politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The battle between LAB & CON viewed through the perspective of

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Jesus (Jaysus) H Christ will you please take some time to understand who will or won't erect a hard border in Northern Ireland.

Nobody will. End of story.

I mean Phil, I think your presence on here is interesting enough in that it gives us an insight into the mind of people such as yourself, of whom I think there are many.

But when your posts are so devoid of understanding, and exhibit such transparent ignorance, it is difficult to take you seriously.

As one final effort, although god knows why I persist, I will point you in the direction of the answer which is WTO MFN.

All yours now - good luck!

You are far too blinkered and legalistic to see the woods for the trees.

Yes WTO dispute mechanisms exist. They are not a compulsion though. Even if a dispute is raised, even if it is legitimate, if Ireland chooses to continue to keep an open border then they will keep an open border. The WTO can not unilaterally erect a border, even if its rules say there should be one.

To date there have been over 577 WTO disputes brought forward and nearly half of them have never been resolved. There are 177 disputes still "in consultations" (many dating back to the WTO's foundation in 1995, there are 30 where its been escalated to seeking a panel but the panel still hasn't been composed (again some dating back to 1995), 31 where a panel has been composed but still no resolution yet (some dating back to 2005).

Even if a dispute is resolved, it could take decades before it goes through all the processes and even then there is no compulsion on Ireland to act. There will however be immense pressure on the EU to make this go away - and the way to do that is to strike a deal with the UK as if the UK has a deal then MFN rules don't apply in the same way. And to get a deal, means dropping the backstop.

Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.

Unilateral free trade: what's not to like?

Black_Rook said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Jesus (Jaysus) H Christ will you please take some time to understand who will or won't erect a hard border in Northern Ireland.

Nobody will. End of story.

I mean Phil, I think your presence on here is interesting enough in that it gives us an insight into the mind of people such as yourself, of whom I think there are many.

But when your posts are so devoid of understanding, and exhibit such transparent ignorance, it is difficult to take you seriously.

As one final effort, although god knows why I persist, I will point you in the direction of the answer which is WTO MFN.

All yours now - good luck!

You are far too blinkered and legalistic to see the woods for the trees.

Yes WTO dispute mechanisms exist. They are not a compulsion though. Even if a dispute is raised, even if it is legitimate, if Ireland chooses to continue to keep an open border then they will keep an open border. The WTO can not unilaterally erect a border, even if its rules say there should be one.

To date there have been over 577 WTO disputes brought forward and nearly half of them have never been resolved. There are 177 disputes still "in consultations" (many dating back to the WTO's foundation in 1995, there are 30 where its been escalated to seeking a panel but the panel still hasn't been composed (again some dating back to 1995), 31 where a panel has been composed but still no resolution yet (some dating back to 2005).

Even if a dispute is resolved, it could take decades before it goes through all the processes and even then there is no compulsion on Ireland to act. There will however be immense pressure on the EU to make this go away - and the way to do that is to strike a deal with the UK as if the UK has a deal then MFN rules don't apply in the same way. And to get a deal, means dropping the backstop.

Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.

Unilateral free trade: what's not to like?

Where does your leverage to do trade deals come from if they get free access to your market for nothing?

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

But if a no deal scenario happens then Ireland will break its obligations before it erects a border. If the UK doesn't come to heel then the only way to get out of the mess will be a deal which means no backstop.

I agree that the Irish are not going to put up any barriers when we go to No Deal. They would be mad to. But that is not going to help the UK.

Yes it does help the UK as (so long as we don't fold) it gives us immense leverage. The only way to solve the problem - and it will be a problem for the EU - will be to get a deal. Only way to get a deal is to get both sides to agree. We wont agree if there is a backstop.

The EU will need the Irish border issue dealing with us in that scenario more than us. The integrity of the UK will be intact but the integrity of the Single Market won't be. A standstill transition minus the backstop is a fudge that will kick the can down the road and remove the immediate headache for the EU while concentrating minds on both sides to find a real solution.

“If we don’t fold” is doing a hell of a lot of work in that scenario given what No Deal means for us.

Not necessarily. If we're going to fold (which May has already tried to do), it is likely to be before a No Deal scenario comes into effect.

