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.
Water John wrote: » It may come down to what type of whip Lb imposes. If it, as is hinted do not expel and deselect those that vote with the Govn't, the Deal has a good chance of passing. It is a debate going on in the party today. Sturgeon has been stirring it by saying that by not imposing a full whip, it leaves Lb off the hook. Secretly letting the Deal through.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » No, the FTA talks will barely have started when this choice has to be made, so it'll be extension for talks or WTO exit. And if they choose an extension, they get the same choice 1 year later and 1 year later and 1 year later...
Zubeneschamali wrote: » FTA deals normally takes 5-10 years. If the UK puts pressure on negotiators to do it faster, they will have to accept a worse deal. So they will either extend the transition period for a minimum of 5 years or get reamed in the FTA talks. Don't forget that the EU have a really professional, experienced team who have been doing trade deals all around the world for decades. The UK have whoever they have managed to rope in during the last 3 years. What professional negotiator would want to work for the UK side after the last 3 years of utter incompetence on the political side?
ancapailldorcha wrote: » The EU don't want to be responsible for letting the UK crash out which is why they've agreed to the extensions. When Brexit fails, it needs to be the UK's own fault, not the EU's.
First Up wrote: » The EU doesn't set up customs posts.
jmayo wrote: » Either way the British media and the Brexiters are going to blame someone else when it doesn't work out as rosey as they claimed. Just wait until all these supposed brilliant open trade deals don't pan out. It will all be the fault of EU for not allowing them trade.
blanch152 wrote: » However, another possibility is that Northern Ireland exploits its unique position of having access both to the UK and to the EU and experiences a glut of FDI ...
Shelga wrote: » So the only difference with this deal, as far as I can see, is that the backstop is now permanent (although having given Stormont the illusion of power over it), and we no longer call it the backstop? Is that accurate? Also what happens if Stormont is still not sitting when the first vote on maintaining the not-a-backstop is due? Why some people in RoI enthusiastically embrace the idea of worsening our own standard of living to take on this basket case of a region, is beyond me.
Christy42 wrote: » I reckon Stormont will have to overturn it so that if it was not sitting the status quo would remain. This gives Sinn Fein an effective veto as they can stop Stormont from running again if they feel the DUP will get rid of the backstop. Yeah. It is largely just not calling a backstop the backstop which seems to be the key to getting the ERG on board.
BBC News wrote: Court of Appeal judges have rejected a bid by civil rights campaigners for an urgent hearing of their case against Prime Minister Boris Johnson over Brexit. The group, Liberty, brought the case in an attempt to ensure the government complied with the Benn Act - the law passed by MPs last month preventing a no-deal Brexit on 31 October. Lord Burnett says the judges will give full reasons for their decision in writing at a later date.
Shelga wrote: » Why some people in RoI enthusiastically embrace the idea of worsening our own standard of living to take on this basket case of a region, is beyond me.
Shelga wrote: » Also what happens if Stormont is still not sitting when the first vote on maintaining the not-a-backstop is due?
Christy42 wrote: » I reckon Stormont will have to overturn it so that if it was not sitting the status quo would remain. This gives Sinn Fein an effective veto as they can stop Stormont from running again if they feel the DUP will get rid of the backstop.
Yeah. It is largely just not calling a backstop the backstop which seems to be the key to getting the ERG on board.
Water John wrote: » Will it be the first time, a democratically elected parliament, voted voluntarily for a recession? What they choose I'm not overly worried about once, No Deal is off the table. Can't see how some Lb MPs think it's still around and thus thinking of voting for this Deal. There are hints that Lb/Corbyn won't expel dissidents. That's why I raised the issue. I agree couldn't see how they wouldn't.
CelticRambler wrote: » Yes, it's a possibility ... but one that, at the moment, seems to be as much of a unicorn as the greater Brexit project. I have yet to see anything that indicates that NI will enjoy more advantageous access to the GB market than any EU country. This deal adds two levels of extra bureaucracy to internal (UK) market trade - customs declarations and VAT declarations - for no demonstrable benefit whatsoever.Even if there was a functioning government in NI, I can't see how it could sell the region as a better place to do business than either a pure GB or a pure EU location. Keeping the land border "invisible" is great for the RoI, for ordinary cross-border daily life and very good for NI farmers (compared to a hard border), but that's about the extent of it. All the wonderful new FTAs that the UK is going to get are (a) probably going to be no better than those that the EU has already agreed with the same countries; (b) based overwhelmingly on what's good for London/GB, not NI; and (c) not signed until long after NI has lost all of its EU subventions and been locked out of the EU agencies that generate so much of the added value that influences FDI decisions.
blanch152 wrote: » I don't think that case has a hope in hell. Government's sign deals that are illegal all the time, that is why most international treaties need implementing legislation - to change the law.
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » Nothing that can't be fixed with an amendment to change the law.
GM228 wrote: » Well no they don't really, yes agreements often need implementing legislation, but it's a bit different when the agreement itself is contrary to what is permitted in law as is the alleged case here. Oh indeed and that has been recognised by both sides in the court, but the issue is that it is alleged it is unlawful as the law stands today. Assuming the court held in the petitioners favour then (emergency) legislation would be required to rectify.
blanch152 wrote: » If you are correct, every time our Irish government signed a new European agreement, they were not only acting illegally but also unconstitutionally, as a referendum is needed to change the Constitution to accept the Agreement. Signature and ratification are two different concepts in international law. In this case, all we have is signature, and whatever relevant amendments to the law are required will form part of the ratification process.
humberklog wrote: » I was listening to Andrew Bridgen (Con. MP, Nth. Lcst. Little Englander, Farage Mole) on the BBC this morning espousing the great bright future for GB. He was talking up being master of their domain and now how they'll be able to compete with ireland re taxation and how he can't wait for the likes of FB, Amazon etc. to leave Ireland in their droves for the green and pleasant land of Blighty. Neighbourly sort of fella.
Strazdas wrote: » He's deluded on this score. I haven't heard anyone talk of Brexit UK being an attractive place for FDI.
beggars_bush wrote: » How much will the DUP have to be given to change their stance? Seems to be the only thing that turns their heads anymore
