nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Rhineshark

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.

1. The EU
2. Remainers
3. Ireland
4. Corbyn

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Nody

judeboy101 wrote: »

no, no, no. Leo and simon never used "unless and until" in their soundbites until today. It was always " a temporary backstop is not a backstop". funny how their language has changed. Mamma merkl must of had words last night.

The backstop by it's very definition was there as a back up IN CASE a suitable solution was not find. Hence a "unless and until" backstop until said solution is found is exactly the same thing as previously stated because when the backstop stops to apply is when a deal is agreed that covers all need of the backstop and hence said backstop is no longer needed.

Jim2007

judeboy101 wrote: »

no, no, no. Leo and simon never used "unless and until" in their soundbites until today. It was always " a temporary backstop is not a backstop". funny how their language has changed. Mamma merkl must of had words last night.

BS. No place for blatant lies and other nonsense in this discussion. Take it to the Daily Mail if you want that kind of nonsense.

charlie14

EKRIUQ wrote: »

- all UK Customs Union

But are they going to contribute for the privilege of being in the Customs union.

Going by the rate Norway is getting, then it should cost the UK €9,240,000,000 per year which is €177 million per week, which is a saving of about €100 million per week on their current situation.

I'm waiting to see the wording in the proposed deal.

Faik it appears to be 10 Billion per year.

Inquitus

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1062709478913699840

LeinsterDub

judeboy101 wrote: »

no, no, no. Leo and simon never used "unless and until" in their soundbites until today. It was always " a temporary backstop is not a backstop". funny how their language has changed. Mamma merkl must of had words last night.

A temporary backstop is not a backstop aka a time limited backstop isn't a backstop. This doesn't mean that the backstop will never end. It is temporary in the sense that it's intended purpose is to prevent a hard border in the event of no trade deal. If the UK gets a FTA the backstop isn't needed. If the UK enters the backstop and then signs a FTA the backstop comes to an end. This is splitting of hairs and parsing of words all just optics for the UK and Mays sake. We the EU will be able to say when a backstop is required and when it's no longer required.

bob mcbob

Havockk wrote: »

Can you give a synopsis of the link, it's paywalled.

That amongst EU countries (Germany, France, Spain, Holland, Denmark, Belgium) these countries currently catch >50% of their catch in UK waters. They obviously do not want to give this.

However the fishing industries want to "take back control" of fishing quotas.

The issue they have is that they export circa 75% of their catch to EU. So Britain remaining in the customs union, they would be happy as they could still export as now and they could take bake control of the quota's.

The EU recognise this and want to specifically exclude fishing from the temporary customs union. A deal on this will need to be negotiated separately

LeinsterDub

EKRIUQ wrote: »

- all UK Customs Union

But are they going to contribute for the privilege of being in the Customs union.

Going by the rate Norway is getting, then it should cost the UK €9,240,000,000 per year which is €177 million per week, which is a saving of about €100 million per week on their current situation.

I'm waiting to see the wording in the proposed deal.

Is the refunds etc included in those figures?

Imreoir2

judeboy101 wrote: »

PMQ May categorically stated that the "back-stop" is temporary.

As did the EU a year ago when the backstop was first proposed. Who has ever said that the backstop would be or should be a permenant arrangement?

judeboy101

LeinsterDub wrote: »

A temporary backstop is not a backstop aka a time limited backstop isn't a backstop. This doesn't mean that the backstop will never end. It is temporary in the sense that it's intended purpose is to prevent a hard border in the event of no trade deal. If the UK gets a FTA the backstop isn't needed. If the UK enters the backstop and then signs a FTA the backstop comes to an end. This is splitting of hairs and parsing of words all just optics for the UK and Mays sake. We the EU will be able to say when a backstop is required and when it's no longer required.

That's not what Leo and Simon said. Empires have fallen over a misplaced comma, so this stuff matters. The silence from our gov that some say is allowing the brits time to digest, is i feel, due to our gov trying to spin this as anything other than a climbdown by us .

prawnsambo

judeboy101 wrote: »

no, no, no. Leo and simon never used "unless and until" in their soundbites until today. It was always " a temporary backstop is not a backstop". funny how their language has changed. Mamma merkl must of had words last night.

