As of December we are currently stockpiling medicines and spending 10s of millions of NHS funds on putting refrigeration contracts out to tender because if leave meant leave leave we would have no immediate mechanism to ensure supply of these medicines.
Metro
Unsure how to unpick your latest nonsensical post bit I’ll give it a go.
You can leave the EU and still be members of its internal market. Just like EFTA states do.
The UKG (as set out in the WA and future relationship) has no intention of ending FoM (labour). EU law is UK law (and again as set out in the WA and future relationship) will continue to be transposed into the UK statute book in perpetuity. Divergence means barriers to trade.
There are 44 EU agencies – a great number of which the UK relies on for regulatory framework, security, counter terrorism, health and safety, environment, space, food safety, aviation, students, banking, etc etc etc…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agencies_of_the_European_Union
The UK is having to duplicate many of these agencies, which is costing hundreds of millions. With no guarantee of mutual recognition.
Whilst some of these agencies have associate membership, many are exclusive to member states, and third counties are exempt.
By way of example since 2003 the UK has contributed £1.2 billion to the ASA Galileo satellite project. The likes of Airbus being awarded lucrative contracts for the UK.
As we’re going to be excluded from Galileo the UKG has promised £60m to set up a UK system. Galileo is worth circa £13b. The UKG are pi$$ing money away on fantasy projects that will be lucky to get off the ground.
Do you honestly believe the average member of the public knew how intertwined the UK’s relationship with the EU has become (especially since Lisbon) and made an informed decision?
Because I can’t recall any of the above being mentioned during the ref campaign.
It's not like WTO rules is an immediate flick a switch trading fallback. With regard to tariffs, the UK trades with 24 countries and territories under WTO rules alone. With 68 others it has, as part of the EU, free trade agreements, either fully or partly in place, which all enable trade on better terms.
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 2 hours, 25 minutes ago
comment by Sid (U1868)
posted 24 seconds ago
Your analogy needs work.
Yes the referendum was an exercise in democracy.
People voted to either leave the EU or to stay in the EU.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most people (including MPs) didn't have the foggiest idea what that entailed. Nor did they have any concept of the trade offs the UKG would have to concede just to get a WA.
As these threads demonstrate, many people (years after the ref) still harbour misconceptions and untruths regarding the UK's relationship with the EU and wider global trade policy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a myth that is continually peddled.
Leaving the EU is a black and white decision. You leave the SM, CU. You end Freedom of Movement / existing immigration policy. You repatriate powers to implement law from EU back to UK.
What you’re conflating is the continued relationship. For example, what kind of intelligence strategy, what kind of trade deal, what kind of co-operation pacts etc. But all that is secondary to the act of leaving the institution itself.
What you are is someone who voted remain and have spent the last few years trying to tell anyone that disagreed with you that they didn’t really understand what they were doing.
We voted to leave and we have that mandate to the Government of the day to implement. If they fail to do this, it will be a failure to honour the result and not a failure of the ideology of Brexit itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a load of utter tripe.
It is not a black & white decision at all.
Or are you proposing that all expat Brits living in EU be repatriated against their will?
What about European Air traffic control, will we have to abide by their rules? If not how do you propose we travel say to Africa or UAE or far afield like China / Japan to work on these trade deals?
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 2 hours, 25 minutes ago
comment by Sid (U1868)
posted 24 seconds ago
Your analogy needs work.
Yes the referendum was an exercise in democracy.
People voted to either leave the EU or to stay in the EU.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most people (including MPs) didn't have the foggiest idea what that entailed. Nor did they have any concept of the trade offs the UKG would have to concede just to get a WA.
As these threads demonstrate, many people (years after the ref) still harbour misconceptions and untruths regarding the UK's relationship with the EU and wider global trade policy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a myth that is continually peddled.
Leaving the EU is a black and white decision. You leave the SM, CU. You end Freedom of Movement / existing immigration policy. You repatriate powers to implement law from EU back to UK.
What you’re conflating is the continued relationship. For example, what kind of intelligence strategy, what kind of trade deal, what kind of co-operation pacts etc. But all that is secondary to the act of leaving the institution itself.
