The Glorious Revolution came at the invitation of Westminster to get rid of a Catholic King who fled to exile in the court of the French King Louis XIVth
Keeping promises and accepting the consequences are two different things. I fully expect Boris to have cleared off to the US within a few years.
His ambition was always to be first UK PM and then US President.....would still be on the cards if he could be bothered to pay his taxes.
Interesting thought there; wonder how 'in order' Boris' tax affairs actually are. He has had, after all, a lot of self-employed income. Lot of investments too, although they're probably off-shore, in the Cayman's or somewhere like that.
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
But you'll have weakened our southern defences by deploying most of the troops to Scotland...
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
But you'll have weakened our southern defences by deploying most of the troops to Scotland...
Scotland is less than a tenth of the UK and about half Scots are Unionists, Sturgeon could be defeated as easily as Bonnie Prince Charlie was
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
The UK is an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066? That's a turn up for the history books and no mistake.
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
But you'll have weakened our southern defences by deploying most of the troops to Scotland...
Lot of Martello towers still standing, though! On the negative side, Francois would be encouraged to re-form the Home Guard!
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
The UK is an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066? That's a turn up for the history books and no mistake.
Don't think Barnier and Von Der Leyen will succeed where Philip IInd, Napoleon and Hitler failed
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Cummings expects the EU to fold. I can't see how they can from a threat like this.
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
The observer did not seem anything like as upset as many on here are and seemed to think it was just part of the increasing urgency over a deal
I do not know but I would be interested if an independent voice could advise on the legal status of the WDA in the event of no deal
I am not comfortable with breaching a treaty and like so much on Brexit controversy prevails all around
And as far as the EU and Putin are concerned do you really think Merkel will withdraw from the Nord Stream energy supply from Russia
Legally the WA applies in the event of no deal. The UK has the sovereign right to repudiate it. They would have to live with the consequences.
In the short term this would mean the breaking of the GFA and a border on the island of Ireland.
Philip doesn't care. He believes that this would lead to a United Ireland. He favours a United Ireland. He believes that other UK Govt policies are leading inevitably to Scottish Independence. He favours Scottish Independence.
Therefore he is entirely comfortable coming on here and defending UK Govt policy which will lead to the outcomes he favours. It doesn't matter to him that the UK Govt doesn't (we presume) support his outcomes.
I assume he also doesn't think the UK should bother trying to sign trade deals with other countries since other countries are not going to sign deals knowing that the UK will attempt to rewrite them whenever they discover something they don't like in them.
The UK is sticking to the terms of the WA not to have a hard border within Ireland actually, just threatening to rip up the pledge to have a border in the Irish Sea, which if Boris does do that will also win the 8 DUP MPs back to the Tories in the event of a hung parliament in 2024
If we don't get a deal what happens on the NI / Eire border?
The UK Gov't can do what it likes domestically. Keeping your word in international relations/treaties/agreements has a soft power value which surely we're looking for in the post-Brexit world though ?
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
The EU and its members won't go to actual war for this, as their predecessors probably would have done. My point is directed at those that say international law is meaningless and everyone has a sovereign right to do what they want. Respectable countries don't unilaterally break treaties, for very good reasons.
The Glorious Revolution came at the invitation of Westminster to get rid of a Catholic King who fled to exile in the court of the French King Louis XIVth
IANAHistorian but it was like 7 dudes, it's not as if the whole of parliament voted to be invaded, and even if it was it would still have been a successful invasion.
Invasions are often done this way, you recognize some local opposition group as the legitimate government and use your invading army to put them (and you) in power.
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
The UK is an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066? That's a turn up for the history books and no mistake.
Don't think Barnier and Von Der Leyen will succeed where Philip IInd, Napoleon and Hitler failed
Please tell me more of this inviolable UK island nation that has existed since 1066.
There is a deal to be done that respects UK sovereignty and is in the interests of both parties.
Currently standards and regulations are aligned and there is a LPF which is a great start.
1. Both parties agree that the other party shall [participate]/[contribute] in any proposals to change standards or regulations. (This is to enable each party's concerns to be properly taken into account by the other party).
2. Both parties agree that if either party decides to change standards or regulations, it will give the other party [12] months notice. (This is to enable the other party to decide whether the change is acceptable and, if not, make appropriate preparations).
3. Both parties agree that if any such change is deemed to be unacceptable by the other party, that party will formally declare that to be the case and the Agreement on zero tariiffs and no inspections will cease [12] months after such a declaration. (This is to give adequate time to prepare for the end of the Agreement).
This preserves frictionless trade and avoids the rule maker/rule taker argument and respects UK (and EU) sovereignty and interests. It also avoids a border in the Irish Sea and respects the WDA.
Absolutely unacceptable.
There is no way it is reasonable to give 12 months notice of each and every law or tax change. Remember the EU is willing to define tax changes as "state aid".
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
But you'll have weakened our southern defences by deploying most of the troops to Scotland...
Lot of Martello towers still standing, though! On the negative side, Francois would be encouraged to re-form the Home Guard!
That's old thinking. Dom is working on a world beating British version of Unit 731.
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
There is a deal to be done that respects UK sovereignty and is in the interests of both parties.
Currently standards and regulations are aligned and there is a LPF which is a great start.
1. Both parties agree that the other party shall [participate]/[contribute] in any proposals to change standards or regulations. (This is to enable each party's concerns to be properly taken into account by the other party).
2. Both parties agree that if either party decides to change standards or regulations, it will give the other party [12] months notice. (This is to enable the other party to decide whether the change is acceptable and, if not, make appropriate preparations).
3. Both parties agree that if any such change is deemed to be unacceptable by the other party, that party will formally declare that to be the case and the Agreement on zero tariiffs and no inspections will cease [12] months after such a declaration. (This is to give adequate time to prepare for the end of the Agreement).
This preserves frictionless trade and avoids the rule maker/rule taker argument and respects UK (and EU) sovereignty and interests. It also avoids a border in the Irish Sea and respects the WDA.
How do we vote for the Barnesian party?
I'm surprised the negotiators aren't exploring something like this which is a win/win for both sides and negotiable within the time frame. Instead they are waving their willies for domestic consumption.
Actually I don't think Barnier is but he could be more flexible.
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
The UK is an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066? That's a turn up for the history books and no mistake.
Don't think Barnier and Von Der Leyen will succeed where Philip IInd, Napoleon and Hitler failed
Please tell me more of this inviolable UK island nation that has existed since 1066.
OK, England and Scotland and Wales and Ireland have not been successfully invaded from outside the British islands since 1066 then if you really want to be pedantic
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
The UK is an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066? That's a turn up for the history books and no mistake.
Don't think Barnier and Von Der Leyen will succeed where Philip IInd, Napoleon and Hitler failed
Please tell me more of this inviolable UK island nation that has existed since 1066.
OK, England and Scotland and Wales and Ireland have not been successfully invaded from outside the British islands since 1066 then if you really want to be pedantic
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Cummings expects the EU to fold. I can't see how they can from a threat like this.
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
The observer did not seem anything like as upset as many on here are and seemed to think it was just part of the increasing urgency over a deal
I do not know but I would be interested if an independent voice could advise on the legal status of the WDA in the event of no deal
I am not comfortable with breaching a treaty and like so much on Brexit controversy prevails all around
And as far as the EU and Putin are concerned do you really think Merkel will withdraw from the Nord Stream energy supply from Russia
Legally the WA applies in the event of no deal. The UK has the sovereign right to repudiate it. They would have to live with the consequences.
In the short term this would mean the breaking of the GFA and a border on the island of Ireland.
Philip doesn't care. He believes that this would lead to a United Ireland. He favours a United Ireland. He believes that other UK Govt policies are leading inevitably to Scottish Independence. He favours Scottish Independence.
Therefore he is entirely comfortable coming on here and defending UK Govt policy which will lead to the outcomes he favours. It doesn't matter to him that the UK Govt doesn't (we presume) support his outcomes.
I assume he also doesn't think the UK should bother trying to sign trade deals with other countries since other countries are not going to sign deals knowing that the UK will attempt to rewrite them whenever they discover something they don't like in them.
The UK is sticking to the terms of the WA not to have a hard border within Ireland actually, just threatening to rip up the pledge to have a border in the Irish Sea, which if Boris does do that will also win the 8 DUP MPs back to the Tories in the event of a hung parliament in 2024
If we don't get a deal what happens on the NI / Eire border?
The UK government still respects the WA terms within Ireland and on the NI/Eire border, they just refuse to impose a border in the Irish Sea.
If the EU want to build a hard border within Ireland that is up to the EU, the UK side will remain borderless
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
The UK is an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066? That's a turn up for the history books and no mistake.
Don't think Barnier and Von Der Leyen will succeed where Philip IInd, Napoleon and Hitler failed
Please tell me more of this inviolable UK island nation that has existed since 1066.