After a No Deal politicians will have already been committed enough to walk away not just from May's deal but to all other alternatives such as an extension. They will have chosen (via inaction if nothing else) to follow through with No Deal.

At that point there will have to be some dramatic change surely to cause us to fold then, when we didn't beforehand.

The dramatic change will be experiencing the consequences of No Deal, rather than just talking about it. Of course, if it is not as bad for the UK as many expect then it is likely it will not be as bad for the RoI either. It seems to me that our one hope is that Jacob Rees Mogg's words are right and his actions were unnecessary.

SquareRoot said:

gypsumfantastic said:

Brexiteer thicky thick thick and walking waste of air Nadine Dorries can't tell brown people apart.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-47120879

I had(have) no idea who either of them is. They seem very keen to take offence.. but that's the way it is.

Yep. They do look rather alike, they work in similar spheres, seems like professional offence taking over what was an honest mistake.

gypsumfantastic said:

MaxPB said:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu-sounds-out-mps-over-irish-backstop-concession-0tx7n0jhc

"The change would make legally binding a series of assurances by Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker, presidents of the European Council and commission, that the backstop would not lock Britain into a permanent customs union with the EU."

Seems way too good to be true. If those legally binding changes came then surely Labour would have to vote it through.

Of course it's way too good to be true, it's some bad bullshit made up by a credulous Tory MP for journalists too lazy to go fack check by reading Martin Selmayr's Twitter.

https://twitter.com/MartinSelmayr/status/1092409534029746178

Also, Labour want a permanent customs union with the EU, so why would they be brought round by an assurance the backstop isn't one? That makes zero sense.

That's just because he doesn't understand how parliament works. How can assurances be given before the text of the changes are known.

It does, however, confirm that the EU are inching towards considering changes to the backstop.

TOPPING said:

Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.

It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).

If neither the UK nor the EU are enforcing the border then both would be "forced" to act. Except that there's very little in the way of forcing involved.

Yes the UK can take the chance. We just need to decide the risk is worth it. The UK has ignored supranationally imposed rules when it has suited us, eg Blair suddenly going from determining that the UK needed a UNSC resolution authorising Iraq to determining that it wasn't needed afterall.

What matters is not the words say but the realpolitik and the realpolitik of the situation is that even in a no deal scenario there is nobody who can or will enforce a hard border.

TOPPING said:

Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.

It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).

Nope. All the UK would have to do would be to show it had procedures in place of its own choosing to ensure it met WTO requirements. The WTO does not dictate what those procedures are. Their only interest is the ends not the means. It also, crucially, does not dictate that the same systems have to be in place at all entry points, just that the overall effect is the same. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the UK to argue that the checks it would have regarding the Irish border would not be suitable for other non land borders. As long as the UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.

Another day down and still no progress in the world of Brexit. Tick tock. Tick tock.

rottenborough said:

Why has Trimble left it so late in the day?

It needs funds to pay the lawyers.

gypsumfantastic said:

MaxPB said:

That's just because he doesn't understand how parliament works. How can assurances be given before the text of the changes are known.

It does, however, confirm that the EU are inching towards considering changes to the backstop.

That's what I love about the most deranged brexiteers. The EU's frequent, loud, continual absolute public insistence the the Withdrawal Agreement will not be renegotiated is the final and clinching proof that Any Second Now they're going to fold, for no reason whatsoever, and save them.

Selmayr's only saying what we already know: there are no assurances about the backstop they could give that could possibly change the parliamentary maths. So they won't.

Ignoring your dickheadedness, yesterday the stance was "no changes" now it's "we can deliver if you can". The mere fact that they are entertaining hypotheticals is a change. Only blinkered remainers who think the EU can do no wrong can't see it.

Black_Rook said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Jesus (Jaysus) H Christ will you please take some time to understand who will or won't erect a hard border in Northern Ireland.

Nobody will. End of story.

I mean Phil, I think your presence on here is interesting enough in that it gives us an insight into the mind of people such as yourself, of whom I think there are many.

But when your posts are so devoid of understanding, and exhibit such transparent ignorance, it is difficult to take you seriously.

As one final effort, although god knows why I persist, I will point you in the direction of the answer which is WTO MFN.

All yours now - good luck!

