EU 'cannot rely on UK to stick to Brexit deal' because of cabinet divisions

[MM]

"Former Irish PM John Bruton accuses British government of being
hopelessly divided and says timetable for talks is too tight

"The battle within the cabinet to replace Theresa May as prime
minister has left the UK an unreliable negotiating partner in the
Brexit talks, unable to convince the EU that it will stick to any
agreement it strikes, a former Irish prime minister has said.

"Speaking to business leaders in Brussels, John Bruton accused the
British government of being hopelessly divided, and offering only a
vague and impractical vision of what might come once the UK leaves the
bloc in 2019."


"In a withering response, however, the European commission’s chief
spokesman told reporters in Brussels that there was 'clear sequencing'
to the talks and 'no solution' had been found to move the talks on
from the opening withdrawal issues. 'The ball is entirely in the UK’s
court for the rest to happen', the spokesman said.

"The EU is refusing to address issues relating to a future trading
relationship with the UK until sufficient progress is made on the
issues of citizens rights, the Irish border and, perhaps most
problematically, the UK’s financial settlement.

"Asked about the absence of the Brexit secretary, David Davis, from
the first day of the fifth round of negotiations starting on Monday,
the spokesman added: 'The European commission article 50 team is
available 24/7. The timing of talks depends on the availability of our
UK partners. We are always here and we are ready.'

"The comments suggest there is little hope in Brussels that there will
be progress in the negotiations this week. In Bruton’s address on
Monday, the former Irish prime minister said he feared that the
time-scale allowed under article 50 was simply too severe to allow for
the negotiations to prosper. The EU, he said, was necessarily
inflexible in its approach to the talks as it needed to determine its
position by agreement in 27 European capitals.

"This time-consuming process left a real risk of disaster as a
transition period would also be difficult to negotiate, he said. The
UK would have left the customs union and there could be need for
protracted talks with both the EU and the WTO in order to organise a
new temporary arrangement.

"Bruton further warned that a deal on what EU regulations and
directives would apply in the UK could additionally require
ratification by all the member states, and their parliaments. He said
the UK could find itself out of the EU in April 2019 before the
transition deal has been ratified by all countries, meaning the deal
would be inoperable.. "
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/09/eu-cannot-rely-on-uk-to-stick-to-brexit-deal-because-of-cabinet-divisions

So David Davis didn't turn up? Ryanair flight cancelled?

MM

[Handsome Jack]

Post by MM
"Former Irish PM John Bruton accuses British government of being
hopelessly divided and says timetable for talks is too tight
"The battle within the cabinet to replace Theresa May as prime
minister has left the UK an unreliable negotiating partner in the
Brexit talks, unable to convince the EU that it will stick to any
agreement it strikes, a former Irish prime minister has said.
"Speaking to business leaders in Brussels, John Bruton accused the
British government of being hopelessly divided, and offering only a
vague and impractical vision of what might come once the UK leaves the
bloc in 2019."
"In a withering response, however, the European commission’s chief
spokesman told reporters in Brussels that there was 'clear sequencing'
to the talks and 'no solution' had been found to move the talks on
from the opening withdrawal issues. 'The ball is entirely in the UK’s
court for the rest to happen', the spokesman said.
"The EU is refusing to address issues relating to a future trading
relationship with the UK until sufficient progress is made on the
issues of citizens rights, the Irish border and, perhaps most
problematically, the UK’s financial settlement.
"Asked about the absence of the Brexit secretary, David Davis, from
the first day of the fifth round of negotiations starting on Monday,
the spokesman added: 'The European commission article 50 team is
available 24/7. The timing of talks depends on the availability of our
UK partners. We are always here and we are ready.'
"The comments suggest there is little hope in Brussels that there will
be progress in the negotiations this week. In Bruton’s address on
Monday, the former Irish prime minister said he feared that the
time-scale allowed under article 50 was simply too severe to allow for
the negotiations to prosper. The EU, he said, was necessarily
inflexible in its approach to the talks as it needed to determine its
position by agreement in 27 European capitals.
"This time-consuming process left a real risk of disaster as a
transition period would also be difficult to negotiate, he said. The
UK would have left the customs union and there could be need for
protracted talks with both the EU and the WTO in order to organise a
new temporary arrangement.
"Bruton further warned that a deal on what EU regulations and
directives would apply in the UK could additionally require
ratification by all the member states, and their parliaments. He said
the UK could find itself out of the EU in April 2019 before the
transition deal has been ratified by all countries, meaning the deal
would be inoperable.. "
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/09/eu-cannot-rely-on-uk-to
-stick-to-brexit-deal-because-of-cabinet-divisions
So David Davis didn't turn up? Ryanair flight cancelled?