What you are is someone who voted remain and have spent the last few years trying to tell anyone that disagreed with you that they didn’t really understand what they were doing.
We voted to leave and we have that mandate to the Government of the day to implement. If they fail to do this, it will be a failure to honour the result and not a failure of the ideology of Brexit itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you perceive leaving the EU to be a black and white decision because you aren't knowledgeable enough to understand our full relationship with it.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
80 percent of NIs exports to the UK go through Dublin, so if leave means leave. Do they somehow in a matter of months magic up port infrastructure to cater for the UKs exit. Or do we just let their businesses collapse?
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 6 minutes ago
It's not like WTO rules is an immediate flick a switch trading fallback. With regard to tariffs, the UK trades with 24 countries and territories under WTO rules alone. With 68 others it has, as part of the EU, free trade agreements, either fully or partly in place, which all enable trade on better terms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Also worth noting that aside from FTA's we benefit from 700+ economic partnership agreements with countries all over the world.
Fruit and veg for example. We import oranges from Spain etc during the summer and then from south America / Africa (amongst others) during the winter months. All tariff free.
Which keeps foods prices down, and the shelves are stocked with seasonal produce nearly all year long.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 hour, 54 minutes ago
comment by Sid (U1868)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Sid (U1868)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Colin Boylan (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sid (U1868)
posted 1 minute ago
Your analogy needs work.
Yes the referendum was an exercise in democracy.
People voted to either leave the EU or to stay in the EU.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How about if you picked the colour black over white (unlikely I know hohoho) but then I spent 2 years adding more white to the black until it was more white than black, you'd still stick with this now white colour as that's what you chose in the first place? You chose white?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I chose a black t-shirt over a white one the other day as I preferred the Darth vader one to a Stormtrooper one.
Do I win something now hohoho?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point that is, and which has been clearly made, (and I get that you don’t want to admit it) is why would you choose to pursue a particular course of action when (armed with greater knowledge) you knew it was self-defeating/destructive.
It seems some people do not believe in objective fact, they just believe in Brexit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I already explained, clearly, why I think we should leave the EU.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If I recall you mentioned the 2016 vote should be respected.
You didn't mention *why* given it's not what's on offer. If you voted Labour and the Tories took office instead would you not be in the slightest concerned?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes of course the results of a democratic vote should be upheld. What was voted for is to leave the EU and that’s what should happen although I have doubts that it will.
If I voted labour and the stories took office that would be because of the results of a democratic election and I would accept it.
SID
That's not the question I asked though. I think what you are saying is that there (as far as you are concerned) no mitigating circumstances which could ever render a decision injudicious.
Brexit for example was sold on the promise of taking back control of our laws, borders, and money. And an end to FoM (labour).
As the binding WA sets out, not a single one of those objectives will materialise, despite the fanfares from the PM.
So subvert democracy then.
It’s either enact the result or don’t.
And yes the WA is ridiculous.
comment by Sid (U1868)
posted 2 minutes ago
And yes the WA is ridiculous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But so blindingly obvious given the commitments already made to the GFA in phase one last December:
"The two Parties have carried out a mapping exercise, which shows that North-South cooperation relies to a significant extent on a common European Union legal and policy framework."
"The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the allisland economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement."
MPs are now voting on Conservative MP Dominic Grieve's amendment to the timetabling motion for the Brexit deal debate.
The amendment would allow any further motions voted on in the Commons under the EU Withdrawal Act to be amended.
For example, if the government has to table a new motion after losing the vote on the government's negotiated deal, MPs would be able to amend it....
Ayes have it...
Given the EU will not renegotiate current agreement, it's a bit moot is it not?
So 90 minutes later I return to the same mistakes being made.
You’re conflating the act of leaving of the EU to the future arrangements.
Leaving the EU is a black and white decision. How it’s achieved is something we put in the faith of the government.
As for WWSPD response. You strike me as having never encountered the seemingly obvious flaws in your comments. Take your EFTA example whereby you assume the possibility that people voting to leave the EU somehow also wanted to remain tied to the rulings of the ECJ (see EFTA court).