OK, England and Scotland and Wales and Ireland have not been successfully invaded from outside the British islands since 1066 then if you really want to be pedantic
Hardly pedantic. We aren't an island singular nation singular. We are islands nations. No wonder your boy is such a crap unionist
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
The EU and its members won't go to actual war for this, as their predecessors probably would have done. My point is directed at those that say international law is meaningless and everyone has a sovereign right to do what they want. Respectable countries don't unilaterally break treaties, for very good reasons.
I keep making this very point.
Am I correct in asserting that the UK has never unilaterally broken a treaty it has freely entered into? I do say this on occasion because I have never found a counter example to disprove it but have always wondered if this is 100% true as I believe.
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
I agree that nobody is going to be arsed to go to war over these customs or tariffs but I think the reasoning that it is because 'France whose war record is not that great against us' is a smidging weak, since the last time planes didn't exist, battleships used sails and we defended ourselves against cavalry by forming square; or are you proposing we should fight a historic reenactment.
There is a deal to be done that respects UK sovereignty and is in the interests of both parties.
Currently standards and regulations are aligned and there is a LPF which is a great start.
1. Both parties agree that the other party shall [participate]/[contribute] in any proposals to change standards or regulations. (This is to enable each party's concerns to be properly taken into account by the other party).
2. Both parties agree that if either party decides to change standards or regulations, it will give the other party [12] months notice. (This is to enable the other party to decide whether the change is acceptable and, if not, make appropriate preparations).
3. Both parties agree that if any such change is deemed to be unacceptable by the other party, that party will formally declare that to be the case and the Agreement on zero tariiffs and no inspections will cease [12] months after such a declaration. (This is to give adequate time to prepare for the end of the Agreement).
This preserves frictionless trade and avoids the rule maker/rule taker argument and respects UK (and EU) sovereignty and interests. It also avoids a border in the Irish Sea and respects the WDA.
Absolutely unacceptable.
There is no way it is reasonable to give 12 months notice of each and every law or tax change. Remember the EU is willing to define tax changes as "state aid".
Note I put the 12 in brackets and that it applies to both parties. The word "change" could be substantial or material and tightly defined and it would apply to both parties.
You will note that my proposal is symmetrical to both parties and treats the UK as an equal party. It is respectful.
To say "Absolutely unacceptable" straight out is an illustration of the problem. You're not related to Ian Paisley by any chance?
There is a deal to be done that respects UK sovereignty and is in the interests of both parties.
Currently standards and regulations are aligned and there is a LPF which is a great start.
1. Both parties agree that the other party shall [participate]/[contribute] in any proposals to change standards or regulations. (This is to enable each party's concerns to be properly taken into account by the other party).
2. Both parties agree that if either party decides to change standards or regulations, it will give the other party [12] months notice. (This is to enable the other party to decide whether the change is acceptable and, if not, make appropriate preparations).
3. Both parties agree that if any such change is deemed to be unacceptable by the other party, that party will formally declare that to be the case and the Agreement on zero tariiffs and no inspections will cease [12] months after such a declaration. (This is to give adequate time to prepare for the end of the Agreement).
This preserves frictionless trade and avoids the rule maker/rule taker argument and respects UK (and EU) sovereignty and interests. It also avoids a border in the Irish Sea and respects the WDA.
Absolutely unacceptable.
There is no way it is reasonable to give 12 months notice of each and every law or tax change. Remember the EU is willing to define tax changes as "state aid".
Note I put the 12 in brackets and that it applies to both parties. The word "change" could be substantial or material and tightly defined and it would apply to both parties.
You will note that my proposal is symmetrical to both parties and treats the UK as an equal party. It is respectful.
To say "Absolutely unacceptable" straight out is an illustration of the problem. You're not related to Ian Paisley by any chance?
It is probably also worth pointing out that very few tax changes - beyond duties on things like alcohol, tobacco and petrol - come into effect immediately. There is always usually a gap of several months or more before they actually take effect (usually the start of the next financial year) so a delay of 12 months is not exactly earth shattering.
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Cummings expects the EU to fold. I can't see how they can from a threat like this.
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
The observer did not seem anything like as upset as many on here are and seemed to think it was just part of the increasing urgency over a deal
I do not know but I would be interested if an independent voice could advise on the legal status of the WDA in the event of no deal
I am not comfortable with breaching a treaty and like so much on Brexit controversy prevails all around
And as far as the EU and Putin are concerned do you really think Merkel will withdraw from the Nord Stream energy supply from Russia
Legally the WA applies in the event of no deal. The UK has the sovereign right to repudiate it. They would have to live with the consequences.
In the short term this would mean the breaking of the GFA and a border on the island of Ireland.
Philip doesn't care. He believes that this would lead to a United Ireland. He favours a United Ireland. He believes that other UK Govt policies are leading inevitably to Scottish Independence. He favours Scottish Independence.
Therefore he is entirely comfortable coming on here and defending UK Govt policy which will lead to the outcomes he favours. It doesn't matter to him that the UK Govt doesn't (we presume) support his outcomes.
I assume he also doesn't think the UK should bother trying to sign trade deals with other countries since other countries are not going to sign deals knowing that the UK will attempt to rewrite them whenever they discover something they don't like in them.
The UK is sticking to the terms of the WA not to have a hard border within Ireland actually, just threatening to rip up the pledge to have a border in the Irish Sea, which if Boris does do that will also win the 8 DUP MPs back to the Tories in the event of a hung parliament in 2024
If we don't get a deal what happens on the NI / Eire border?
The UK government still respects the WA terms within Ireland and on the NI/Eire border, they just refuse to impose a border in the Irish Sea.
If the EU want to build a hard border within Ireland that is up to the EU, the UK side will remain borderless
We’re back to this old chestnut again are we? Quelle surprise. There was even a time when even the Brexiteers just about accepted this wasn’t a runner, hence all the talk about “technological solutions” etc.
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
The EU and its members won't go to actual war for this, as their predecessors probably would have done. My point is directed at those that say international law is meaningless and everyone has a sovereign right to do what they want. Respectable countries don't unilaterally break treaties, for very good reasons.
I keep making this very point.
Am I correct in asserting that the UK has never unilaterally broken a treaty it has freely entered into? I do say this on occasion because I have never found a counter example to disprove it but have always wondered if this is 100% true as I believe.
Of course the UK/England has broken treaties. They're not known as Perfidious Albion for nothing.
There is a deal to be done that respects UK sovereignty and is in the interests of both parties.
Currently standards and regulations are aligned and there is a LPF which is a great start.
1. Both parties agree that the other party shall [participate]/[contribute] in any proposals to change standards or regulations. (This is to enable each party's concerns to be properly taken into account by the other party).
2. Both parties agree that if either party decides to change standards or regulations, it will give the other party [12] months notice. (This is to enable the other party to decide whether the change is acceptable and, if not, make appropriate preparations).
3. Both parties agree that if any such change is deemed to be unacceptable by the other party, that party will formally declare that to be the case and the Agreement on zero tariiffs and no inspections will cease [12] months after such a declaration. (This is to give adequate time to prepare for the end of the Agreement).
This preserves frictionless trade and avoids the rule maker/rule taker argument and respects UK (and EU) sovereignty and interests. It also avoids a border in the Irish Sea and respects the WDA.
Absolutely unacceptable.
There is no way it is reasonable to give 12 months notice of each and every law or tax change. Remember the EU is willing to define tax changes as "state aid".
Note I put the 12 in brackets and that it applies to both parties. The word "change" could be substantial or material and tightly defined and it would apply to both parties.
You will note that my proposal is symmetrical to both parties and treats the UK as an equal party. It is respectful.
To say "Absolutely unacceptable" straight out is an illustration of the problem. You're not related to Ian Paisley by any chance?
No I'm not but it doesn't matter how symmetrical it is. The EU would find it equally unacceptable for the same reason.
Your first two points are redundant anyway, there's no reason why we can't just agree the third and be done with it.
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
I agree that nobody is going to be arsed to go to war over these customs or tariffs but I think the reasoning that it is because 'France whose war record is not that great against us' is a smidging weak, since the last time planes didn't exist, battleships used sails and we defended ourselves against cavalry by forming square; or are you proposing we should fight a historic reenactment.
There’s no need to fire a shot just close all EU ports and airports to UK traffic.
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Cummings expects the EU to fold. I can't see how they can from a threat like this.
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
The observer did not seem anything like as upset as many on here are and seemed to think it was just part of the increasing urgency over a deal
I do not know but I would be interested if an independent voice could advise on the legal status of the WDA in the event of no deal
I am not comfortable with breaching a treaty and like so much on Brexit controversy prevails all around
And as far as the EU and Putin are concerned do you really think Merkel will withdraw from the Nord Stream energy supply from Russia
Legally the WA applies in the event of no deal. The UK has the sovereign right to repudiate it. They would have to live with the consequences.
In the short term this would mean the breaking of the GFA and a border on the island of Ireland.