It's more that the entire article is a load of bollocks from start to
finish.

[Altroy1]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by MM
"Former Irish PM John Bruton accuses British government of being
hopelessly divided and says timetable for talks is too tight
"The battle within the cabinet to replace Theresa May as prime
minister has left the UK an unreliable negotiating partner in the
Brexit talks, unable to convince the EU that it will stick to any
agreement it strikes, a former Irish prime minister has said.
"Speaking to business leaders in Brussels, John Bruton accused the
British government of being hopelessly divided, and offering only a
vague and impractical vision of what might come once the UK leaves the
bloc in 2019."
"In a withering response, however, the European commission’s chief
spokesman told reporters in Brussels that there was 'clear sequencing'
to the talks and 'no solution' had been found to move the talks on
from the opening withdrawal issues. 'The ball is entirely in the UK’s
court for the rest to happen', the spokesman said.
"The EU is refusing to address issues relating to a future trading
relationship with the UK until sufficient progress is made on the
issues of citizens rights, the Irish border and, perhaps most
problematically, the UK’s financial settlement.
"Asked about the absence of the Brexit secretary, David Davis, from
the first day of the fifth round of negotiations starting on Monday,
the spokesman added: 'The European commission article 50 team is
available 24/7. The timing of talks depends on the availability of our
UK partners. We are always here and we are ready.'
"The comments suggest there is little hope in Brussels that there will
be progress in the negotiations this week. In Bruton’s address on
Monday, the former Irish prime minister said he feared that the
time-scale allowed under article 50 was simply too severe to allow for
the negotiations to prosper. The EU, he said, was necessarily
inflexible in its approach to the talks as it needed to determine its
position by agreement in 27 European capitals.
"This time-consuming process left a real risk of disaster as a
transition period would also be difficult to negotiate, he said. The
UK would have left the customs union and there could be need for
protracted talks with both the EU and the WTO in order to organise a
new temporary arrangement.
"Bruton further warned that a deal on what EU regulations and
directives would apply in the UK could additionally require
ratification by all the member states, and their parliaments. He said
the UK could find itself out of the EU in April 2019 before the
transition deal has been ratified by all countries, meaning the deal
would be inoperable.. "
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/09/eu-cannot-rely-on-uk-to
-stick-to-brexit-deal-because-of-cabinet-divisions
So David Davis didn't turn up? Ryanair flight cancelled?

It's more that the entire article is a load of bollocks from start to
finish.

The idea that there would be no exit bill is starting to look as safe and sound
as that weekly £350 million to the NHS lying battlebus.

By the way, on Twitter over the weekend I read former No 10 advisor Nick J
Timothy rubbishing the idea of customs checks being placed on the Irish Sea
post-Brexit.

Fair enough. But why then was the like of Daniel J Hannan waxing lyrical during
the EU referendum campaign that the CTA meant no re-introduction of the border.
The EU is asking the UK to provide more details on how it can leave the Customs
Union and still retain the frictionless border on the Island of Ireland. Any
proposal so far that could retain the frictionless border has apparently been
rejected by Timothy et al, the DUP and others. Perhaps Hannan can come up with
something. Meanwhile that article was NOT bollocks.

[Handsome Jack]

Post by Altroy1
By the way, on Twitter over the weekend I read former No 10 advisor
Nick J Timothy rubbishing the idea of customs checks being placed on
the Irish Sea post-Brexit.
Fair enough. But why then was the like of Daniel J Hannan waxing
lyrical during the EU referendum campaign that the CTA meant no
re-introduction of the border.