You want to convince leave voters that even though they argued for more sovereignty, they’d be prepared to sacrifice it for an EFTA agreement. I’m not buying that.
As for the Galileo project, I personally don’t think it applies to this debate. The EU is happy to be partners in some areas and not in others. I think it’s a disgrace on their part to state we can have no involvement in a project of which we were one of the primary funders.
The idea that because something is difficult that you simply accept the status quo is not something I stand for.
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 2 hours, 24 minutes ago
So 90 minutes later I return to the same mistakes being made.
You’re conflating the act of leaving of the EU to the future arrangements.
Leaving the EU is a black and white decision. How it’s achieved is something we put in the faith of the government.
As for WWSPD response. You strike me as having never encountered the seemingly obvious flaws in your comments. Take your EFTA example whereby you assume the possibility that people voting to leave the EU somehow also wanted to remain tied to the rulings of the ECJ (see EFTA court).
You want to convince leave voters that even though they argued for more sovereignty, they’d be prepared to sacrifice it for an EFTA agreement. I’m not buying that.
As for the Galileo project, I personally don’t think it applies to this debate. The EU is happy to be partners in some areas and not in others. I think it’s a disgrace on their part to state we can have no involvement in a project of which we were one of the primary funders.
The idea that because something is difficult that you simply accept the status quo is not something I stand for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you read the withdrawal agreement. It's hard going and a lot of it is legalese but it affirms the ECJ will provide comprehensive oversight over our judiciary.
Except we'll no longer have ECJ (UK judges) representation.
Whilst you may have interpreted a binary choice (leave/remain) as black and white the rest of the country has not. Hence why the UKG and parliament still can't reach a settled position.
You also misunderstand "sovereignty." In that no country that wishes to be "a global leader in free trade" can be completely sovereign. Trade liberalisation, mutual equivalence etc (regulatory allignment) are the building blocks of free trade. Any country (including the other two regulatory superpowers; China and the US) that wishes to export into the SM has to adhere to EU regulations. The UK included.
In regard to Galelio, due to funding problems China, Israel, Morocco, Norway have all been involved in it's development since 2003 but a motion by the UKrep that it should only be directly accessible to member states passed in 2009. This was to protect the likes of Airbus from being outbid by international companies.
Somewhat ironic that as a third country the UK will not be able to benefit from Galelio due to a motion we raised ourselves...
Brexit has certainly been (and will continue to be) difficult. But given the UK government's commitment to the GFA it now looks impossible.
In that if you honestly believe there will soon be technological, administrative and/or legal solutions to keep the Irish border open (to mitigate the backstop) without tying the UK and/or NI into a CU/SM you are kiding yourself. Or a member of the ERG.
So it transpires that this Irish backstop thingy is a real sticking point and would tie the whole of the UK to the single customs territory indefinitely as neither side can withdraw from it without explicit consent from the other side.
As such the EU would have us over a barrel and could extend negotiations indefinitely. There would be nothing we could do about it except to cede to their demands.
With this in mind, the withdrawal agreement as it stands is totally unworkable and as such the only other options are a No-Dea- Brexit which is incompatible with the Good Friday agreement as it would require a hard border between Eire & NI. This hard border will break the Good Friday agreement which in turn will see the return of the 70s, 80s & 90s 'troubles' (terrorism to use the correct terminology). That is not a route we want to go down again but is a possibility.
The only other option is No-Brexit which goes against the will of the leave voters so I say, let the same leave voters have the final say on which of those 3 scenarios is more acceptable to them.
Brexit means what exactly?
I caught a bit of the HoCs debates last night and Owen Paterson (ERG) is *still* spouting the falsehood that two separate customs entities can protect their external walls/borders (mitigating the need for checks) with “technology.”
Despite this technology not being utilised anywhere else in the world. He used to be NI secretary ffs so should at least have a basic understanding of the province.
Sign in if you want to comment
So this Brexit thing
Page 5 of 5
posted on 4/12/18
As of December we are currently stockpiling medicines and spending 10s of millions of NHS funds on putting refrigeration contracts out to tender because if leave meant leave leave we would have no immediate mechanism to ensure supply of these medicines.
posted on 4/12/18
Metro
Unsure how to unpick your latest nonsensical post bit I’ll give it a go.