Philip doesn't care. He believes that this would lead to a United Ireland. He favours a United Ireland. He believes that other UK Govt policies are leading inevitably to Scottish Independence. He favours Scottish Independence.
Therefore he is entirely comfortable coming on here and defending UK Govt policy which will lead to the outcomes he favours. It doesn't matter to him that the UK Govt doesn't (we presume) support his outcomes.
I assume he also doesn't think the UK should bother trying to sign trade deals with other countries since other countries are not going to sign deals knowing that the UK will attempt to rewrite them whenever they discover something they don't like in them.
The UK is sticking to the terms of the WA not to have a hard border within Ireland actually, just threatening to rip up the pledge to have a border in the Irish Sea, which if Boris does do that will also win the 8 DUP MPs back to the Tories in the event of a hung parliament in 2024
If we don't get a deal what happens on the NI / Eire border?
The UK government still respects the WA terms within Ireland and on the NI/Eire border, they just refuse to impose a border in the Irish Sea.
If the EU want to build a hard border within Ireland that is up to the EU, the UK side will remain borderless
Why are we putting all the customs stuff in place at Dover then if we just leave the NI/Eire border open?
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Cummings expects the EU to fold. I can't see how they can from a threat like this.
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
The observer did not seem anything like as upset as many on here are and seemed to think it was just part of the increasing urgency over a deal
I do not know but I would be interested if an independent voice could advise on the legal status of the WDA in the event of no deal
I am not comfortable with breaching a treaty and like so much on Brexit controversy prevails all around
And as far as the EU and Putin are concerned do you really think Merkel will withdraw from the Nord Stream energy supply from Russia
Legally the WA applies in the event of no deal. The UK has the sovereign right to repudiate it. They would have to live with the consequences.
In the short term this would mean the breaking of the GFA and a border on the island of Ireland.
Philip doesn't care. He believes that this would lead to a United Ireland. He favours a United Ireland. He believes that other UK Govt policies are leading inevitably to Scottish Independence. He favours Scottish Independence.
Therefore he is entirely comfortable coming on here and defending UK Govt policy which will lead to the outcomes he favours. It doesn't matter to him that the UK Govt doesn't (we presume) support his outcomes.
I assume he also doesn't think the UK should bother trying to sign trade deals with other countries since other countries are not going to sign deals knowing that the UK will attempt to rewrite them whenever they discover something they don't like in them.
The UK is sticking to the terms of the WA not to have a hard border within Ireland actually, just threatening to rip up the pledge to have a border in the Irish Sea, which if Boris does do that will also win the 8 DUP MPs back to the Tories in the event of a hung parliament in 2024
If we don't get a deal what happens on the NI / Eire border?
The UK government still respects the WA terms within Ireland and on the NI/Eire border, they just refuse to impose a border in the Irish Sea.
If the EU want to build a hard border within Ireland that is up to the EU, the UK side will remain borderless
Why are we putting all the customs stuff in place at Dover then if we just leave the NI/Eire border open?
As if we go to WTO terms Brexit there would still be tariffs on goods coming from the EU (which would include from the Republic of Ireland) to GB however Northern Ireland along with the rest of the UK left the EU in January
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
The UK is an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066? That's a turn up for the history books and no mistake.
Don't think Barnier and Von Der Leyen will succeed where Philip IInd, Napoleon and Hitler failed
Please tell me more of this inviolable UK island nation that has existed since 1066.
OK, England and Scotland and Wales and Ireland have not been successfully invaded from outside the British islands since 1066 then if you really want to be pedantic
Actually the constituent nations of that relatively recent construct the UK have been invaded quite a lot, mainly by the the big fat lump in the bottom half of mainland Britain.
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Cummings expects the EU to fold. I can't see how they can from a threat like this.
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
The observer did not seem anything like as upset as many on here are and seemed to think it was just part of the increasing urgency over a deal
I do not know but I would be interested if an independent voice could advise on the legal status of the WDA in the event of no deal
I am not comfortable with breaching a treaty and like so much on Brexit controversy prevails all around
And as far as the EU and Putin are concerned do you really think Merkel will withdraw from the Nord Stream energy supply from Russia
Legally the WA applies in the event of no deal. The UK has the sovereign right to repudiate it. They would have to live with the consequences.
In the short term this would mean the breaking of the GFA and a border on the island of Ireland.
Philip doesn't care. He believes that this would lead to a United Ireland. He favours a United Ireland. He believes that other UK Govt policies are leading inevitably to Scottish Independence. He favours Scottish Independence.
Therefore he is entirely comfortable coming on here and defending UK Govt policy which will lead to the outcomes he favours. It doesn't matter to him that the UK Govt doesn't (we presume) support his outcomes.
I assume he also doesn't think the UK should bother trying to sign trade deals with other countries since other countries are not going to sign deals knowing that the UK will attempt to rewrite them whenever they discover something they don't like in them.
The UK is sticking to the terms of the WA not to have a hard border within Ireland actually, just threatening to rip up the pledge to have a border in the Irish Sea, which if Boris does do that will also win the 8 DUP MPs back to the Tories in the event of a hung parliament in 2024
If we don't get a deal what happens on the NI / Eire border?
The UK government still respects the WA terms within Ireland and on the NI/Eire border, they just refuse to impose a border in the Irish Sea.
If the EU want to build a hard border within Ireland that is up to the EU, the UK side will remain borderless
Why are we putting all the customs stuff in place at Dover then if we just leave the NI/Eire border open?
For the same reason we check passports at Dover but not in NI.
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
The EU and its members won't go to actual war for this, as their predecessors probably would have done. My point is directed at those that say international law is meaningless and everyone has a sovereign right to do what they want. Respectable countries don't unilaterally break treaties, for very good reasons.
I keep making this very point.
Am I correct in asserting that the UK has never unilaterally broken a treaty it has freely entered into? I do say this on occasion because I have never found a counter example to disprove it but have always wondered if this is 100% true as I believe.
Of course the UK/England has broken treaties. They're not known as Perfidious Albion for nothing.
Note I was talking about the UK so post 1800s. And care to give me any examples?
Edited to correct from 1700s to 1800s for UK. But still anything post 1700s okay.
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
I agree that nobody is going to be arsed to go to war over these customs or tariffs but I think the reasoning that it is because 'France whose war record is not that great against us' is a smidging weak, since the last time planes didn't exist, battleships used sails and we defended ourselves against cavalry by forming square; or are you proposing we should fight a historic reenactment.
When Hitler tried to invade there were planes, hence the Battle of Britain, battleships without sails and tanks had replaced cavalry, he also failed
I still don't feel that I know what the government's priorities are in the negotiations with the EU, so this makes it hard to predict what they will do next.
I find it hard to take the threat of no deal seriously because (1) we've done sod all to prepare for it, and (2) we've failed to follow through on previous threats. Perhaps this time there really will be wolves.
My current assumption then is that the British government is throwing up a smokescreen of threats and bluster to cover an orderly retreat.
A negotiation always involves a degree of compromise and the chief problem has always been to sell compromise to the ERG extreme as a complete victory.
A difficulty arises in that EU leaders are weary of the necessary theatre, and distracted by other concerns. It might have been easier for them to make the necessary compromises in negotiations over a longer period of time, rather than compressed for the purpose of obscuring the compromise from extreme Brexiter attention.
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
I agree that nobody is going to be arsed to go to war over these customs or tariffs but I think the reasoning that it is because 'France whose war record is not that great against us' is a smidging weak, since the last time planes didn't exist, battleships used sails and we defended ourselves against cavalry by forming square; or are you proposing we should fight a historic reenactment.
When Hitler tried to invade there were planes, hence the Battle of Britain, battleships without sails and tanks had replaced cavalry, he also failed
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Cummings expects the EU to fold. I can't see how they can from a threat like this.
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
The observer did not seem anything like as upset as many on here are and seemed to think it was just part of the increasing urgency over a deal
I do not know but I would be interested if an independent voice could advise on the legal status of the WDA in the event of no deal
I am not comfortable with breaching a treaty and like so much on Brexit controversy prevails all around
And as far as the EU and Putin are concerned do you really think Merkel will withdraw from the Nord Stream energy supply from Russia
Legally the WA applies in the event of no deal. The UK has the sovereign right to repudiate it. They would have to live with the consequences.
In the short term this would mean the breaking of the GFA and a border on the island of Ireland.
Philip doesn't care. He believes that this would lead to a United Ireland. He favours a United Ireland. He believes that other UK Govt policies are leading inevitably to Scottish Independence. He favours Scottish Independence.
Therefore he is entirely comfortable coming on here and defending UK Govt policy which will lead to the outcomes he favours. It doesn't matter to him that the UK Govt doesn't (we presume) support his outcomes.
I assume he also doesn't think the UK should bother trying to sign trade deals with other countries since other countries are not going to sign deals knowing that the UK will attempt to rewrite them whenever they discover something they don't like in them.
