downcow wrote: » The backstop can lock us in forever to a situation where we have entirely different arrangements to the rest of the UK (and please don’t again bring up the current devolved matters which are chosen by the people -some crazy discriminatory stuff I know). It leaves us under the control of the Eu while rest of UK leaves. I is completely undemocratic. And it is not needed.
downcow wrote: The backstop can lock us in forever to a situation where we have entirely different arrangements to the rest of the UK (and please don’t again bring up the current devolved matters which are chosen by the people -some crazy discriminatory stuff I know). It leaves us under the control of the Eu while rest of UK leaves. I is completely undemocratic. And it is not needed.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What is your problem with the backstop? You have been assured by Westminster that it doesn't alter your position in the UK
Bit cynical wrote: » I disagree that it would solve nothing but we've got to be realistic about what can be achieved. A free trade deal where there are no tariffs on goods means an easier patrolled border. A border where there is no trade deal whatsoever requires intensive border infrastructure and monitoring.
Bit cynical wrote: » We already have the CTA and reciprocal working arrangements between the two jurisdictions, so a trade deal even along the lines of Canada would solve many problems. This is less desirable, however, than what was envisaged under the backstop, but it looks like the backstop is dead forever. It has only served to delay and complicate proceedings to Ireland's disadvantage.
Bit cynical wrote: » I know people have said that the UK will surely realise the error of their ways within six months and come crawling back in humiliation to the EU, but remember that not too long ago we were pretty sure that they would accept any deal that was given to them. We now think they will come crawling back because that is the only hope we are left with.
ilovesmybrick wrote: » I'm pretty pro EU, but I'm critical of a lot of how it works. As is a large proportion of the country I now live in. However, you can be critical of a governmental institution while also realising that its the best available and working to fix that within. This is not a hard concept and the cornerstone of democracy.
Bit cynical wrote: » Zubeneschamali wrote: » One day, perhaps after an election, another referendum, or a new Bronze Age in the former UK, there will be a deal between England and the EU. And it will include the backstop, as agreed in December 2017. No good for us in that case.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » One day, perhaps after an election, another referendum, or a new Bronze Age in the former UK, there will be a deal between England and the EU. And it will include the backstop, as agreed in December 2017.
Strazdas wrote: » I could see this becoming a news story in Germany. This is a sitting MP of the ruling party speaking on live TV - and being very deliberate and calculated in his insults towards German people.
downcow wrote: » I was never away anywhere but thanks for your concern. This might shock you but I have spent most of my life working in peace building. I suppose it’s my interest to learn from other opinions that brings me on here. Your question is a good one. It is a connondrim for both unionists and nationalists to know what to do.From where i am looking they should help us get rid of the backstop. They should encourage the Eu to have more confidence in its self and be prepared to negotiate a future for Eu and UK without the need for things like the backstop. They are a big block 10 times plus bigger than the UK so shouldn’t need a backstop to negotiate a good deal. The other thing I would suggest nationalists would do, thankfully I have just witnessed them in some numbers doing this evening ie joining me in showing there disgust for anyone use the conflict and troops on the border as s cheap bargaining chip. Fair play the the nationalist of Newry who were on the news tonight.
murphaph wrote: » There's no way you voted remain.
downcow wrote: » I was never away anywhere but thanks for your concern. This might shock you but I have spent most of my life working in peace building. I suppose it’s my interest to learn from other opinions that brings me on here. Your question is a good one. It is a connondrim for both unionists and nationalists to know what to do. From where i am looking they should help us get rid of the backstop. They should encourage the Eu to have more confidence in its self and be prepared to negotiate a future for Eu and UK without the need for things like the backstop. They are a big block 10 times plus bigger than the UK so shouldn’t need a backstop to negotiate a good deal. The other thing I would suggest nationalists would do, thankfully I have just witnessed them in some numbers doing this evening ie joining me in showing there disgust for anyone use the conflict and troops on the border as s cheap bargaining chip. Fair play the the nationalist of Newry who were on the news tonight.