You are far too blinkered and legalistic to see the woods for the trees.

Yes WTO dispute mechanisms exist. They are not a compulsion though. Even if a dispute is raised, even if it is legitimate, if Ireland chooses to continue to keep an open border then they will keep an open border. The WTO can not unilaterally erect a border, even if its rules say there should be one.

To date there have been over 577 WTO disputes brought forward and nearly half of them have never been resolved. There are 177 disputes still "in consultations" (many dating back to the WTO's foundation in 1995, there are 30 where its been escalated to seeking a panel but the panel still hasn't been composed (again some dating back to 1995), 31 where a panel has been composed but still no resolution yet (some dating back to 2005).

Even if a dispute is resolved, it could take decades before it goes through all the processes and even then there is no compulsion on Ireland to act. There will however be immense pressure on the EU to make this go away - and the way to do that is to strike a deal with the UK as if the UK has a deal then MFN rules don't apply in the same way. And to get a deal, means dropping the backstop.

Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.

Unilateral free trade: what's not to like?

The utter destruction of our food industry for starters

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.

It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).

Nope. All the UK would have to do would be to show it had procedures in place of its own choosing to ensure it met WTO requirements. The WTO does not dictate what those procedures are. Their only interest is the ends not the means. It also, crucially, does not dictate that the same systems have to be in place at all entry points, just that the overall effect is the same. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the UK to argue that the checks it would have regarding the Irish border would not be suitable for other non land borders. As long as the UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.

"All the UK would have to do..."

Yep that's all. Two years trying to square this circle and yet it turns out it's a piece of piss to solve. I would be interested in the details of this trifle of sovereignty. And so would Theresa May and Sammy Wilson.

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

gypsumfantastic said:

MaxPB said:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu-sounds-out-mps-over-irish-backstop-concession-0tx7n0jhc

"The change would make legally binding a series of assurances by Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker, presidents of the European Council and commission, that the backstop would not lock Britain into a permanent customs union with the EU."

Seems way too good to be true. If those legally binding changes came then surely Labour would have to vote it through.

Of course it's way too good to be true, it's some bad bullshit made up by a credulous Tory MP for journalists too lazy to go fack check by reading Martin Selmayr's Twitter.

https://twitter.com/MartinSelmayr/status/1092409534029746178

Also, Labour want a permanent customs union with the EU, so why would they be brought round by an assurance the backstop isn't one? That makes zero sense.

I really, really f**king hate Martin Selmayr - an absolute fanatic, and a bully-boy.

He’s the worst of all of them by a long shot: the spawn of Satan.

I’d sell my shirt and live in a cave before I gave into him.

If you’d never seen a photograph of him, would you still hate him so much?

It’s not based on what he looks like.

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.

It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).

Nope. All the UK would have to do would be to show it had procedures in place of its own choosing to ensure it met WTO requirements. The WTO does not dictate what those procedures are. Their only interest is the ends not the means. It also, crucially, does not dictate that the same systems have to be in place at all entry points, just that the overall effect is the same. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the UK to argue that the checks it would have regarding the Irish border would not be suitable for other non land borders. As long as the UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.

"All the UK would have to do..."

Yep that's all. Two years trying to square this circle and yet it turns out it's a piece of piss to solve. I would be interested in the details of this trifle of sovereignty. And so would Theresa May and Sammy Wilson.

Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.

TheJezziah said:

gypsumfantastic said:

MaxPB said:

That's just because he doesn't understand how parliament works. How can assurances be given before the text of the changes are known.

It does, however, confirm that the EU are inching towards considering changes to the backstop.

That's what I love about the most deranged brexiteers. The EU's frequent, loud, continual absolute public insistence the the Withdrawal Agreement will not be renegotiated is the final and clinching proof that Any Second Now they're going to fold, for no reason whatsoever, and save them.

If we do fail it will be because some of the German British people acted as a fifth column to stab us in the back just as the EU was ready to back down.

Yes that's right.

gypsumfantastic said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.

Quick reminder that the UK voted to leave the EU.

We've done this all to ourselves.

Yes we voted to leave the EU.

End of story. We didn't vote to remain tied indefinitely into an EU via a backstop.

gypsumfantastic said:

Philip_Thompson said:

gypsumfantastic said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.

