kuro68k wrote: » The British government is going to take it right to the cliff edge and hope that someone else compromises. Of course they have their excuses already lined up if no-one does, only real question is who they will blame.
The view in Brussels is that in seeking the TCA the UK hadn't bargained for the conditions that would be attached, and Theresa May will find it difficult, if not impossible, to get that thru the cabinet tomorrow.
prawnsambo wrote: » I think you're confusing which side of the coin, the cold, hard economics are falling on in this case. The EU 27 are far more important than the UK 1.Tony Connelly spells it out clealy here in this updatehttps://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059511064080080896
charlie14 wrote: » With the suggestion that the U.K. staying in the C.U. was the answer to the logjam then I wouldn`t be that certain that cold, hard economics may not yet have a role to play. Hope I`m wrong, but only time will tell.
Water John wrote: » People were considering that anti Corbynites might vote with the Govn't. That's why I put up the rejection of that by Cooper and Grieve, there is no comfort for TM. Raab and his ilk are really engaged in amateur and immature politics.
Leroy42 wrote: » How is that even possible at this stage? How can the UK be so completely clueless that they don't even seem to understand the ramifications of their own proposals? They just seem to be trying to make up new ways to say stuff.
The Task Force expected technical papers from the UK last week but they were not forthcoming.
prawnsambo wrote: » I think you're confusing which side of the coin, the cold, hard economics are falling on in this case. The EU 27 are far more important than the UK 1.Tony Connelly spells it out clealy here in this updatehttps://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059511066932191232https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059511069390049280https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059511071738920960
Rhineshark wrote: » The third-party arbritrar is a bit nonsense. Who? And what happens if that element gets bought off by the UK? Or (say US as a "neutral" third power), goes nuts too. Or (say UN) collapses. Why would Ireland put itself in a position where our island is at the whim of a third party that we have to acquiesce to? Why would the EU do the same? Putting trust in the EU is one thing. Putting it in a third party that could be pressured without any loss to itself from the border situation is asking for it.
charlie14 wrote: » I usually find Tony Connelly`s posts very clear and concise, but is he not lumping the rules on the SM in with the rules on the CU. I would have thought that by leaving the SM and just staying in the CU, if this was granted by the EU, then the UK would have to abide by just CU rules. Same as Turkey.
prawnsambo wrote: » I'm struggling to understand how that's somehow a bad thing for us? This was always on offer and would be very good for us. Would keep the landbridge open for a start.
charlie14 wrote: » It would if NI remains in the SM. This new suggestion seems to only be the UK, NI included, staying in the CU only.
prawnsambo wrote: » I agree. But this is supposed to supplant the backstop. And you can't do that without having some SM rules. At the very least, the ones that relate to NI trade with the UK and the EU.
charlie14 wrote: » That is what I find confusing in not just how this suggestion on the UK and NI staying in just the CU and not the SM would solve the problem and how the EU could possibly use the rules of the SM in tandem with those of the CU which his tweets seem to suggest as regards NI.
Leroy42 wrote: » But everyone can see that the UK have very little intention of staying within the CU anyway. The likes of Raab, Davies, Johnson etc all want to get even further out. The NI border is one of the key ways the the EU can limit the potential damage to itself.
prawnsambo wrote: » You seem to be missing the point that this is coming from the UK side. And that they actually haven't delivered on the detail yet. So it's more than likely that it's just another kite-flying exercise that hasn't even got off the ground.
charlie14 wrote: » It`s not that I`m missing the point of where it is coming from. I`m just commenting that on this suggestion which some here see as a possible solution, I cannot see how it possibly could be other than NI staying in the SM as well as the CU or some change in the backstop requirements.
Gintonious wrote: » https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059511062423314432 Another day, another Tony Connelly thread. We don't deserve him.
charlie14 wrote: » I would have thought that by leaving the SM and just staying in the CU, if this was granted by the EU, then the UK would have to abide by just CU rules. Same as Turkey.
In addition to providing for a common external tariff for the products covered, the Customs Union foresees that Turkey is to align to the acquis communautaire in several essential internal market areas, notably with regard to industrial standards.
Bambi wrote: » I'd imagine he's mostly being fed info by the Dept. of Foreign Affairs to counter whatever the British press are being spun.
prawnsambo wrote: » That can happen if SM rules are applied specifically and only to goods and services that NI trades with the UK and EU. So not a full SM and only for specific goods/services. In fact that can even be narrowed down further to just cross border goods. It's quite possible and would have very little to differentiate NI from the rest of the UK.