The UK is sticking to the terms of the WA not to have a hard border within Ireland actually, just threatening to rip up the pledge to have a border in the Irish Sea, which if Boris does do that will also win the 8 DUP MPs back to the Tories in the event of a hung parliament in 2024
If we don't get a deal what happens on the NI / Eire border?
The UK government still respects the WA terms within Ireland and on the NI/Eire border, they just refuse to impose a border in the Irish Sea.
If the EU want to build a hard border within Ireland that is up to the EU, the UK side will remain borderless
Why are we putting all the customs stuff in place at Dover then if we just leave the NI/Eire border open?
As if we go to WTO terms Brexit there would still be tariffs on goods coming from the EU (which would include from the Republic of Ireland) to GB however Northern Ireland along with the rest of the UK left the EU in January
Well exactly. I have no idea what your point it. Why do we put a border at one place and not the other?
Not successful, the French Prince Louis' army was beaten at the Battle of Lincoln in 1217, the French invasion fleet commanded by his wife Blanche of Castile was then also defeated at the Battle of Sandwich.
At the Treaty of Lambeth Louis surrendered any castles he had captured and accepted he had never been a legitimate King of England and departed back to France with his tail between his legs
There is a deal to be done that respects UK sovereignty and is in the interests of both parties.
Currently standards and regulations are aligned and there is a LPF which is a great start.
1. Both parties agree that the other party shall [participate]/[contribute] in any proposals to change standards or regulations. (This is to enable each party's concerns to be properly taken into account by the other party).
2. Both parties agree that if either party decides to change standards or regulations, it will give the other party [12] months notice. (This is to enable the other party to decide whether the change is acceptable and, if not, make appropriate preparations).
3. Both parties agree that if any such change is deemed to be unacceptable by the other party, that party will formally declare that to be the case and the Agreement on zero tariiffs and no inspections will cease [12] months after such a declaration. (This is to give adequate time to prepare for the end of the Agreement).
This preserves frictionless trade and avoids the rule maker/rule taker argument and respects UK (and EU) sovereignty and interests. It also avoids a border in the Irish Sea and respects the WDA.
Absolutely unacceptable.
There is no way it is reasonable to give 12 months notice of each and every law or tax change. Remember the EU is willing to define tax changes as "state aid".
Note I put the 12 in brackets and that it applies to both parties. The word "change" could be substantial or material and tightly defined and it would apply to both parties.
You will note that my proposal is symmetrical to both parties and treats the UK as an equal party. It is respectful.
To say "Absolutely unacceptable" straight out is an illustration of the problem. You're not related to Ian Paisley by any chance?
No I'm not but it doesn't matter how symmetrical it is. The EU would find it equally unacceptable for the same reason.
Your first two points are redundant anyway, there's no reason why we can't just agree the third and be done with it.
You can't speak for the EU but I don't see why they would find 12 months notice unacceptable. The 12 months is negotiable anyway. It is a trade off between giving adequate notice for preparation of the end of the Agreement and being able to swiftly implement changes domestically. It is not a deal breaker.
The first two points are to enable each party to influence/lobby the other party if major changes are envisaged to avoid getting to point 3 if possible.
Just relax for a moment and try to look at my proposal dispassionately and objectively.
EDIT: I'm encouraged that you say "there's no reason why we can't just agree the third and be done with it". That would be a major step forward but not optimal without points 1 and 2.
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Cummings expects the EU to fold. I can't see how they can from a threat like this.
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
The observer did not seem anything like as upset as many on here are and seemed to think it was just part of the increasing urgency over a deal
I do not know but I would be interested if an independent voice could advise on the legal status of the WDA in the event of no deal
I am not comfortable with breaching a treaty and like so much on Brexit controversy prevails all around
And as far as the EU and Putin are concerned do you really think Merkel will withdraw from the Nord Stream energy supply from Russia
Legally the WA applies in the event of no deal. The UK has the sovereign right to repudiate it. They would have to live with the consequences.
In the short term this would mean the breaking of the GFA and a border on the island of Ireland.
Philip doesn't care. He believes that this would lead to a United Ireland. He favours a United Ireland. He believes that other UK Govt policies are leading inevitably to Scottish Independence. He favours Scottish Independence.
Therefore he is entirely comfortable coming on here and defending UK Govt policy which will lead to the outcomes he favours. It doesn't matter to him that the UK Govt doesn't (we presume) support his outcomes.
I assume he also doesn't think the UK should bother trying to sign trade deals with other countries since other countries are not going to sign deals .
The UK is sticking to the terms of the WA not to have a hard border within Ireland actually, just threatening to rip up the pledge to have a border in the Irish Sea, which if Boris does do that will also win the 8 DUP MPs back to the Tories in the event of a hung parliament in 2024
If we don't get a deal what happens on the NI / Eire border?
The UK government still respects the WA terms within Ireland and on the NI/Eire border, they just refuse to impose a border in the Irish Sea.
If the EU want to build a hard border within Ireland that is up to the EU, the UK side will remain borderless
Why are we putting all the customs stuff in place at Dover then if we just leave the NI/Eire border open?
For the same reason we check passports at Dover but not in NI.
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
I agree that nobody is going to be arsed to go to war over these customs or tariffs but I think the reasoning that it is because 'France whose war record is not that great against us' is a smidging weak, since the last time planes didn't exist, battleships used sails and we defended ourselves against cavalry by forming square; or are you proposing we should fight a historic reenactment.
When Hitler tried to invade there were planes, hence the Battle of Britain, battleships without sails and tanks had replaced cavalry, he also failed
I'm sorry I just fell of my chair laughing at that. When did Hitler become French?
You specifically referred to France's track record against us.
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/102675 ...Britain does not break Treaties. It would be bad for Britain, bad for our relations with the rest of the world and bad for any future treaty on trade we may need to make. As Harold Macmillan said recently: “We used to stand for good faith. That is the greatest strength of our commerce overseas. And we are now being asked to tear up a Treaty into which we solemnly entered” ....
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Cummings expects the EU to fold. I can't see how they can from a threat like this.
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
The observer did not seem anything like as upset as many on here are and seemed to think it was just part of the increasing urgency over a deal
I do not know but I would be interested if an independent voice could advise on the legal status of the WDA in the event of no deal
I am not comfortable with breaching a treaty and like so much on Brexit controversy prevails all around
And as far as the EU and Putin are concerned do you really think Merkel will withdraw from the Nord Stream energy supply from Russia
Legally the WA applies in the event of no deal. The UK has the sovereign right to repudiate it. They would have to live with the consequences.
In the short term this would mean the breaking of the GFA and a border on the island of Ireland.
Philip doesn't care. He believes that this would lead to a United Ireland. He favours a United Ireland. He believes that other UK Govt policies are leading inevitably to Scottish Independence. He favours Scottish Independence.
Therefore he is entirely comfortable coming on here and defending UK Govt policy which will lead to the outcomes he favours. It doesn't matter to him that the UK Govt doesn't (we presume) support his outcomes.
I assume he also doesn't think the UK should bother trying to sign trade deals with other countries since other countries are not going to sign deals knowing that the UK will attempt to rewrite them whenever they discover something they don't like in them.
The UK is sticking to the terms of the WA not to have a hard border within Ireland actually, just threatening to rip up the pledge to have a border in the Irish Sea, which if Boris does do that will also win the 8 DUP MPs back to the Tories in the event of a hung parliament in 2024
If we don't get a deal what happens on the NI / Eire border?
The UK government still respects the WA terms within Ireland and on the NI/Eire border, they just refuse to impose a border in the Irish Sea.
If the EU want to build a hard border within Ireland that is up to the EU, the UK side will remain borderless
Why are we putting all the customs stuff in place at Dover then if we just leave the NI/Eire border open?
As if we go to WTO terms Brexit there would still be tariffs on goods coming from the EU (which would include from the Republic of Ireland) to GB however Northern Ireland along with the rest of the UK left the EU in January
Well exactly. I have no idea what your point it. Why do we put a border at one place and not the other?
The GFA means there will be no hard border within Ireland
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
I agree that nobody is going to be arsed to go to war over these customs or tariffs but I think the reasoning that it is because 'France whose war record is not that great against us' is a smidging weak, since the last time planes didn't exist, battleships used sails and we defended ourselves against cavalry by forming square; or are you proposing we should fight a historic reenactment.
When Hitler tried to invade there were planes, hence the Battle of Britain, battleships without sails and tanks had replaced cavalry, he also failed
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
I agree that nobody is going to be arsed to go to war over these customs or tariffs but I think the reasoning that it is because 'France whose war record is not that great against us' is a smidging weak, since the last time planes didn't exist, battleships used sails and we defended ourselves against cavalry by forming square; or are you proposing we should fight a historic reenactment.