You can leave the EU and still be members of its internal market. Just like EFTA states do.
The UKG (as set out in the WA and future relationship) has no intention of ending FoM (labour). EU law is UK law (and again as set out in the WA and future relationship) will continue to be transposed into the UK statute book in perpetuity. Divergence means barriers to trade.
There are 44 EU agencies – a great number of which the UK relies on for regulatory framework, security, counter terrorism, health and safety, environment, space, food safety, aviation, students, banking, etc etc etc…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agencies_of_the_European_Union
The UK is having to duplicate many of these agencies, which is costing hundreds of millions. With no guarantee of mutual recognition.
Whilst some of these agencies have associate membership, many are exclusive to member states, and third counties are exempt.
By way of example since 2003 the UK has contributed £1.2 billion to the ASA Galileo satellite project. The likes of Airbus being awarded lucrative contracts for the UK.
As we’re going to be excluded from Galileo the UKG has promised £60m to set up a UK system. Galileo is worth circa £13b. The UKG are pi$$ing money away on fantasy projects that will be lucky to get off the ground.
Do you honestly believe the average member of the public knew how intertwined the UK’s relationship with the EU has become (especially since Lisbon) and made an informed decision?
Because I can’t recall any of the above being mentioned during the ref campaign.
posted on 4/12/18
It's not like WTO rules is an immediate flick a switch trading fallback. With regard to tariffs, the UK trades with 24 countries and territories under WTO rules alone. With 68 others it has, as part of the EU, free trade agreements, either fully or partly in place, which all enable trade on better terms.
posted on 4/12/18
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 2 hours, 25 minutes ago
comment by Sid (U1868)
posted 24 seconds ago
Your analogy needs work.
Yes the referendum was an exercise in democracy.
People voted to either leave the EU or to stay in the EU.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most people (including MPs) didn't have the foggiest idea what that entailed. Nor did they have any concept of the trade offs the UKG would have to concede just to get a WA.
As these threads demonstrate, many people (years after the ref) still harbour misconceptions and untruths regarding the UK's relationship with the EU and wider global trade policy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a myth that is continually peddled.
Leaving the EU is a black and white decision. You leave the SM, CU. You end Freedom of Movement / existing immigration policy. You repatriate powers to implement law from EU back to UK.
What you’re conflating is the continued relationship. For example, what kind of intelligence strategy, what kind of trade deal, what kind of co-operation pacts etc. But all that is secondary to the act of leaving the institution itself.
What you are is someone who voted remain and have spent the last few years trying to tell anyone that disagreed with you that they didn’t really understand what they were doing.
We voted to leave and we have that mandate to the Government of the day to implement. If they fail to do this, it will be a failure to honour the result and not a failure of the ideology of Brexit itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a load of utter tripe.
It is not a black & white decision at all.
Or are you proposing that all expat Brits living in EU be repatriated against their will?
What about European Air traffic control, will we have to abide by their rules? If not how do you propose we travel say to Africa or UAE or far afield like China / Japan to work on these trade deals?
posted on 4/12/18
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 2 hours, 25 minutes ago
comment by Sid (U1868)
posted 24 seconds ago
Your analogy needs work.
Yes the referendum was an exercise in democracy.
People voted to either leave the EU or to stay in the EU.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most people (including MPs) didn't have the foggiest idea what that entailed. Nor did they have any concept of the trade offs the UKG would have to concede just to get a WA.
As these threads demonstrate, many people (years after the ref) still harbour misconceptions and untruths regarding the UK's relationship with the EU and wider global trade policy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a myth that is continually peddled.
Leaving the EU is a black and white decision. You leave the SM, CU. You end Freedom of Movement / existing immigration policy. You repatriate powers to implement law from EU back to UK.
What you’re conflating is the continued relationship. For example, what kind of intelligence strategy, what kind of trade deal, what kind of co-operation pacts etc. But all that is secondary to the act of leaving the institution itself.
What you are is someone who voted remain and have spent the last few years trying to tell anyone that disagreed with you that they didn’t really understand what they were doing.