Quick reminder that the UK voted to leave the EU.

We've done this all to ourselves.

Yes we voted to leave the EU.

End of story. We didn't vote to remain tied indefinitely into an EU via a backstop.

So, what's the problem then? We leave, No Deal.

Almost as if someone realises that such a move would be an absolute fucking catastrophe.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Yep. They do look rather alike, they work in similar spheres, seems like professional offence taking over what was an honest mistake.

BIG difference in bone structure and geometry of facial features. Also in the degree of fleshiness of the face, and shape and size of head.

What IS strikingly similar about the 2 women is skin colour.

It's a bit like confusing Nadine Dorries with Meryl Streep.

TheJezziah said:

gypsumfantastic said:

MaxPB said:

That's just because he doesn't understand how parliament works. How can assurances be given before the text of the changes are known.

It does, however, confirm that the EU are inching towards considering changes to the backstop.

That's what I love about the most deranged brexiteers. The EU's frequent, loud, continual absolute public insistence the the Withdrawal Agreement will not be renegotiated is the final and clinching proof that Any Second Now they're going to fold, for no reason whatsoever, and save them.

If we do fail it will be because some of the German British people acted as a fifth column to stab us in the back just as the EU was ready to back down.

Brexit delirium shows no sign of passing.

Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution

I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'

David_Evershed said:

rottenborough said:

Why has Trimble left it so late in the day?

It needs funds to pay the lawyers.

..or else it gets the hose again.

(Sorry, I was thrown. "It"??? )

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution

I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'

A creative solution. Step forward May. Oh dear.

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.

It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).

Nope. All the UK would have to do would be to show it had procedures in place of its own choosing to ensure it met WTO requirements. The WTO does not dictate what those procedures are. Their only interest is the ends not the means. It also, crucially, does not dictate that the same systems have to be in place at all entry points, just that the overall effect is the same. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the UK to argue that the checks it would have regarding the Irish border would not be suitable for other non land borders. As long as the UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.

"All the UK would have to do..."

Yep that's all. Two years trying to square this circle and yet it turns out it's a piece of piss to solve. I would be interested in the details of this trifle of sovereignty. And so would Theresa May and Sammy Wilson.

We haven't spent two years trying to square this circle. We have spent two years trying to deal with fuckwits who use this as an excuse to undermine Brexit. It is not a solution to the issue at hand because people like you and the rest of the Remainers along with your friends in the EU have decided that they do not want this solution. And as one half of the negotiation we cannot just ignore the EU. Hence the unnecessary backstop.

What would be acceptable to the WTO is immaterial as long as those trying to undermine Brexit continue to claim there must be a backstop. This is politics, not trade rules.

Always someone else's fault, eh, Richard?

Brexiter geniuses couldn't even wargame likely scenarios following a leave vote.

We are leaving but dear god you lot are so stupid you really don't deserve to.

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.

It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).

Nope. All the UK would have to do would be to show it had procedures in place of its own choosing to ensure it met WTO requirements. The WTO does not dictate what those procedures are. Their only interest is the ends not the means. It also, crucially, does not dictate that the same systems have to be in place at all entry points, just that the overall effect is the same. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the UK to argue that the checks it would have regarding the Irish border would not be suitable for other non land borders. As long as the UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.

"All the UK would have to do..."

Yep that's all. Two years trying to square this circle and yet it turns out it's a piece of piss to solve. I would be interested in the details of this trifle of sovereignty. And so would Theresa May and Sammy Wilson.

We haven't spent two years trying to square this circle. We have spent two years trying to deal with fuckwits who use this as an excuse to undermine Brexit. It is not a solution to the issue at hand because people like you and the rest of the Remainers along with your friends in the EU have decided that they do not want this solution. And as one half of the negotiation we cannot just ignore the EU. Hence the unnecessary backstop.

What would be acceptable to the WTO is immaterial as long as those trying to undermine Brexit continue to claim there must be a backstop. This is politics, not trade rules.

Always someone else's fault, eh, Richard?

Brexiter geniuses couldn't even wargame likely scenarios following a leave vote.

We are leaving but dear god you lot are so stupid you really don't deserve to.