When Hitler tried to invade there were planes, hence the Battle of Britain, battleships without sails and tanks had replaced cavalry, he also failed
The EU is not trying to invade us, they're merely trying to protect one of their member states (Ireland). The Northern Ireland protocol to the WA was specifically renegotiated by Boris Johnson, and as I recall he was largely lauded by Tories on this forum for his strategic genius in getting an agreement at the time. To tear that up and create the prospect of a hard border in Ireland and potentially unravel the GFA is a shocking act of vandalism, as well as harming our prospects of signing agreements with other countries by making us look like liars and idiots. Of course the likely explanation for this apparent insanity is that it is the first part of the classic Johnson "bluster then capitulate" strategy.
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
I call peak PB Tory insanity.
You think it cant get worse? In comparison with the last global flirtation with authoritarian nationalistic liars we are only in the equivalent of the mid 1920s at the moment, the next decade is still to come.
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Cummings expects the EU to fold. I can't see how they can from a threat like this.
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
The observer did not seem anything like as upset as many on here are and seemed to think it was just part of the increasing urgency over a deal
I do not know but I would be interested if an independent voice could advise on the legal status of the WDA in the event of no deal
I am not comfortable with breaching a treaty and like so much on Brexit controversy prevails all around
And as far as the EU and Putin are concerned do you really think Merkel will withdraw from the Nord Stream energy supply from Russia
Legally the WA applies in the event of no deal. The UK has the sovereign right to repudiate it. They would have to live with the consequences.
In the short term this would mean the breaking of the GFA and a border on the island of Ireland.
Philip doesn't care. He believes that this would lead to a United Ireland. He favours a United Ireland. He believes that other UK Govt policies are leading inevitably to Scottish Independence. He favours Scottish Independence.
Therefore he is entirely comfortable coming on here and defending UK Govt policy which will lead to the outcomes he favours. It doesn't matter to him that the UK Govt doesn't (we presume) support his outcomes.
I assume he also doesn't think the UK should bother trying to sign trade deals with other countries since other countries are not going to sign deals knowing that the UK will attempt to rewrite them whenever they discover something they don't like in them.
The UK is sticking to the terms of the WA not to have a hard border within Ireland actually, just threatening to rip up the pledge to have a border in the Irish Sea, which if Boris does do that will also win the 8 DUP MPs back to the Tories in the event of a hung parliament in 2024
If we don't get a deal what happens on the NI / Eire border?
The UK government still respects the WA terms within Ireland and on the NI/Eire border, they just refuse to impose a border in the Irish Sea.
If the EU want to build a hard border within Ireland that is up to the EU, the UK side will remain borderless
Why are we putting all the customs stuff in place at Dover then if we just leave the NI/Eire border open?
As if we go to WTO terms Brexit there would still be tariffs on goods coming from the EU (which would include from the Republic of Ireland) to GB however Northern Ireland along with the rest of the UK left the EU in January
Well exactly. I have no idea what your point it. Why do we put a border at one place and not the other?
The GFA means there will be no hard border within Ireland
So why do we bother elsewhere? If there is a great big gapping hole here.
There is a deal to be done that respects UK sovereignty and is in the interests of both parties.
Currently standards and regulations are aligned and there is a LPF which is a great start.
1. Both parties agree that the other party shall [participate]/[contribute] in any proposals to change standards or regulations. (This is to enable each party's concerns to be properly taken into account by the other party).
2. Both parties agree that if either party decides to change standards or regulations, it will give the other party [12] months notice. (This is to enable the other party to decide whether the change is acceptable and, if not, make appropriate preparations).
3. Both parties agree that if any such change is deemed to be unacceptable by the other party, that party will formally declare that to be the case and the Agreement on zero tariiffs and no inspections will cease [12] months after such a declaration. (This is to give adequate time to prepare for the end of the Agreement).
This preserves frictionless trade and avoids the rule maker/rule taker argument and respects UK (and EU) sovereignty and interests. It also avoids a border in the Irish Sea and respects the WDA.
Absolutely unacceptable.
There is no way it is reasonable to give 12 months notice of each and every law or tax change. Remember the EU is willing to define tax changes as "state aid".
Note I put the 12 in brackets and that it applies to both parties. The word "change" could be substantial or material and tightly defined and it would apply to both parties.
You will note that my proposal is symmetrical to both parties and treats the UK as an equal party. It is respectful.
To say "Absolutely unacceptable" straight out is an illustration of the problem. You're not related to Ian Paisley by any chance?
No I'm not but it doesn't matter how symmetrical it is. The EU would find it equally unacceptable for the same reason.
Your first two points are redundant anyway, there's no reason why we can't just agree the third and be done with it.
You can't speak for the EU but I don't see why they would find 12 months notice unacceptable. The 12 months is negotiable anyway. It is a trade off between giving adequate notice for preparation of the end of the Agreement and being able to swiftly implement changes domestically. It is not a deal breaker.
The first two points are to enable each party to influence/lobby the other party if major changes are envisaged to avoid getting to point 3 if possible.
Just relax for a moment and try to look at my proposal dispassionately and objectively.
EDIT: I'm encouraged that you say "there's no reason why we can't just agree the third and be done with it". That would be a major step forward but not optimal without points 1 and 2.
I can't speak for the EU but they can speak for themselves and have said clearly and reasonably that the UK would be a third party post Brexit and won't get a say in their domestic laws and taxes. Quite reasonably too.
No sovereign country has ever agreed with a third party that I can think of that they won't change laws for 12 months nor could it be agreeable. To give a very simple example take the furlough scheme which is indisputably state aid. That was launched and was made effective immediately, indeed it was backdated a couple of weeks, it wasn't introduced after 12 months notice.
I find it hard to take the threat of no deal seriously because (1) we've done sod all to prepare for it, and (2) we've failed to follow through on previous threats. Perhaps this time there really will be wolves.
You're right; it's an obvious dog that isn't barking.
The trouble is that the UK hasn't made the preparations for the deal it claims to be seeking either. (Three word slogans don't count.)
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Cummings expects the EU to fold. I can't see how they can from a threat like this.
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
The observer did not seem anything like as upset as many on here are and seemed to think it was just part of the increasing urgency over a deal
I do not know but I would be interested if an independent voice could advise on the legal status of the WDA in the event of no deal
I am not comfortable with breaching a treaty and like so much on Brexit controversy prevails all around
And as far as the EU and Putin are concerned do you really think Merkel will withdraw from the Nord Stream energy supply from Russia
Legally the WA applies in the event of no deal. The UK has the sovereign right to repudiate it. They would have to live with the consequences.
In the short term this would mean the breaking of the GFA and a border on the island of Ireland.
Philip doesn't care. He believes that this would lead to a United Ireland. He favours a United Ireland. He believes that other UK Govt policies are leading inevitably to Scottish Independence. He favours Scottish Independence.
Therefore he is entirely comfortable coming on here and defending UK Govt policy which will lead to the outcomes he favours. It doesn't matter to him that the UK Govt doesn't (we presume) support his outcomes.
I assume he also doesn't think the UK should bother trying to sign trade deals with other countries since other countries are not going to sign deals knowing that the UK will attempt to rewrite them whenever they discover something they don't like in them.
The UK is sticking to the terms of the WA not to have a hard border within Ireland actually, just threatening to rip up the pledge to have a border in the Irish Sea, which if Boris does do that will also win the 8 DUP MPs back to the Tories in the event of a hung parliament in 2024
If we don't get a deal what happens on the NI / Eire border?
The UK government still respects the WA terms within Ireland and on the NI/Eire border, they just refuse to impose a border in the Irish Sea.
If the EU want to build a hard border within Ireland that is up to the EU, the UK side will remain borderless
Why are we putting all the customs stuff in place at Dover then if we just leave the NI/Eire border open?
As if we go to WTO terms Brexit there would still be tariffs on goods coming from the EU (which would include from the Republic of Ireland) to GB however Northern Ireland along with the rest of the UK left the EU in January
Well exactly. I have no idea what your point it. Why do we put a border at one place and not the other?
The GFA means there will be no hard border within Ireland
So why do we bother elsewhere? If there is a great big gapping hole here.
Because some things are more important than holes. It's about a balance of risk.
Not to pull punches about the risible Johnson - as if - but those stupendously dense comments of his about Donald Trump were made in 2017 not 2020. In 2017 although it should have been clear to people - and it certainly was to me - that Trump was vermin, the evidence was not quite as overwhelming as it is today.
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
I agree that nobody is going to be arsed to go to war over these customs or tariffs but I think the reasoning that it is because 'France whose war record is not that great against us' is a smidging weak, since the last time planes didn't exist, battleships used sails and we defended ourselves against cavalry by forming square; or are you proposing we should fight a historic reenactment.
When Hitler tried to invade there were planes, hence the Battle of Britain, battleships without sails and tanks had replaced cavalry, he also failed
I'm sorry I just fell of my chair laughing at that. When did Hitler become French?
You specifically referred to France's track record against us.