Borderhopper wrote: » Good to have you back Downcow. Could you answer my question please? What would you have nationalists in Northern Ireland do?
downcow wrote: » Fixed that for you! But I mightn’t be around long because what’s good for the goose dare not be said about the gander I fear “Let’s be honest while we can be flexible what was needed with these southern irish fools was complete clarity because this entire debate from them is nothing more than opinionated whataboutry and evasive smoke and mirrors when confronted with cold facts. Brexit would have passed with no issue had the Dumba'ss Sinn Fein Party not been able to become the spanner in the works and been able to mess things up. Theyre of the same league as the the rest of the southern Irish . The sad truth is the Irish are utter idiots of the moat dangerous kind because theyre too incompetent and stuck in their blinkered views of the world to actually be rational and this isnt counting the likes of mary-Lou or Michelle who likely have ulterior motives. Theres no negotiating or flexibility with those types you have to strongarm them legally so they cant weasel out of their commitments without consequence.”
Enzokk wrote: » Edit: Anyone else seeing posts that disappear after a few minutes?
judeboy101 wrote: » Actually the EU did cave. As an EU citizen I cannot fly to switzerland in the morning and get a job.
Short-term employment up to three months (EU-25/EFTA citizens) Citizens from EU-25/EFTA states do not require authorisation for short-term employment up to three months or 90 days per calendar year.
Tell me how wrote: » Could be due to moderation. Can be frustrating (if they are your posts), but to be fair, it is why this thread has continued for the vast majority of the time to be an enjoyable informative place in to its 6th edition.
Enzokk wrote: » So why the jockeying to have it removed if it is an agreement that they cannot be held to? Surely you do the Gove tactic of agreeing to it and then just ignoring it. I mean it is just a legal document that will be signed between 2 parties, much like the GFA.Edit: Anyone else seeing posts that disappear after a few minutes?
trellheim wrote: » If you will recall, the UK Gov agreed to this to move the talks on from the first phase as the pesky EU refused to budge to the good stuff "trade" until NI had been sorted out. They had hoped (and still hope) that the EU will cave on this as we get closer to the deadline. Does anyone have any examples of the EU caving . I'm looking at Switzerland as "didn't cave" (swiss HAD to cave on FOM )
Hurrache wrote: » The Markets segment on Sky News are saying that sterling reached its high because of the reports in the Sun that the DUP have privately backed the deal. However if that backing is on the foundation that the backstop will be limited, it means nothing.
spacecoyote wrote: Ok thanks, makes sense. So you can't be seen to give preferential rates to any trading partner. So they couldn't have a 70% EU tariff & a 10% Japanese tariff, everyone has to be treated equally
Bit cynical wrote: » I think the main problem with this is that you are talking about the backstop in the present tense as if it was an agreement to which the UK could be held. It is not and let us be realistic, it is unlikely to be in the future.
josip wrote: » Rob, are you sure it's tonnes? It seems a bit much for one driver to transport, even if he's Dutch?
spacecoyote wrote: » I'm a bit confused on JRMs logic here. Wouldn't their tariff be applied at EU level under WTO, so if they're applying a 70% tariff, wouldn't it be on EU beef, not Irish beef. And if they're then putting a 70% tariff on EU exports of beef, wouldn't the EU just put the same tariff on UK beef exports, essentially bankrupting the UK beef farmers as I'm assuming they export a hefty amount to Europe? Sorry I know JRM is a complete sh1tetalker, but I'm curious as to how the WTO thing applies, re Ireland versus EU
Tell me how wrote: » Not only that, but if the put a 70% tariff on our (EU beef) they would have to put that same tariff on all suppliers of beef in to the UK.
Enzokk wrote: » The UK Government did accept the deal that was offered and they accepted the backstop even though May has repeatedly said she will not allow regulatory alignment to differ between NI and the rest of the UK. This is precisely what the backstop entails that if the FTA is not reached after the transition then there will be an all UK customs union and NI will still adhere to single market regulations. History doesn't seem to be on your side with the point you are trying to make.
Hmm .... last December there was an agreement that was immediately repudiated by the UK side with the lead negotiator for the UK (David Davis) saying he did not realise what it meant, and it took nearly a full year to get back to that point. Now there is an agreed text that cannot get through the HOC.
downcow wrote: » I appreciate that response. That’s very fair.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Not always inadvertently. Here is Jacob's suggestion last May speaking in the context of pressurising the EU during negotiations: "If Britain trades on WTO terms, we could potentially slap tariffs of up to 70 per cent on Irish beef. That could bankrupt Ireland, who export £800million of beef to us every year."