We voted to leave and we have that mandate to the Government of the day to implement. If they fail to do this, it will be a failure to honour the result and not a failure of the ideology of Brexit itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you perceive leaving the EU to be a black and white decision because you aren't knowledgeable enough to understand our full relationship with it.
posted on 4/12/18
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/12/18
80 percent of NIs exports to the UK go through Dublin, so if leave means leave. Do they somehow in a matter of months magic up port infrastructure to cater for the UKs exit. Or do we just let their businesses collapse?
posted on 4/12/18
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 6 minutes ago
It's not like WTO rules is an immediate flick a switch trading fallback. With regard to tariffs, the UK trades with 24 countries and territories under WTO rules alone. With 68 others it has, as part of the EU, free trade agreements, either fully or partly in place, which all enable trade on better terms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Also worth noting that aside from FTA's we benefit from 700+ economic partnership agreements with countries all over the world.
Fruit and veg for example. We import oranges from Spain etc during the summer and then from south America / Africa (amongst others) during the winter months. All tariff free.
Which keeps foods prices down, and the shelves are stocked with seasonal produce nearly all year long.
posted on 4/12/18
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 hour, 54 minutes ago
comment by Sid (U1868)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Sid (U1868)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Colin Boylan (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sid (U1868)
posted 1 minute ago
Your analogy needs work.
Yes the referendum was an exercise in democracy.
People voted to either leave the EU or to stay in the EU.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How about if you picked the colour black over white (unlikely I know hohoho) but then I spent 2 years adding more white to the black until it was more white than black, you'd still stick with this now white colour as that's what you chose in the first place? You chose white?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I chose a black t-shirt over a white one the other day as I preferred the Darth vader one to a Stormtrooper one.
Do I win something now hohoho?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point that is, and which has been clearly made, (and I get that you don’t want to admit it) is why would you choose to pursue a particular course of action when (armed with greater knowledge) you knew it was self-defeating/destructive.
It seems some people do not believe in objective fact, they just believe in Brexit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I already explained, clearly, why I think we should leave the EU.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If I recall you mentioned the 2016 vote should be respected.
You didn't mention *why* given it's not what's on offer. If you voted Labour and the Tories took office instead would you not be in the slightest concerned?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes of course the results of a democratic vote should be upheld. What was voted for is to leave the EU and that’s what should happen although I have doubts that it will.
If I voted labour and the stories took office that would be because of the results of a democratic election and I would accept it.
posted on 4/12/18
SID
That's not the question I asked though. I think what you are saying is that there (as far as you are concerned) no mitigating circumstances which could ever render a decision injudicious.
Brexit for example was sold on the promise of taking back control of our laws, borders, and money. And an end to FoM (labour).
As the binding WA sets out, not a single one of those objectives will materialise, despite the fanfares from the PM.
posted on 4/12/18
So subvert democracy then.
It’s either enact the result or don’t.
posted on 4/12/18
And yes the WA is ridiculous.
posted on 4/12/18
comment by Sid (U1868)
posted 2 minutes ago
And yes the WA is ridiculous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But so blindingly obvious given the commitments already made to the GFA in phase one last December:
"The two Parties have carried out a mapping exercise, which shows that North-South cooperation relies to a significant extent on a common European Union legal and policy framework."
"The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the allisland economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement."
posted on 4/12/18
MPs are now voting on Conservative MP Dominic Grieve's amendment to the timetabling motion for the Brexit deal debate.
The amendment would allow any further motions voted on in the Commons under the EU Withdrawal Act to be amended.
For example, if the government has to table a new motion after losing the vote on the government's negotiated deal, MPs would be able to amend it....
Ayes have it...
Given the EU will not renegotiate current agreement, it's a bit moot is it not?
posted on 4/12/18
So 90 minutes later I return to the same mistakes being made.
You’re conflating the act of leaving of the EU to the future arrangements.
Leaving the EU is a black and white decision. How it’s achieved is something we put in the faith of the government.
As for WWSPD response. You strike me as having never encountered the seemingly obvious flaws in your comments. Take your EFTA example whereby you assume the possibility that people voting to leave the EU somehow also wanted to remain tied to the rulings of the ECJ (see EFTA court).