By the way my reply was meant to be a joke.
Imagine an EU diplomat thinking not sure what the mood is in the UK, I'll have a look at (one of) the UKs biggest political blogs to get a feel for it. Sees its descended into nostalgic war farce.......
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
I agree that nobody is going to be arsed to go to war over these customs or tariffs but I think the reasoning that it is because 'France whose war record is not that great against us' is a smidging weak, since the last time planes didn't exist, battleships used sails and we defended ourselves against cavalry by forming square; or are you proposing we should fight a historic reenactment.
When Hitler tried to invade there were planes, hence the Battle of Britain, battleships without sails and tanks had replaced cavalry, he also failed
I'm sorry I just fell of my chair laughing at that. When did Hitler become French?
You specifically referred to France's track record against us.
By the way my reply was meant to be a joke.
It's HYUFD doing his Francois imitation. He's just a Tory Vicar of Bray.
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
I call peak PB Tory insanity.
You think it cant get worse? In comparison with the last global flirtation with authoritarian nationalistic liars we are only in the equivalent of the mid 1920s at the moment, the next decade is still to come.
Yeah you're probably right. It does feel like the 1940s inoculation against this kind of shit is wearing off.
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
I agree that nobody is going to be arsed to go to war over these customs or tariffs but I think the reasoning that it is because 'France whose war record is not that great against us' is a smidging weak, since the last time planes didn't exist, battleships used sails and we defended ourselves against cavalry by forming square; or are you proposing we should fight a historic reenactment.
When Hitler tried to invade there were planes, hence the Battle of Britain, battleships without sails and tanks had replaced cavalry, he also failed
The EU is not trying to invade us, they're merely trying to protect one of their member states (Ireland). The Northern Ireland protocol to the WA was specifically renegotiated by Boris Johnson, and as I recall he was largely lauded by Tories on this forum for his strategic genius in getting an agreement at the time. To tear that up and create the prospect of a hard border in Ireland and potentially unravel the GFA is a shocking act of vandalism, as well as harming our prospects of signing agreements with other countries by making us look like liars and idiots. Of course the likely explanation for this apparent insanity is that it is the first part of the classic Johnson "bluster then capitulate" strategy.
If the EU want to "protect" Ireland maybe they should negotiate a deal with us in good faith? Just an idea.
Otherwise what incentive have we got to do what they want. It takes two to tango.
It was the EU's choice to schedule talks this way. They can live with the consequences of their choices.
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
I agree that nobody is going to be arsed to go to war over these customs or tariffs but I think the reasoning that it is because 'France whose war record is not that great against us' is a smidging weak, since the last time planes didn't exist, battleships used sails and we defended ourselves against cavalry by forming square; or are you proposing we should fight a historic reenactment.
When Hitler tried to invade there were planes, hence the Battle of Britain, battleships without sails and tanks had replaced cavalry, he also failed
The EU is not trying to invade us, they're merely trying to protect one of their member states (Ireland). The Northern Ireland protocol to the WA was specifically renegotiated by Boris Johnson, and as I recall he was largely lauded by Tories on this forum for his strategic genius in getting an agreement at the time. To tear that up and create the prospect of a hard border in Ireland and potentially unravel the GFA is a shocking act of vandalism, as well as harming our prospects of signing agreements with other countries by making us look like liars and idiots. Of course the likely explanation for this apparent insanity is that it is the first part of the classic Johnson "bluster then capitulate" strategy.
If the EU want to "protect" Ireland maybe they should negotiate a deal with us in good faith? Just an idea.
Otherwise what incentive have we got to do what they want. It takes two to tango.
It was the EU's choice to schedule talks this way. They can live with the consequences of their choices.
You talk about negotiating in good faith, yet it is Johnson who is threatening to walk back from something he's already agreed to.
Not to pull punches about the risible Johnson - as if - but those stupendously dense comments of his about Donald Trump were made in 2017 not 2020. In 2017 although it should have been clear to people - and it certainly was to me - that Trump was vermin, the evidence was not quite as overwhelming as it is today.
He is still the President of the US, and unusually susceptible to flattery. The job of the UK foreign secretary is to flatter him relentlessly. The PM less so, they should stand up and challenge him more directly, but the only relationship we can have with a Trump US is transactional, and exchanging flattery for influence is a good deal here, however uncomfortable.
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Cummings expects the EU to fold. I can't see how they can from a threat like this.
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
The observer did not seem anything like as upset as many on here are and seemed to think it was just part of the increasing urgency over a deal
I do not know but I would be interested if an independent voice could advise on the legal status of the WDA in the event of no deal
I am not comfortable with breaching a treaty and like so much on Brexit controversy prevails all around
And as far as the EU and Putin are concerned do you really think Merkel will withdraw from the Nord Stream energy supply from Russia
Legally the WA applies in the event of no deal. The UK has the sovereign right to repudiate it. They would have to live with the consequences.
In the short term this would mean the breaking of the GFA and a border on the island of Ireland.
Philip doesn't care. He believes that this would lead to a United Ireland. He favours a United Ireland. He believes that other UK Govt policies are leading inevitably to Scottish Independence. He favours Scottish Independence.
Therefore he is entirely comfortable coming on here and defending UK Govt policy which will lead to the outcomes he favours. It doesn't matter to him that the UK Govt doesn't (we presume) support his outcomes.
I assume he also doesn't think the UK should bother trying to sign trade deals with other countries since other countries are not going to sign deals knowing that the UK will attempt to rewrite them whenever they discover something they don't like in them.
The UK is sticking to the terms of the WA not to have a hard border within Ireland actually, just threatening to rip up the pledge to have a border in the Irish Sea, which if Boris does do that will also win the 8 DUP MPs back to the Tories in the event of a hung parliament in 2024
If we don't get a deal what happens on the NI / Eire border?
The UK government still respects the WA terms within Ireland and on the NI/Eire border, they just refuse to impose a border in the Irish Sea.
If the EU want to build a hard border within Ireland that is up to the EU, the UK side will remain borderless
Why are we putting all the customs stuff in place at Dover then if we just leave the NI/Eire border open?
As if we go to WTO terms Brexit there would still be tariffs on goods coming from the EU (which would include from the Republic of Ireland) to GB however Northern Ireland along with the rest of the UK left the EU in January
We WON'T be moving to WTO terms! It's a not happening event.
Not to pull punches about the risible Johnson - as if - but those stupendously dense comments of his about Donald Trump were made in 2017 not 2020. In 2017 although it should have been clear to people - and it certainly was to me - that Trump was vermin, the evidence was not quite as overwhelming as it is today.
He is still the President of the US, and unusually susceptible to flattery. The job of the UK foreign secretary is to flatter him relentlessly. The PM less so, they should stand up and challenge him more directly, but the only relationship we can have with a Trump US is transactional, and exchanging flattery for influence is a good deal here, however uncomfortable.
When Hugh Grant was Prime Minister he Actually told the US President where to go in no uncertain terms.
Completely Off Topic But maybe more important in the long term than anything else discussed today. Artificial photosynthesis but 100 times faster that produces useful chemicals from CO2 and sunlight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urHqk7TLSUo Sell Shell?
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
I agree that nobody is going to be arsed to go to war over these customs or tariffs but I think the reasoning that it is because 'France whose war record is not that great against us' is a smidging weak, since the last time planes didn't exist, battleships used sails and we defended ourselves against cavalry by forming square; or are you proposing we should fight a historic reenactment.
When Hitler tried to invade there were planes, hence the Battle of Britain, battleships without sails and tanks had replaced cavalry, he also failed
The EU is not trying to invade us, they're merely trying to protect one of their member states (Ireland). The Northern Ireland protocol to the WA was specifically renegotiated by Boris Johnson, and as I recall he was largely lauded by Tories on this forum for his strategic genius in getting an agreement at the time. To tear that up and create the prospect of a hard border in Ireland and potentially unravel the GFA is a shocking act of vandalism, as well as harming our prospects of signing agreements with other countries by making us look like liars and idiots. Of course the likely explanation for this apparent insanity is that it is the first part of the classic Johnson "bluster then capitulate" strategy.
If the EU want to "protect" Ireland maybe they should negotiate a deal with us in good faith? Just an idea.
Otherwise what incentive have we got to do what they want. It takes two to tango.
It was the EU's choice to schedule talks this way. They can live with the consequences of their choices.
You talk about negotiating in good faith, yet it is Johnson who is threatening to walk back from something he's already agreed to.
Not walk away from it, it would still be there, it just won't be supreme in domestic law which is a domestic matter.
The EU have decided that they don't want to treat us as a sovereign country. We have decided we will be. Time to stop messing around with this farce and just get on with it.
He certainly did for the jews of Eastern Europe. Although not according to Rod Crosby.
Mate I can see now why you are such a cycling fan - just looking for a new light and the similarities between the Giant Recon HL1600 and a Glock 17 are striking.