Ah. The old subject switch to generalised insults when you have been proved, once again, to be talking bollocks. It took you less time to get there this time than usual. Maybe you are learning something.

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.

It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).

Nope. All the UK would have to do would be to show it had procedures in place of its own choosing to ensure it met WTO requirements. The WTO does not dictate what those procedures are. Their only interest is the ends not the means. It also, crucially, does not dictate that the same systems have to be in place at all entry points, just that the overall effect is the same. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the UK to argue that the checks it would have regarding the Irish border would not be suitable for other non land borders. As long as the UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.

"All the UK would have to do..."

Yep that's all. Two years trying to square this circle and yet it turns out it's a piece of piss to solve. I would be interested in the details of this trifle of sovereignty. And so would Theresa May and Sammy Wilson.

We haven't spent two years trying to square this circle. We have spent two years trying to deal with fuckwits who use this as an excuse to undermine Brexit. It is not a solution to the issue at hand because people like you and the rest of the Remainers along with your friends in the EU have decided that they do not want this solution. And as one half of the negotiation we cannot just ignore the EU. Hence the unnecessary backstop.

What would be acceptable to the WTO is immaterial as long as those trying to undermine Brexit continue to claim there must be a backstop. This is politics, not trade rules.

Always someone else's fault, eh, Richard?

Brexiter geniuses couldn't even wargame likely scenarios following a leave vote.

We are leaving but dear god you lot are so stupid you really don't deserve to.

Ah. The old subject switch to generalised insults when you have been proved, once again, to be talking bollocks. It took you less time to get there this time than usual. Maybe you are learning something.

Absolute rubbish. You were the one bleating on about the big boy who stole your sweets.

So fine tell me - what is this fantasy agreement or assurance that is all that we'd have to do.

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.

It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).

Nope. All the UK would have to do would be to show it had procedures in place of its own choosing to ensure it met WTO requirements. The WTO does not dictate what those procedures are. Their only interest is the ends not the means. It also, crucially, does not dictate that the same systems have to be in place at all entry points, just that the overall effect is the same. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the UK to argue that the checks it would have regarding the Irish border would not be suitable for other non land borders. As long as the UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.

"All the UK would have to do..."

Yep that's all. Two years trying to square this circle and yet it turns out it's a piece of piss to solve. I would be interested in the details of this trifle of sovereignty. And so would Theresa May and Sammy Wilson.

Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.

Then leave. Man up, grow a pair, and walk proudly to independence. Stop blaming others and asking for extensions. Take what you need, go on your way, and stop crying your heart out...

(...and if you can do it by the 29th then that would be great... )

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution

I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'

Nein Nein Nein emergency which service do you require?

Nuisance caller TM again FFS

TGOHF said:

gypsumfantastic said:

TGOHF said:

gypsumfantastic said:

Casino_Royale said:

I really, really f**king hate Martin Selmayr - an absolute fanatic, and a bully-boy.

He’s the worst of all of them by a long shot: the spawn of Satan.

I’d sell my shirt and live in a cave before I gave into him.

A simple the simple truth: you hate him because he's winning.

Not sure he will be winning if him and Provo Leo end up with a hard Brexit.

, a united Ireland would quickly become a reality.

No it wouldn't - we hear/heard the same nonsense about Scottish independence.

Chalk and apples. There is not the recent history as there is in Ireland.

Beverley_C said:

[opens door, looks in to PB]

Hmmmm...

[shuts door quietly and tiptoes away]

Good move. Apparently a post sorted Brexit completely at 3:45pm today. But is was moderated/deleted. So we carry on.

Jonathan said:

We’re clearly now fucked. She has successfully counted down the clock. It’s now a question of how we prefer to be fucked.

Economically... No deal.
Democratically... Simple Revoke.
Psychologically... Delay
A blend of Psychologically, Economically and Democratically... The deal.

Where do you get off?

How do we prefer to be f....ed.?
Astride the Irish border.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution

I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'

I think the EU will agree to any sort of statement that doesn't change the WA or set a limit on the backstop. And in the end I think TM will propose something on those lines - solemn binding undertaking etc. She may get it through, by the tried and trusted mechanism of delay until the alternative seems to be No Deal. If not, perhaps the pro-Remain ministers will finally revolt.