Dunno. It doesn't matter, since nobody gives a fuck about Daniel Hannan.

Post by Altroy1
The EU is asking the UK to provide more details on how it can leave the
Customs Union and still retain the frictionless border on the Island of
Ireland. Any proposal so far that could retain the frictionless border
has apparently been rejected by Timothy et al, the DUP and others.

Apparently?

Timothy who? You mean the *former* advisor?

Post by Altroy1
Perhaps Hannan can come up with something. Meanwhile that article was
NOT bollocks.

[Altroy1]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Altroy1
By the way, on Twitter over the weekend I read former No 10 advisor
Nick J Timothy rubbishing the idea of customs checks being placed on
the Irish Sea post-Brexit.
Fair enough. But why then was the like of Daniel J Hannan waxing
lyrical during the EU referendum campaign that the CTA meant no
re-introduction of the border.

Dunno. It doesn't matter, since nobody gives a fuck about Daniel Hannan.

Exept BOJO and other members of the great and the good that are signed up to
Hannan's bonfire of the regulations Free Trade Institute thinktank.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/28/boris-johnson-charged-with-breaching-ministerial-code-over-thinktank-launch

And Catalan independence an opportunity to take yet another pop at the hated EU:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/daniel-hannan-why-the-eu-can-never-accept-an-independent-catalonia/article/2636650

I doubt whether Hannan has either the wit nor inclination to rewrite
substituting the words "Catalonia" and "Catalan" with "Scotland" and "Scottish".

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Altroy1
The EU is asking the UK to provide more details on how it can leave
the Customs Union and still retain the frictionless border on the
Island of Ireland. Any proposal so far that could retain the
frictionless border has apparently been rejected by Timothy et al, the
DUP and others.

Apparently?
Timothy who? You mean the *former* advisor?

That's what I above wrote and thank you for quoting correctly.

Still plenty of influence it seems, https://twitter.com/NickJTimothy.

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Altroy1
Perhaps Hannan can come up with something. Meanwhile that article was
NOT bollocks.

Still no arrangement acceptable to all of Timothy, May, the DUP, the Irish
Government and the EU that preserves the Good Friday agreement whilst the UK
exits the Customs Union. Hannan might be able to pull a big fat white rabbit out
of a hat (if not then from a big red lying battlebus). Don't hold your breath
waiting.

[Norman Wells]

Post by MM
"Former Irish PM John Bruton accuses British government of being
hopelessly divided and says timetable for talks is too tight
"The EU is refusing to address issues relating to a future trading
relationship with the UK until sufficient progress is made on the
issues of citizens rights, the Irish border and, perhaps most
problematically, the UK’s financial settlement.

Yes, '*the EU* is refusing to address issues'.

Not the UK's fault, is it?

Post by MM
"Asked about the absence of the Brexit secretary, David Davis, from
the first day of the fifth round of negotiations starting on Monday,
the spokesman added: 'The European commission article 50 team is
available 24/7. The timing of talks depends on the availability of our
UK partners. We are always here and we are ready.'

But not to discuss what needs to be discussed apparently.

Post by MM
"The comments suggest there is little hope in Brussels that there will
be progress in the negotiations this week. In Bruton’s address on
Monday, the former Irish prime minister said he feared that the
time-scale allowed under article 50 was simply too severe to allow for
the negotiations to prosper. The EU, he said, was necessarily
inflexible in its approach to the talks as it needed to determine its
position by agreement in 27 European capitals.

Then it needs to get on with it, not make excuses.

The UK is ready and able to negotiate.

Post by MM
"This time-consuming process left a real risk of disaster as a
transition period would also be difficult to negotiate, he said. The
UK would have left the customs union and there could be need for
protracted talks with both the EU and the WTO in order to organise a
new temporary arrangement.
"Bruton further warned that a deal on what EU regulations and
directives would apply in the UK could additionally require
ratification by all the member states, and their parliaments. He said
the UK could find itself out of the EU in April 2019 before the
transition deal has been ratified by all countries, meaning the deal
would be inoperable.. "
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/09/eu-cannot-rely-on-uk-to-stick-to-brexit-deal-because-of-cabinet-divisions

What he's admitting is effectively that the EU is impossible to
negotiate with. It can't be nimble, it can't be quick, and its own
Article 50 timetable is hopeless. It's a dinosaur, and the sooner we're
divorced from it the better.

