PokeHerKing wrote: » So is it up to the NI/UK government to police NI ports to adhere to SM rules, or how will it work?
Water John wrote: » Yes the UK Govn't is the one checking at Larne. But then the large majority of goods for NI go through Dublin.
VinLieger wrote: » Indeed their history of campaigning against every EU referendum shows their true feelings on the EU. Much like the DUP tried to do they are simply using this situation for their own benefit, however they are going about it far smarter way by shutting the hell up and letting FG push the agenda for them here and have the DUP stomp all over everything up North, whatever the result SF's hands are completely clean both North and South, its very clever.
GM228 wrote: » I find it pretty astonishing that no mainstream media is reporting on the case (running for a good 35 minutes now) in Scotland debating if the new WA is lawful in accordance with the Taxation (Cross-Border Trade) Act 2018. Lord Pentland has indicated that due to the limited timeframe that the court may rule today.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » Everytime the HoC reject a deal in the hope of getting a better deal, they end up getting a worse deal.
Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: » But having Stormant vote every 4 years in perpetuity is not a good arrangement.
Enzokk wrote: » Is there a link to a live feed? I thought one of the cases was being broadcast live today?
Enzokk wrote: » For those people who think just getting this deal done will be the end of it, the next deadline is June next year. There will be only a few months of quiet before a decision will have to be made on whether an extension will be applied for, for the transition period. If no extension and no FTA and it is the cliff edge again of no-deal, or WTO trade. Good time ahead.
robinph wrote: » No it hasn't. First they rejected Mays deal, then they rejected Mays exactly the same deal, then they rejected Mays exactly the same deal printed in a different font and then on Saturday they will get to vote on Mays deal again with Johnsons name on it and a backstop that has been renamed as a border down the Irish sea. Nothing has changed apart from the number of times the same deal has been brought back each time.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Ah, but the DUP have to either eat their words or campaign to destroy NIs business and farming communities every 4 years. They are doomed.
GM228 wrote: » See here where I mentioned it yesterday, but it's the COA case being streamed today, not the Scottish case which is an urgent case only launched yesterday and being heard currently.
Joe_ Public wrote: » Conservative whip apparently rang Sam Gwyimah last night to get him to vote for the deal. Shows how desperate they are.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Gonna be extraodinarily tight. One of the group Boris needs above all others to get says no........unless.https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1185127048207130625?s=20
PokeHerKing wrote: » So the Irish Market will be dependent on HMG to uphold the integrity of goods that enter it? Seems contradictory, how can the integrity of the SM be upheld if its borders are being policed by a non EU member government?
Imreoir2 wrote: » Would have to check the detail, but I am sure the UK would be subject to the ECJ for its enforcement of border controls.
Enzokk wrote: » I am not sure if this tweet were posted yesterday as the thread was moving very quickly, but to give you an idea why the EU is happy with this deal,https://twitter.com/MarkUrban01/status/1184966246141513730?s=20 So the objective for Barnier 2 weeks ago was to get the UK to move to a NI only backstop but not convince them that this is what was happening. I am still astonished that the ERG and those Tories that opposed May's deal is thinking of backing Johnson inferior deal now. I think if this deal passes they win the next election, on the back of Corbyn's luck finally running out and Johnson having the momentum from this "win". Then there is 5 years of consequences of this deal to be felt until the next election, with a new Labour leader and 5 more years of austerity you would think that a Blair like majority will be in the offing for Labour in 2024. But for the sake of those vulnerable families and people who will be hurt these will be 5 long and hard years ahead.
Christy Sweets wrote: » Could Britain end up with an endless cycle of extensions to the transition period?
CelticRambler wrote: » Bobby McDonagh, former Irish ambassador to UK & EU, was just on Sky saying that this deal takes the wind out of the United Ireland sails. Having thought overnight about the proposed four-year rolling referendum, I think that's completely wrong, and the DUP are right to be afraid. In effect, that same vote could be used by the SoS for NI as a UI barometer. In the more-likely-than-not event that the UK suffers economically in the short to medium term, they'll be looking seriously for opportunities to cut costs, and the biggest on-going cost to the nation is the annual subsidy for NI. If the population of NI (or at least their elected representatives) have indicated that they prefer to remain aligned with the RoI than GB - because essentially "no hard border" does equal alignment with the very tangible RoI rather than the vague and distant EU - then why would Westminster want to keep the troublesome province? Over five years, NI will have benefited from a hefty £3.5bn of EU funds [pdf]; that's on top of the annual GB hand-out, and it's going to evaporate next year. With GB farmers and factories also losing their EU funding, there's going to be very little GB tax revenue to spread around - but just across the invisible border, the still EU-funded Irish hills will be genuinely greener when looked upon by the people of the Six Counties. Rarely do I have any sympathy for the DUP, but on this point, I do believe they've been frog-marched into a "pre-UI referendum" by Johnson, and they would be completely insane not to vote against the bill.
Christy Sweets wrote: » Sam Gyimah has been warning last night and today that the prospect of a crash out in January 2021 is why the ERG are willing to support this deal. If it passes, I presume we'll see another cycle of parliamentary chaos and chicanery in an effort to stop such a crash out, with an extension to the transition period the goal? Isn't all this just kicking the can down the road? Could Britain end up with an endless cycle of extensions to the transition period? And if there was a crash out in January 2021, how does that affect NI? Is NI completely separated under this deal? Could Britain crash out but the NI frontstop remain, or are the frontstop arrangements as regards NI cancelled too, ie., hard border?
What is more likely? Is it 'Classic Dom' -a tactic whereby the government meant all along to sign up to LPFs but held them back until the last moment to clinch the support of the EU27 and Labour rebels? Or is Johnson's last minute switch to a legally non-binding statement a weightless object that, the moment a deal is passed, will just float off into space? It is not possible to satisfy the demands of both right wing Brexiters and pro-deal Labour MPs on this point. Indeed, there is evidence that 90s-era Eurosceptics aren't happy with Johnson's deal. The old school eurosceptics in the Bruges Group oppose the deal and veteran Eurosceptics like Owen Paterson and Iain Duncan Smith are thought to be restive. Someone is going to get burned. The question for Labour MPs is whose side will Johnson take once Britain is out of the EU. It's true that Dominic Cummings is no friend to the ERG. But equally, they are Tory MPs while Labour MPs are not. To assume Johnson will side with opposition MPs when push comes to shove would be quite the leap of faith.
Imreoir2 wrote: » The political sphere then goes back into crisis over the new threeway choice between some from of realistic deal with the EU, no-deal WTO terms or extension of the transition period.