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution

I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'

A creative solution. Step forward May. Oh dear.

Rather predictable response. It is Merkel saying it tonight, not TM

chloe said:

Evening all. I was at a residential investment conference today. There were speeches from John Healy, Oliver Letwin and Kit Malthouse.

The conversation regularly turned to Brexit. We had an instant poll, what delegates through would happen on 29th March. May’s deal, another deal, no deal exit, revocation, moves towards a second referendum or just a delay in making a final decision. I know it was not scientific, and there were only 150 people participating but delay won by 60%.

Pedantry alert. Do you mean won with 60% (60% of the vote) or won by 60 percentage points (ie its vote exceeded second place by 60)

gypsumfantastic said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution

I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'

She said that the withdrawal agreement will not be renegotiated.

That doesn't sound like a door being left open to me.

She did not mention the agreement but even so, minds are being focussed and Trimble challenge today is very interesting.

Maybe we all need to keep open minds as no one can have a clue of the outcome, as I admitted earlier

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution

I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'

A creative solution. Step forward May. Oh dear.

Rather predictable response. It is Merkel saying it tonight, not TM

Predictable because it is grounded in bitter truth. We would have more luck getting imagination out of a dead goat than Theresa May.

chloe said:

dixiedean said:

chloe said:

Evening all. I was at a residential investment conference today. There were speeches from John Healy, Oliver Letwin and Kit Malthouse.

The conversation regularly turned to Brexit. We had an instant poll, what delegates through would happen on 29th March. May’s deal, another deal, no deal exit, revocation, moves towards a second referendum or just a delay in making a final decision. I know it was not scientific, and there were only 150 people participating but delay won by 60%.

This may be so. And may be where we end up. But.
Does a residential investment conference constitute a representative sample?

No of course not, that is what I meant when I said it wasn’t scientific.

Sorry. That came across not in the way intended. Apologies.

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.

It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).

Nope. All the UK would have to do would be to show it had procedures in place of its own choosing to ensure it met WTO requirements. The WTO does not dictate what those procedures are. Their only interest is the ends not the means. It also, crucially, does not dictate that the same systems have to be in place at all entry points, just that the overall effect is the same. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the UK to argue that the checks it would have regarding the Irish border would not be suitable for other non land borders. As long as the UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.

The WTO issue is not that it could instruct us to create a border in Northern Ireland.

It is that if we deliberately go out of our way not to collect tariffs, then we will have cases brought against us by (for example) Argentinian beef farmers who would claim that we allowed beef from Ireland in tariff free despite the absence of an FTA, and therefore its farmers should get the same treatment.

This is why there is all the discussion about the "technology" solution. I.e., a system for tracking goods coming in from the Republic of Ireland, and ensuring that tariffs are paid and that standards are met.

It is not beyond the wit of man to design and implement such a system. It is not even beyond the wit of man to have it in place in two years time*.

The issue is merely one about whether the EU is being sincere or not in its desire for a technological solution.

It seems to me that if they are, then the backstop is no issue, because it will go soon enough. And if they are not sincere, then we are well within our rights to withdraw from the treaty.

* Of course, government IT projects don't have the best record for being completed on time, or budget. But that's a different issue.

bigjohnowls said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution

I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'

Nein Nein Nein emergency which service do you require?

Nuisance caller TM again FFS

The situation is cominng to a head for everyone and if you think Germany is not worried you only need to look at their economy together with the Eurozonne. Saner heads in the EU will be working towards a compromise but many here actually seek a no deal out of revenge for voting to leave or self harm

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.

It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).

Nope. All the UK would have to do would be to show it had procedures in place of its own choosing to ensure it met WTO requirements. The WTO does not dictate what those procedures are. Their only interest is the ends not the means. It also, crucially, does not dictate that the same systems have to be in place at all entry points, just that the overall effect is the same. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the UK to argue that the checks it would have regarding the Irish border would not be suitable for other non land borders. As long as the UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.

The WTO issue is not that it could instruct us to create a border in Northern Ireland.

It is that if we deliberately go out of our way not to collect tariffs, then we will have cases brought against us by (for example) Argentinian beef farmers who would claim that we allowed beef from Ireland in tariff free despite the absence of an FTA, and therefore its farmers should get the same treatment.

