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.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities? Remain fails this one, unless you think "no management of migration of workers within the EU" is fair management.
McGiver wrote: » May's explicitly ruled out 2nd ref. Also very strong words overall.
An Ciarraioch wrote: » Interesting that the agreement will face a Dáil vote - if FF unhappy with the backstop elements, would that cause a GE by breaching supply and confidence?
McGiver wrote: » May's explicitly ruled out 2nd ref. Also very strong words overall. Also Corbyn saying that he wants "sovereign UK Parliament to unilaterally withdraw from the backtop" - total unicorns.https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/brexit-we-will-not-re-run-the-referendum-may-tells-british-mps-1.3697368
Jim2007 wrote: » That was entirely a choice for the British government. The EU rules clearly provides options on job search, short term employment, long term employment and retirement. The UK government decided to ignore those rules.
judeboy101 wrote: » PMQ May categorically stated that the "back-stop" is temporary.
seamus wrote: » Remember that this is an EU/UK agreement, not an IE/EU or IE/UK agreement. Thus, there's no real benefit in playing partisan games - the Irish government didn't negotiate this or approve this, the EU did. FF scuppering this in order to score points rather than over genuine concerns would hurt them more than FG.
An Ciarraioch wrote: » Another odd statement from May is that the UK would be able to do independent trade deals and join the Trans-Pacific Partnership - how does that square with a temporary customs arrangement?
As Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, it has to adjust its tariffs and duties to match those of the EU. However, the free trade agreements (FTAs) signed by the EU do not extend to Turkey, so the EU's FTA partners can export to Turkey tariff-free, while maintaining tariffs on Turkish goods, unless they also conclude a separate FTA agreement with Turkey.
briany wrote: » Labour would probably agitate for a GE on the grounds that they can 'get a better deal' up until the 29/3/19.
kuro68k wrote: » It's not really up to her.
Nody wrote: » This is the part that honestly really confuses me at times; why would not someone play on the "fear the immigrant" wave in government look at implementing something based on the rules? Don't have to go all ID card but let's say May's "employeer/house lord has to check" kind of part way solution to be seen as "tough on the immigrants". It seems as an easy low hanging win with in the rules.
Ellian wrote: » Zubeneschamali wrote: » Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities? Remain fails this one, unless you think "no management of migration of workers within the EU" is fair management. It was always my understanding that there were rules within the FOM that didn't just give a citizen of any EU country carte blanche to go anywhere they fancied - it's just that successive UK governments never implemented them. I'll stipulate that I don't actually know the intricacies of these rules, but if they exist, it might allow a Labour government to Remain and meet this test criteria.
An Ciarraioch wrote: » But not time-limited, which is the key point - the EU-Swiss bilateral deal was supposed to be temporary, but is still going 26 years later.
Sam Russell wrote: » ID cards go a long way to solve most migrant problems. Mandatory registration following entry to the UK (within say one month) and obtaining an ID card would make the other checks easy and defendable in the event of a dispute. If work was anticipated, a NI no would be provided following registration, and would give evidence of employment and self-sufficiency. Previous attempts at ID cards in the UK failed because they were attempting to make them to elaborate and contain too much information, such as to compromise privacy and were hugely expensive. Simple ID cards - Name; Address; DoB; National Ins no; picture; - would suffice and should be easily checked against a Database. I can check the MOT status of a vehicle if I know the make and reg.
judeboy101 wrote: » Our dear leader promised us multiple times NO temporary backstop, so did our deputy.
Nody wrote: » And yet another coin has fallen down in the UK: Exactly as said a year ago and predicted because hey, Eurpol requires you to be an EU member. Curious to see how many more climb downs will come in the weeks and months to come as reality starts to assert itself and that EU rules are not recommendations but actually binding requirements.
Nody wrote: » I'd agree but national IDs to be carried appears to be anathema in England in the "How dare you question my right to be here?!" kind of attitude; hence the calling out without IDs.
judeboy101 wrote: » They have just pulled a sneaky one. My reading of this is we keep a backstop, but its not really a backstop. It makes everyone look good, meanwhile they push out the day of reckoning in the hopes that the EU comes under internal pressures from some other source. And then they push hard.
charlie14 wrote: » In fairness to all political parties and individual TDs they unlike in Westminster have all been on the same page as to what they wish from this deal, so if it is anywhere near that I cannot see anyone attempting to scupper it pointlessly.
LeinsterDub wrote: » https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1062608192327372800 Nicola: Throw this on the giant pile marked kindling for indy ref 2!
bob mcbob wrote: » Agreed, I think the article below also gives the petrol and spark for it. I think fishing is going to be a big issue going forward. If the fishing communities switch back to the SNP then ......https://www.ft.com/content/6133d3c6-e669-11e8-8a85-04b8afea6ea3
Sam Russell wrote: » No, that is not correct it was never temporary. Never was it a 'time limited' backstop. Never was it a 'unilateral' backstop. It was always temporary 'unless and until ...' the unicorns were discovered.
