It’s just semantics to say this doesn’t need to be a hard border. It also says that the WTO would only get involved if one of its 164 members complained about WTO rules not being enforced. This could easily happen if border checks are inadequate.
Click to expand...
I know, I simply referenced the contribution from the WTO rep, but 'some infrastructure' doesn't mean a 'hard border' such as would conflict with the terms of the GFA.
 
west didsblue said:
If you read the article it says that it would be up to the UK and the ROI/EU to make sure border checks are carried out. This would necessitate some infrastructure. It’s just semantics to say this doesn’t need to be a hard border. It also says that the WTO would only get involved if one of its 164 members complained about WTO rules not being enforced. This could easily happen if border checks are inadequate.
Click to expand...

Both sides have said publicly that checks will be kept to a minimum and done away from the border and that the work to facilitate that is currently well under way.

If an objection is made and a case brought it wouldn't stop procedures overnight and would take some time to be heard and adjudicated on.
 
George Hannah said:
I know, I simply referenced the contribution from the WTO rep, but 'some infrastructure' doesn't mean a 'hard border' such as would conflict with the terms of the GFA.
Click to expand...
It may not technically but any infrastructure at all at the border would certainly risk major problems which is why everyone is doing their best to avoid any infrastructure at all.
 
west didsblue said:
It may not technically but any infrastructure at all at the border would certainly risk major problems which is why everyone is doing their best to avoid any infrastructure at all.
Click to expand...

There will be no hard border, ever.

Everyones best endeavours to avoid will be good enough because everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet on it.

Trusted trader scheme, agri checks done at source and at points away from the border and kept to a minimum with filing of relevant paperwork done electronically and in advance will all be brought in on a reasonable time frame.

As discussed an FTA has then too be negotiated and its the time in between that is the worry re WTO and any objections that might arise to the temp arrangements in place but that will have to be a suck it and see wait.
 
20170408_woc316.png
 
blueinsa said:
There will be no hard border, ever.

Everyones best endeavours to avoid will be good enough because everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet on it.

Trusted trader scheme, agri checks done at source and at points away from the border and kept to a minimum with filing of relevant paperwork done electronically and in advance will all be brought in on a reasonable time frame.

As discussed an FTA has then too be negotiated and its the time in between that is the worry re WTO and any objections that might arise to the temp arrangements in place but that will have to be a suck it and see wait.
Click to expand...
I agree, and that means No Deal isn’t an option, because No Deal makes the above impossible.
 
west didsblue said:
I agree, and that means No Deal isn’t an option, because No Deal makes the above impossible.
Click to expand...

So we are back to the opinion that everyone is being forced down a road they all want anyway and that is to agree a deal.

I suspect it will be centred around what we have now but with a time limited back stop that is long enough in length to convince Dublin and Brussels that the tech solutions and procedures discussed now and in the paper worked on by a select group of MP's, probably a minimum of 3 years can be implemented and the deal done..

We move and Brussels/Dublin moves, diplomatically acceptable to all and everyone gets what they want.
 
dave_blue12 said:
20170408_woc316.png
Click to expand...

Not sure what relevance it has I'm afraid and of course brexit is now an issue as we have just had 3 years of fighting over a vote we held on our membership.

10 years ago most City fans didn't give a fuck about the CL, a majority now do.
 
blueinsa said:
So we are back to the opinion that everyone is being forced down a road they all want anyway and that is to agree a deal.

I suspect it will be centred around what we have now but with a time limited back stop that is long enough in length to convince Dublin and Brussels that the tech solutions and procedures discussed now and in the paper worked on by a select group of MP's, probably a minimum of 3 years can be implemented and the deal done..

We move and Brussels/Dublin moves, diplomatically acceptable to all and everyone gets what they want.
Click to expand...
3 years? Ha, the Tories own reports claim it needs a minimum of ten and any trade deal could easily take that long as well.
 
west didsblue said:
It is their goal made achievable by Brexit.

Without Brexit there was nothing to suggest a shift in the views of the population from the 55:45 in favour of the union.
Click to expand...
Leaving the UK was/is their goal - irrespective of Brexit.

And you cannot dump its 'achievability' onto the referendum in any credible way

I personally know the fella that Scotland appointed to Brussels to prepare for Scotland to be retained in the EU should the UK leave and/or prepare for the accession to EU of Scotland should the Uk not leave the EU and Scotland subsequently split from the UK

This is all just sophistry - but TBF - understandable if you look at the situation at 'face value'
 
George Hannah said:
Whatever the period before a formal agreement is reached a range of interim arrangements will be agreed very quickly to ensure trade continues uninterrupted.
Click to expand...
No they won't. Mixed competence remember? Varadkar wants to keep his job.
 
mcfc1632 said:
Leaving the UK was/is their goal - irrespective of Brexit.

And you cannot dump its 'achievability' onto the referendum in any credible way

I personally know the fella that Scotland appointed to Brussels to prepare for Scotland to be retained in the EU should the UK leave and/or prepare for the accession to EU of Scotland should the Uk not leave the EU and Scotland subsequently split from the UK

This is all just sophistry - but TBF - understandable if you look at the situation at 'face value'
Click to expand...
The reason its achievability is impacted by the Brexit vote is that Scotland strongly voted to Remain and enough Unionist Scots will feel let down by the English led UK in dragging them out of the EU against their will to make them change their mind from supporting the union to make the numbers wanting independence a majority. If that happens it’s only a matter of time before a rerun of the Indyref is forced.
 
aguero93:20 said:
No they won't. Mixed competence remember? Varadkar wants to keep his job.
Click to expand...
I don't think we'll ever find out but if I'm wrong (as usual) and Brexit actually happens I reckon all parties will safeguard their main economic interests and consequently ensure profits continue to flow in both directions. As for Leo, his Brussells reward is waiting,
 
George Hannah said:
I don't think we'll ever find out but if I'm wrong (as usual) and Brexit actually happens I reckon all parties will safeguard their main economic interests and consequently ensure profits continue to flow in both directions. As for Leo, his Brussells reward is waiting,
Click to expand...
Is he going to get jobs for all of FF and SF's TDs as well? Minority government remember?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top