Good Lord! Do you even understand what a backstop is?

For the purposes of clarity, a backstop is an insurance policy to keep NI in the customs union and single market if any future trade deal would take them out of it. Or more simply, if whatever deal is made post brexit creates a hard border in Ireland.

Where does that definition say it absolutely must be permanent?

judeboy101

To all those using a swimming pool analogy to describe the future positions of the GB and Ni, remember what happens when one vomits in the pool-it taints the whole pool.ni needed to be 100%in CU and SM under backstop, that won't happen now.

Inquitus

judeboy101 wrote: »

That's not what Leo and Simon said. Empires have fallen over a misplaced comma, so this stuff matters. The silence from our gov that some say is allowing the brits time to digest, is i feel, due to our gov trying to spin this as anything other than a climbdown by us .

I'd don't know where you get this impression from, we have got what we wanted here, and should see little to no impact on our economy as a result, at least while the future relationship is negotiated which may take a decade!

Imreoir2

judeboy101 wrote: »

That's not what Leo and Simon said. Empires have fallen over a misplaced comma, so this stuff matters. The silence from our gov that some say is allowing the brits time to digest, is i feel, due to our gov trying to spin this as anything other than a climbdown by us .

Name the Empire that fell because of a misplaced comma.

Nody

bob mcbob wrote: »

That amongst EU countries (Germany, France, Spain, Holland, Denmark, Belgium) these countries currently catch >50% of their catch in UK waters. They obviously do not want to give this.

However the fishing industries want to "take back control" of fishing quotas.

The issue they have is that they export circa 75% of their catch to EU. So Britain remaining in the customs union, they would be happy as they could still export as now and they could take bake control of the quota's.

The EU recognise this and want to specifically exclude fishing from the temporary customs union. A deal on this will need to be negotiated separately

The article appears to mix some significant pointers then; for starters most UK fish taken up is landed in EU ports (or exported to EU). That is ONLY allowed when there is a EU fishing qouta policy for those waters. If UK wants to exclude fishing or their fisheries take "back the control" they can't export any fish or fish products to EU which is the main market in the first place so good luck with that one. A good article on the topic is here; in short UK fishers are going to at best end up where they are today.

LeinsterDub

judeboy101 wrote: »

That's not what Leo and Simon said. Empires have fallen over a misplaced comma, so this stuff matters. The silence from our gov that some say is allowing the brits time to digest, is i feel, due to our gov trying to spin this as anything other than a climbdown by us .

Okay we'll talk in a days time when you've been proven wrong yet again.

Enzokk

EKRIUQ wrote: »

- all UK Customs Union

But are they going to contribute for the privilege of being in the Customs union.

Going by the rate Norway is getting, then it should cost the UK €9,240,000,000 per year which is €177 million per week, which is a saving of about €100 million per week on their current situation.

I'm waiting to see the wording in the proposed deal.

There has been links that, as has been mentioned, the cost will be around £10b per year after the transition and they want to continue the arrangement.

I would guess there will be extra cost in any case, even if they end the customs union part. If they participate in any EU organization, like the EMA, they are going to contribute towards it.

LeinsterDub

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Name the Empire that fell because of a misplaced comma.

The Grammar Nazi Reich?

prawnsambo

LeinsterDub wrote:

A temporary backstop is not a backstop aka a time limited backstop isn't a backstop. This doesn't mean that the backstop will never end. It is temporary in the sense that it's intended purpose is to prevent a hard border in the event of no trade deal. If the UK gets a FTA the backstop isn't needed. If the UK enters the backstop and then signs a FTA the backstop comes to an end. This is splitting of hairs and parsing of words all just optics for the UK and Mays sake. We the EU will be able to say when a backstop is required and when it's no longer required.

judeboy101 wrote: »

That's not what Leo and Simon said. Empires have fallen over a misplaced comma, so this stuff matters. The silence from our gov that some say is allowing the brits time to digest, is i feel, due to our gov trying to spin this as anything other than a climbdown by us .