If people don’t follow the rules then the UK will follow Europe where the rules were not followed by a significant proportion of the population. Apparently it’s impossible to have fun wearing a mask.
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Cummings expects the EU to fold. I can't see how they can from a threat like this.
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
The observer did not seem anything like as upset as many on here are and seemed to think it was just part of the increasing urgency over a deal
I do not know but I would be interested if an independent voice could advise on the legal status of the WDA in the event of no deal
I am not comfortable with breaching a treaty and like so much on Brexit controversy prevails all around
And as far as the EU and Putin are concerned do you really think Merkel will withdraw from the Nord Stream energy supply from Russia
Legally the WA applies in the event of no deal. The UK has the sovereign right to repudiate it. They would have to live with the consequences.
In the short term this would mean the breaking of the GFA and a border on the island of Ireland.
Philip doesn't care. He believes that this would lead to a United Ireland. He favours a United Ireland. He believes that other UK Govt policies are leading inevitably to Scottish Independence. He favours Scottish Independence.
Therefore he is entirely comfortable coming on here and defending UK Govt policy which will lead to the outcomes he favours. It doesn't matter to him that the UK Govt doesn't (we presume) support his outcomes.
I assume he also doesn't think the UK should bother trying to sign trade deals with other countries since other countries are not going to sign deals knowing that the UK will attempt to rewrite them whenever they discover something they don't like in them.
The UK is sticking to the terms of the WA not to have a hard border within Ireland actually, just threatening to rip up the pledge to have a border in the Irish Sea, which if Boris does do that will also win the 8 DUP MPs back to the Tories in the event of a hung parliament in 2024
If we don't get a deal what happens on the NI / Eire border?
The UK government still respects the WA terms within Ireland and on the NI/Eire border, they just refuse to impose a border in the Irish Sea.
If the EU want to build a hard border within Ireland that is up to the EU, the UK side will remain borderless
Why are we putting all the customs stuff in place at Dover then if we just leave the NI/Eire border open?
As if we go to WTO terms Brexit there would still be tariffs on goods coming from the EU (which would include from the Republic of Ireland) to GB however Northern Ireland along with the rest of the UK left the EU in January
We WON'T be moving to WTO terms! It's a not happening event.
How many times.
If on 16 October it is announced that No Deal is happening then will that shake your worldview in other things you consider to be not happening events?
So will people now STFU about a border in the Irish Sea?
Why would we?
It's always been the case that there is either a border between the North and the Republic, or a border between NI and GB, or the UK has a trade deal broadly equivalent to EEA + Customs Union.
The FT reporting that the Johnson Ministry is denying this does not make the reality go away.
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Cummings expects the EU to fold. I can't see how they can from a threat like this.
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
The observer did not seem anything like as upset as many on here are and seemed to think it was just part of the increasing urgency over a deal
I do not know but I would be interested if an independent voice could advise on the legal status of the WDA in the event of no deal
I am not comfortable with breaching a treaty and like so much on Brexit controversy prevails all around
And as far as the EU and Putin are concerned do you really think Merkel will withdraw from the Nord Stream energy supply from Russia
Legally the WA applies in the event of no deal. The UK has the sovereign right to repudiate it. They would have to live with the consequences.
In the short term this would mean the breaking of the GFA and a border on the island of Ireland.
Philip doesn't care. He believes that this would lead to a United Ireland. He favours a United Ireland. He believes that other UK Govt policies are leading inevitably to Scottish Independence. He favours Scottish Independence.
Therefore he is entirely comfortable coming on here and defending UK Govt policy which will lead to the outcomes he favours. It doesn't matter to him that the UK Govt doesn't (we presume) support his outcomes.
I assume he also doesn't think the UK should bother trying to sign trade deals with other countries since other countries are not going to sign deals knowing that the UK will attempt to rewrite them whenever they discover something they don't like in them.
The UK is sticking to the terms of the WA not to have a hard border within Ireland actually, just threatening to rip up the pledge to have a border in the Irish Sea, which if Boris does do that will also win the 8 DUP MPs back to the Tories in the event of a hung parliament in 2024
If we don't get a deal what happens on the NI / Eire border?
The UK government still respects the WA terms within Ireland and on the NI/Eire border, they just refuse to impose a border in the Irish Sea.
If the EU want to build a hard border within Ireland that is up to the EU, the UK side will remain borderless
Why are we putting all the customs stuff in place at Dover then if we just leave the NI/Eire border open?
As if we go to WTO terms Brexit there would still be tariffs on goods coming from the EU (which would include from the Republic of Ireland) to GB however Northern Ireland along with the rest of the UK left the EU in January
We WON'T be moving to WTO terms! It's a not happening event.
How many times.
I’m afraid neither you or PT are in influential positions to be able to make such dogmatic predictions but at least you add a smiley face.
Not to pull punches about the risible Johnson - as if - but those stupendously dense comments of his about Donald Trump were made in 2017 not 2020. In 2017 although it should have been clear to people - and it certainly was to me - that Trump was vermin, the evidence was not quite as overwhelming as it is today.
He is still the President of the US, and unusually susceptible to flattery. The job of the UK foreign secretary is to flatter him relentlessly. The PM less so, they should stand up and challenge him more directly, but the only relationship we can have with a Trump US is transactional, and exchanging flattery for influence is a good deal here, however uncomfortable.
Yes. The British should be very good at it. After all, we have 300 years experience of gaining advantage by flattering tinpot despots around the world.
There is a deal to be done that respects UK sovereignty and is in the interests of both parties.
Currently standards and regulations are aligned and there is a LPF which is a great start.
1. Both parties agree that the other party shall [participate]/[contribute] in any proposals to change standards or regulations. (This is to enable each party's concerns to be properly taken into account by the other party).
2. Both parties agree that if either party decides to change standards or regulations, it will give the other party [12] months notice. (This is to enable the other party to decide whether the change is acceptable and, if not, make appropriate preparations).
3. Both parties agree that if any such change is deemed to be unacceptable by the other party, that party will formally declare that to be the case and the Agreement on zero tariiffs and no inspections will cease [12] months after such a declaration. (This is to give adequate time to prepare for the end of the Agreement).
This preserves frictionless trade and avoids the rule maker/rule taker argument and respects UK (and EU) sovereignty and interests. It also avoids a border in the Irish Sea and respects the WDA.
Absolutely unacceptable.
There is no way it is reasonable to give 12 months notice of each and every law or tax change. Remember the EU is willing to define tax changes as "state aid".
Note I put the 12 in brackets and that it applies to both parties. The word "change" could be substantial or material and tightly defined and it would apply to both parties.
You will note that my proposal is symmetrical to both parties and treats the UK as an equal party. It is respectful.
To say "Absolutely unacceptable" straight out is an illustration of the problem. You're not related to Ian Paisley by any chance?
No I'm not but it doesn't matter how symmetrical it is. The EU would find it equally unacceptable for the same reason.
Your first two points are redundant anyway, there's no reason why we can't just agree the third and be done with it.
You can't speak for the EU but I don't see why they would find 12 months notice unacceptable. The 12 months is negotiable anyway. It is a trade off between giving adequate notice for preparation of the end of the Agreement and being able to swiftly implement changes domestically. It is not a deal breaker.
The first two points are to enable each party to influence/lobby the other party if major changes are envisaged to avoid getting to point 3 if possible.
Just relax for a moment and try to look at my proposal dispassionately and objectively.
EDIT: I'm encouraged that you say "there's no reason why we can't just agree the third and be done with it". That would be a major step forward but not optimal without points 1 and 2.
I can't speak for the EU but they can speak for themselves and have said clearly and reasonably that the UK would be a third party post Brexit and won't get a say in their domestic laws and taxes. Quite reasonably too.
No sovereign country has ever agreed with a third party that I can think of that they won't change laws for 12 months nor could it be agreeable. To give a very simple example take the furlough scheme which is indisputably state aid. That was launched and was made effective immediately, indeed it was backdated a couple of weeks, it wasn't introduced after 12 months notice.
Good. This is progress. We are beginning to negotiate.
"Won't get a say" - probably means won't get a vote. Fair enough. I'm not proposing that. I'm proposing a mechanism for making representations. In a sense it is a continual negotiation to avoid the deal inadvertently collapsing to the detriment of both parties.
Many EU counties made rapid changes because of Covid. It can be covered by a "force majeure" clause. The EU have not complained about our furlough scheme even though we are still covered by EU regulations until the end of this year.
This is how sensible and productive negotiations proceed. Both parties consider objections by the other party and try to find solutions that are in their mutual interest.
Not to pull punches about the risible Johnson - as if - but those stupendously dense comments of his about Donald Trump were made in 2017 not 2020. In 2017 although it should have been clear to people - and it certainly was to me - that Trump was vermin, the evidence was not quite as overwhelming as it is today.