[Altroy1]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by MM
"Former Irish PM John Bruton accuses British government of being

[...]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by MM
"This time-consuming process left a real risk of disaster as a
transition period would also be difficult to negotiate, he said. The
UK would have left the customs union and there could be need for
protracted talks with both the EU and the WTO in order to organise a
new temporary arrangement.
"Bruton further warned that a deal on what EU regulations and
directives would apply in the UK could additionally require
ratification by all the member states, and their parliaments. He said
the UK could find itself out of the EU in April 2019 before the
transition deal has been ratified by all countries, meaning the deal
would be inoperable.. "
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/09/eu-cannot-rely-on-uk-to-stick-to-brexit-deal-because-of-cabinet-divisions

What he's admitting is effectively that the EU is impossible to
negotiate with. It can't be nimble, it can't be quick, and its own
Article 50 timetable is hopeless. It's a dinosaur, and the sooner we're
divorced from it the better.

The UK may have some legitimate grievances regarding the exit bill. The EU has
obligations to mutually agree the terms and could be using this matter to apply
pressure much as the matter of currency union was once used to apply pressure to
separatists in Scotland.

However the Good Friday agreement is a different matter. The Good Friday
agreement includes a frictionless border. The UK however has decided to leave
the Customs Union. It states that leaving the Customs Union is essential if the
UK is to leave the EU. How Turkey is in the Customs Union but not the EU is not
something to be explained right now.

Anyway, the UK has chosen to LEAVE the Customs Union. It is therefore incumbent
on it to explain to the EU how it is to comply with the Good Friday agreement at
the same time. The EU says that customs checks are required between a CU member
and non CU member state. One proposal is to move the customs checks to the Irish
sea. That has been rejected by the party that May depends on to keep her job. It
is accordingly for the Brexiteers to come up with another solution or at least
have the decency to notify Ireland and the EU that they are reneging on the Good
Friday Agreement.

Some of these malcontents simply refuse to Shut the Fckk up. Forgetting about
Scotland for a few minutes provides yet another opportunity to badmouth the EU
and the EU's reluctance to encourage separatism in in its member states:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/daniel-hannan-why-the-eu-can-never-accept-an-independent-catalonia/article/2636650

Imagine how it would go down in the Conservative and Unionist party if the like
of Hannan had written about the wicked EU not accepting an independent Scotland
and you get the picture. It is for these badmouthers of the EU to come up with a
solution. The EU is right to hold up trade talks until they do.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Altroy1
Imagine how it would go down in the Conservative and Unionist party if
the like of Hannan had written about the wicked EU not accepting an
independent Scotland and you get the picture. It is for these
badmouthers of the EU to come up with a solution. The EU is right to
hold up trade talks until they do.

It isn't, because the two are not linked. Discussions on both could
easily proceed in parallel.

[Altroy1]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Altroy1
Imagine how it would go down in the Conservative and Unionist party if
the like of Hannan had written about the wicked EU not accepting an
independent Scotland and you get the picture. It is for these
badmouthers of the EU to come up with a solution. The EU is right to
hold up trade talks until they do.

It isn't, because the two are not linked. Discussions on both could
easily proceed in parallel.

Maybe you have not learned that international relationships are about interests
not friendships. The UK would have played hardball with Scotland had it played
footsie with separatism. Spain is putting pressure on Catalonia with money being
taken out of banks and threats to move or close some of them. The EU is playing
hardball. There is no obligation on the EU to conduct parallel negotiations.
Dominic Cummings, leave campaign co-ordinator, has admitted that Turkey and
immigration played a big part, along with that lying battlebus, in the success
of leave. Hopefully the opinion pollsters will look into this but I suspect
enough leave voters would be satisfied by control of immigration and therefore
remain in the Customs Union. The drive to leave the Customs Union is to satisfy
those like Daniel "God bless America" Hannan and the free traders that believe
America loves them and a free trade paradise beckons. Boy have they got a lot to
learn.