You want to convince leave voters that even though they argued for more sovereignty, they’d be prepared to sacrifice it for an EFTA agreement. I’m not buying that.
As for the Galileo project, I personally don’t think it applies to this debate. The EU is happy to be partners in some areas and not in others. I think it’s a disgrace on their part to state we can have no involvement in a project of which we were one of the primary funders.
The idea that because something is difficult that you simply accept the status quo is not something I stand for.
posted on 4/12/18
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 2 hours, 24 minutes ago
So 90 minutes later I return to the same mistakes being made.
You’re conflating the act of leaving of the EU to the future arrangements.
Leaving the EU is a black and white decision. How it’s achieved is something we put in the faith of the government.
As for WWSPD response. You strike me as having never encountered the seemingly obvious flaws in your comments. Take your EFTA example whereby you assume the possibility that people voting to leave the EU somehow also wanted to remain tied to the rulings of the ECJ (see EFTA court).
You want to convince leave voters that even though they argued for more sovereignty, they’d be prepared to sacrifice it for an EFTA agreement. I’m not buying that.
As for the Galileo project, I personally don’t think it applies to this debate. The EU is happy to be partners in some areas and not in others. I think it’s a disgrace on their part to state we can have no involvement in a project of which we were one of the primary funders.
The idea that because something is difficult that you simply accept the status quo is not something I stand for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you read the withdrawal agreement. It's hard going and a lot of it is legalese but it affirms the ECJ will provide comprehensive oversight over our judiciary.
Except we'll no longer have ECJ (UK judges) representation.
Whilst you may have interpreted a binary choice (leave/remain) as black and white the rest of the country has not. Hence why the UKG and parliament still can't reach a settled position.
You also misunderstand "sovereignty." In that no country that wishes to be "a global leader in free trade" can be completely sovereign. Trade liberalisation, mutual equivalence etc (regulatory allignment) are the building blocks of free trade. Any country (including the other two regulatory superpowers; China and the US) that wishes to export into the SM has to adhere to EU regulations. The UK included.
In regard to Galelio, due to funding problems China, Israel, Morocco, Norway have all been involved in it's development since 2003 but a motion by the UKrep that it should only be directly accessible to member states passed in 2009. This was to protect the likes of Airbus from being outbid by international companies.
Somewhat ironic that as a third country the UK will not be able to benefit from Galelio due to a motion we raised ourselves...
Brexit has certainly been (and will continue to be) difficult. But given the UK government's commitment to the GFA it now looks impossible.
In that if you honestly believe there will soon be technological, administrative and/or legal solutions to keep the Irish border open (to mitigate the backstop) without tying the UK and/or NI into a CU/SM you are kiding yourself. Or a member of the ERG.
posted on 5/12/18
So it transpires that this Irish backstop thingy is a real sticking point and would tie the whole of the UK to the single customs territory indefinitely as neither side can withdraw from it without explicit consent from the other side.
As such the EU would have us over a barrel and could extend negotiations indefinitely. There would be nothing we could do about it except to cede to their demands.
With this in mind, the withdrawal agreement as it stands is totally unworkable and as such the only other options are a No-Dea- Brexit which is incompatible with the Good Friday agreement as it would require a hard border between Eire & NI. This hard border will break the Good Friday agreement which in turn will see the return of the 70s, 80s & 90s 'troubles' (terrorism to use the correct terminology). That is not a route we want to go down again but is a possibility.
The only other option is No-Brexit which goes against the will of the leave voters so I say, let the same leave voters have the final say on which of those 3 scenarios is more acceptable to them.
Brexit means what exactly?
posted on 5/12/18
*** No-Deal-Brexit ***
posted on 5/12/18
I caught a bit of the HoCs debates last night and Owen Paterson (ERG) is *still* spouting the falsehood that two separate customs entities can protect their external walls/borders (mitigating the need for checks) with “technology.”
Despite this technology not being utilised anywhere else in the world. He used to be NI secretary ffs so should at least have a basic understanding of the province.
Page 5 of 5