He is still the President of the US, and unusually susceptible to flattery. The job of the UK foreign secretary is to flatter him relentlessly. The PM less so, they should stand up and challenge him more directly, but the only relationship we can have with a Trump US is transactional, and exchanging flattery for influence is a good deal here, however uncomfortable.
One must weigh up the loss of dignity and the encouragement of bad ego against the influence truly gained. I think the first outweighs the second for us with Trump. But those 2017 comments of Johnson seem to be of genuine opinion rather than feigned to please. Still, he says at any time and in any circumstances whatever he thinks benefits HIM, we know that about him above all else, so who knows.
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
I agree that nobody is going to be arsed to go to war over these customs or tariffs but I think the reasoning that it is because 'France whose war record is not that great against us' is a smidging weak, since the last time planes didn't exist, battleships used sails and we defended ourselves against cavalry by forming square; or are you proposing we should fight a historic reenactment.
When Hitler tried to invade there were planes, hence the Battle of Britain, battleships without sails and tanks had replaced cavalry, he also failed
The EU is not trying to invade us, they're merely trying to protect one of their member states (Ireland). The Northern Ireland protocol to the WA was specifically renegotiated by Boris Johnson, and as I recall he was largely lauded by Tories on this forum for his strategic genius in getting an agreement at the time. To tear that up and create the prospect of a hard border in Ireland and potentially unravel the GFA is a shocking act of vandalism, as well as harming our prospects of signing agreements with other countries by making us look like liars and idiots. Of course the likely explanation for this apparent insanity is that it is the first part of the classic Johnson "bluster then capitulate" strategy.
Except the UK government will not create a hard border in Ireland nor unravel the GFA, not a single customs or border post will be create on the UK side of the border with the Irish Republic in Ireland, if the EU wants to build them that is up to the EU and Dublin.
Boris is simply saying there will be no customs duties on goods coming from Northern Ireland to GB if No Deal, only on goods coming from the Republic of Ireland to GB
Not to pull punches about the risible Johnson - as if - but those stupendously dense comments of his about Donald Trump were made in 2017 not 2020. In 2017 although it should have been clear to people - and it certainly was to me - that Trump was vermin, the evidence was not quite as overwhelming as it is today.
He is still the President of the US, and unusually susceptible to flattery. The job of the UK foreign secretary is to flatter him relentlessly. The PM less so, they should stand up and challenge him more directly, but the only relationship we can have with a Trump US is transactional, and exchanging flattery for influence is a good deal here, however uncomfortable.
One must weigh up the loss of dignity and the encouragement of bad ego against the influence truly gained. I think the first outweighs the second for us with Trump. But those 2017 comments of Johnson seem to be of genuine opinion rather than feigned to please. Still, he says at any time and in any circumstances whatever he thinks benefits HIM, we know that about him above all else, so who knows.
It could do if we didnt have mid level officials in the governing party talking about battleships and tanks in our relationship with the EU, and most of the governing party talking about a cold war with China.
So will people now STFU about a border in the Irish Sea?
Why would we?
It's always been the case that there is either a border between the North and the Republic, or a border between NI and GB, or the UK has a trade deal broadly equivalent to EEA + Customs Union.
The FT reporting that the Johnson Ministry is denying this does not make the reality go away.
No that's not always been the case.
Alternative solutions have always existed. Eg the UK does its own thing, the EU does its own thing, no borders and just deal with it.
He certainly did for the jews of Eastern Europe. Although not according to Rod Crosby.
Mate I can see now why you are such a cycling fan - just looking for a new light and the similarities between the Giant Recon HL1600 and a Glock 17 are striking.
Those are decent lights but 1800L is obnoxiously bright for other cyclists. If you're not bothered about Garmin integration have a look at a Moon Vortex. That has 450L which is plenty and they are much cheaper.
Comments
Keeping your word in international relations/treaties/agreements has a soft power value which surely we're looking for in the post-Brexit world though ?
Invasions are often done this way, you recognize some local opposition group as the legitimate government and use your invading army to put them (and you) in power.
There is no way it is reasonable to give 12 months notice of each and every law or tax change. Remember the EU is willing to define tax changes as "state aid".
Actually I don't think Barnier is but he could be more flexible.
If the EU want to build a hard border within Ireland that is up to the EU, the UK side will remain borderless
Louis' invasion of England
Am I correct in asserting that the UK has never unilaterally broken a treaty it has freely entered into? I do say this on occasion because I have never found a counter example to disprove it but have always wondered if this is 100% true as I believe.
You will note that my proposal is symmetrical to both parties and treats the UK as an equal party. It is respectful.
To say "Absolutely unacceptable" straight out is an illustration of the problem. You're not related to Ian Paisley by any chance?
They're not known as Perfidious Albion for nothing.
Your first two points are redundant anyway, there's no reason why we can't just agree the third and be done with it.
Then again, Trump didn't renounce his citizenship to avoid tax.
The Irish thing is a nod in that direction - 'the rules don't apply to us'. Like Trump, we're going to find out if that is a sustainable proposition.
Edited to correct from 1700s to 1800s for UK. But still anything post 1700s okay.
I find it hard to take the threat of no deal seriously because (1) we've done sod all to prepare for it, and (2) we've failed to follow through on previous threats. Perhaps this time there really will be wolves.
My current assumption then is that the British government is throwing up a smokescreen of threats and bluster to cover an orderly retreat.
A negotiation always involves a degree of compromise and the chief problem has always been to sell compromise to the ERG extreme as a complete victory.
A difficulty arises in that EU leaders are weary of the necessary theatre, and distracted by other concerns. It might have been easier for them to make the necessary compromises in negotiations over a longer period of time, rather than compressed for the purpose of obscuring the compromise from extreme Brexiter attention.
At the Treaty of Lambeth Louis surrendered any castles he had captured and accepted he had never been a legitimate King of England and departed back to France with his tail between his legs
The first two points are to enable each party to influence/lobby the other party if major changes are envisaged to avoid getting to point 3 if possible.
Just relax for a moment and try to look at my proposal dispassionately and objectively.
EDIT: I'm encouraged that you say "there's no reason why we can't just agree the third and be done with it". That would be a major step forward but not optimal without points 1 and 2.
You specifically referred to France's track record against us.
By the way my reply was meant to be a joke.
...Britain does not break Treaties.
It would be bad for Britain, bad for our relations with the rest of the world and bad for any future treaty on trade we may need to make.
As Harold Macmillan said recently: “We used to stand for good faith. That is the greatest strength of our commerce overseas. And we are now being asked to tear up a Treaty into which we solemnly entered” ....
Of course the likely explanation for this apparent insanity is that it is the first part of the classic Johnson "bluster then capitulate" strategy.
No sovereign country has ever agreed with a third party that I can think of that they won't change laws for 12 months nor could it be agreeable. To give a very simple example take the furlough scheme which is indisputably state aid. That was launched and was made effective immediately, indeed it was backdated a couple of weeks, it wasn't introduced after 12 months notice.
The trouble is that the UK hasn't made the preparations for the deal it claims to be seeking either. (Three word slogans don't count.)
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1302885123499724801?s=20
He's just a Tory Vicar of Bray.
Otherwise what incentive have we got to do what they want. It takes two to tango.
It was the EU's choice to schedule talks this way. They can live with the consequences of their choices.
How many times.
But maybe more important in the long term than anything else discussed today.
Artificial photosynthesis but 100 times faster that produces useful chemicals from CO2 and sunlight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urHqk7TLSUo
Sell Shell?
The EU have decided that they don't want to treat us as a sovereign country. We have decided we will be. Time to stop messing around with this farce and just get on with it.
Goodness.
It's always been the case that there is either a border between the North and the Republic, or a border between NI and GB, or the UK has a trade deal broadly equivalent to EEA + Customs Union.
The FT reporting that the Johnson Ministry is denying this does not make the reality go away.
"Won't get a say" - probably means won't get a vote. Fair enough. I'm not proposing that. I'm proposing a mechanism for making representations. In a sense it is a continual negotiation to avoid the deal inadvertently collapsing to the detriment of both parties.
Many EU counties made rapid changes because of Covid. It can be covered by a "force majeure" clause. The EU have not complained about our furlough scheme even though we are still covered by EU regulations until the end of this year.
This is how sensible and productive negotiations proceed. Both parties consider objections by the other party and try to find solutions that are in their mutual interest.
That makes him special these days, and worthy of praise.
Boris is simply saying there will be no customs duties on goods coming from Northern Ireland to GB if No Deal, only on goods coming from the Republic of Ireland to GB
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1302883320276103169?s=20
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1302864577085018112?s=20
Here is the graph of Scotland 5-11 number of tests per week - I have left off the dates. Can you spot when schools went back?
Here's the absolute number of positive test of the age group
And the positive test rate (latest week was 0.04%)!
Unless there has been massive preparation the Testing system is about to be overwhelmed in the UK.
Alternative solutions have always existed. Eg the UK does its own thing, the EU does its own thing, no borders and just deal with it.