This is what Leo Varadkar said 10 days ago:

In a statement released following an earlier phone call with British Prime Minister Theresa May, Mr Varadkar said that the outcome of any such review "could not involve a unilateral decision to end the backstop".

He recalled to Mrs May "the prior commitments made that the backstop must apply 'unless and until' alternative arrangements are agreed".

So exactly as you have been told. Repeatedly. Why are you coming on here and making stuff up? If you're going to quote the Taoiseach and Tanaiste, at least back that up with links and quotes.

Sam Russell

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Name the Empire that fell because of a misplaced comma.

The Ems telegram caused the Franco Prussian war of 1870.

LeinsterDub

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Ems telegram caused the Franco Prussian war of 1851.

Wasn't that a deliberate ploy by Bismark to start the war? My leaving cert history was quite sometime ago.

Stetsonfrank

I've been checking the live currency markets over the last couple of days and Sterling doesn't seem to have moved still at .87.

I suppose we could see a big move in the market if the cabinet meeting collapses.

Sam Russell

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Wasn't the a deliberate ploy by Bismark to start the war? My leaving cert history was quite sometime ago.

Yes, but it was a doctored telegram that was used to imply an insult to the Kaiser. I think that counts as a misplaced comma.

prawnsambo

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Ems telegram caused the Franco Prussian war of 1870.

Well the edited Ems despatch gave Bismarck (who edited it) the strong possibility that the French would mobilise. Something he wanted.

prawnsambo

Sam Russell wrote: »

Yes, but it was a doctored telegram that was used to imply an insult to the Kaiser. I think that counts as a misplaced comma.

A misplaced comma implies an accidental outcome. The editing of the Ems despatch was deliberate.

An Ciarraioch

Stetsonfrank wrote: »

I've been checking the live currency markets over the last couple of days and Sterling doesn't seem to have moved still at .87.

I suppose we could see a big move in the market if the cabinet meeting collapses.

Only two minor players look set to walk, so far at least.

10000maniacs

judeboy101 wrote: »

That's not what Leo and Simon said. Empires have fallen over a misplaced comma, so this stuff matters. The silence from our gov that some say is allowing the brits time to digest, is i feel, due to our gov trying to spin this as anything other than a climbdown by us .

If it is spin, Nationalists up the North will make their positions crystal clear.
Also Sinn Fein don't mince their words on issues like this.
However I don't think its a change in stance. Its just saying the same thing with the removal of a few sensitive words.
If Backstop 2 (UK Customs Union) is discarded, Backstop 1 comes into operation ( NI Customs Union) until there is a workable solution to prevent a hard border on the Island of Ireland.
Why do you think the DUP are still livid about it?

jonsnow

prawnsambo wrote: »

A misplaced comma implies an accidental outcome. The editing of the Ems despatch was deliberate.

Come for Brexit. Stay for the Ems telegraph debate!!:D

LeinsterDub

jonsnow wrote: »

Come for Brexit. Stay for the Ems telegraph debate!!:D

Don't get us started on the Zimmermann Telegram

joe40

judeboy101 wrote: »

To all those using a swimming pool analogy to describe the future positions of the GB and Ni, remember what happens when one vomits in the pool-it taints the whole pool.ni needed to be 100%in CU and SM under backstop, that won't happen now.

My understanding is that the backstop is an insurance policy, that will only come into force if a future trading relationship between Britain and the EU can't deliver a border in Ireland, without "border infrastructure"

The British position initially was trust us on this we can make it happen, the "backstop" is no lets make it legally binding, in the case your trade agreements can't deliver.

So it was always the case that if a trade future trade agreement can be found which means no border infrastructure then the backstop would not be triggered. i.e agreement between all parties

Strazdas

It strikes me that the Cabinet may well refrain from voting down the deal today knowing full well the Parliament will do it for them instead.