This is why there is all the discussion about the "technology" solution. I.e., a system for tracking goods coming in from the Republic of Ireland, and ensuring that tariffs are paid and that standards are met.

It is not beyond the wit of man to design and implement such a system. It is not even beyond the wit of man to have it in place in two years time*.

The issue is merely one about whether the EU is being sincere or not in its desire for a technological solution.

It seems to me that if they are, then the backstop is no issue, because it will go soon enough. And if they are not sincere, then we are well within our rights to withdraw from the treaty.

* Of course, government IT projects don't have the best record for being completed on time, or budget. But that's a different issue.

Exactly. Except your last point because I really can't believe that they want us in the customs union and would somehow try not to achieve something technological. But that last is only my view.

dixiedean said:

chloe said:

dixiedean said:

chloe said:

Evening all. I was at a residential investment conference today. There were speeches from John Healy, Oliver Letwin and Kit Malthouse.

The conversation regularly turned to Brexit. We had an instant poll, what delegates through would happen on 29th March. May’s deal, another deal, no deal exit, revocation, moves towards a second referendum or just a delay in making a final decision. I know it was not scientific, and there were only 150 people participating but delay won by 60%.

This may be so. And may be where we end up. But.
Does a residential investment conference constitute a representative sample?

No of course not, that is what I meant when I said it wasn’t scientific.

Sorry. That came across not in the way intended. Apologies.

What I was implying, but didn't, was that we are in a dangerous place right now. The captains of industry, experts, a great many PBers, and most politicians (off the record) are coming around to the conclusion that a delay is all but inevitable. Probably even if a Deal passes Parliament.
The public in general, however, are blissfully unaware.

Chris Williamson is currently on CH4 news defending Maduro

Black_Rook said:

Unilateral free trade: what's not to like?

That's a very good question, and that is the Patrick Minford argument.

But let me give you a counter. South Korea is the country in the world with the greatest number of FTAs (as measured by market size, rather than by number of countries).

It has FTAs with China, Japan, the US, and the EU. No-one else has deals with more than two of that list.

Why has it been successful at signing FTAs where other free trade nations (like for example New Zealand) have been poor?

Because South Korea's regular tariff schedule is among the most onerous in the world. Simply, if you want to sell into Korea you need to overcome their high tariffs, and therefore countries which normally shy from such agreements (such as the US) have entered into deals with them.

The issue with unilateral free trade is that it is hard to pressure others to increase market access for your firms.

dixiedean said:

dixiedean said:

chloe said:

dixiedean said:

chloe said:

Evening all. I was at a residential investment conference today. There were speeches from John Healy, Oliver Letwin and Kit Malthouse.

The conversation regularly turned to Brexit. We had an instant poll, what delegates through would happen on 29th March. May’s deal, another deal, no deal exit, revocation, moves towards a second referendum or just a delay in making a final decision. I know it was not scientific, and there were only 150 people participating but delay won by 60%.

This may be so. And may be where we end up. But.
Does a residential investment conference constitute a representative sample?

No of course not, that is what I meant when I said it wasn’t scientific.

Sorry. That came across not in the way intended. Apologies.

What I was implying, but didn't, was that we are in a dangerous place right now. The captains of industry, experts, a great many PBers, and most politicians (off the record) are coming around to the conclusion that a delay is all but inevitable. Probably even if a Deal passes Parliament.
The public in general, however, are blissfully unaware.

Agreed. I can’t believe May and her ministers are still saying we can Brexit on 29th March. There isn’t time, whatever the final resolution is. Even no deal would require more time surely.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

gypsumfantastic said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution

I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'

She said that the withdrawal agreement will not be renegotiated.

That doesn't sound like a door being left open to me.

She did not mention the agreement but even so, minds are being focussed and Trimble challenge today is very interesting.

Maybe we all need to keep open minds as no one can have a clue of the outcome, as I admitted earlier

We need to keep open minds. No one predicted how badly May would have performed and how readily she would take us to the brink to save her own neck. One can but only imagine where she will take us next.

The strange thing is that the polls remain positive for her as Corbyn's ratings collapse

Stockholm syndrome?