Meanwhile since leaving the Customs Union may mean breaking promises under the
Good Friday Agreement, the EU is right to request clarification before other
talks begin.



"America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests"

- Henry Kissinger


We have no eternal allies, and we have not perpetual
enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those
interests it is our duty to follow.

Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston

[tim...]

Post by Altroy1

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Altroy1
Imagine how it would go down in the Conservative and Unionist party if
the like of Hannan had written about the wicked EU not accepting an
independent Scotland and you get the picture. It is for these
badmouthers of the EU to come up with a solution. The EU is right to
hold up trade talks until they do.

It isn't, because the two are not linked. Discussions on both could
easily proceed in parallel.

Maybe you have not learned that international relationships are about interests

As we will be the EU largest trading partner outside the block it IS in
their interest to discuss a trade deal with us

they have spent the last 15 years trying to make trade deals with the other
10 largest counties with which they trade and almost always failing (Canada
being the exception)

why would they have spent all this time and effort on a fruitless end result
if they didn't think it was in their interests to try?

tim

[Altroy1]

Post by tim...

Post by Altroy1

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Altroy1
Imagine how it would go down in the Conservative and Unionist party
if the like of Hannan had written about the wicked EU not accepting
an independent Scotland and you get the picture. It is for these
badmouthers of the EU to come up with a solution. The EU is right to
hold up trade talks until they do.

It isn't, because the two are not linked. Discussions on both could
easily proceed in parallel.

Maybe you have not learned that international relationships are about interests

As we will be the EU largest trading partner outside the block it IS in
their interest to discuss a trade deal with us

No. It is not just economic interests. It would have been in the UK's economic
interest to allow an independent Scotland full use of the Pound and unfettered
access to the UK's single market. But it would not have been in the political
interest, not least fueling separatism in Wales or elsewhere. Accordingly a
tough "walk away from the UK and you walk away from the Pound" message was
delivered.

It is not in the EU's political interest to give the UK the kind of deal which
will allow Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen and such likeminded to wax lyrical about
the prosperity that awaits should their countries leave the EU.

Post by tim...
they have spent the last 15 years trying to make trade deals with the
other 10 largest counties with which they trade and almost always
failing (Canada being the exception)

Fairly quick compared with countries that have tried and failed to get a free
trade deal with awkward, protectionist, free movement insisting, non EU member
India.

Post by tim...
why would they have spent all this time and effort on a fruitless end
result if they didn't think it was in their interests to try?
tim

[tim...]

Post by Altroy1

Post by tim...

Post by Altroy1

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Altroy1
Imagine how it would go down in the Conservative and Unionist party if
the like of Hannan had written about the wicked EU not accepting an
independent Scotland and you get the picture. It is for these
badmouthers of the EU to come up with a solution. The EU is right to
hold up trade talks until they do.

It isn't, because the two are not linked. Discussions on both could
easily proceed in parallel.

Maybe you have not learned that international relationships are about interests

As we will be the EU largest trading partner outside the block it IS in
their interest to discuss a trade deal with us

No. It is not just economic interests. It would have been in the UK's
economic interest to allow an independent Scotland full use of the Pound

No it wouldn't

because having done so the BoE would have had to underwrite the Scottish
Banks without having any control over the economy that they operated in.

You cannot equate our situation with Scotland leaving the UK because there
is no suggestion here that we are expecting the European Bank to support
ours.

That fact that you don't know this just shows how poor your understanding of
the position is here.

Post by Altroy1
and unfettered access to the UK's single market.

I am sure that we would have agreed that - subject to them having their own
currency

Why would we not?

Post by Altroy1
But it would not have been in the political interest, not least fueling
separatism in Wales or elsewhere. Accordingly a tough "walk away from the
UK and you walk away from the Pound" message was delivered.

because that was absolutely necessary

but it was for sound fiscal reasons.

Not because of any threats to the trading position

Post by Altroy1
It is not in the EU's political interest to give the UK the kind of deal
which will allow Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen and such likeminded to wax
lyrical about the prosperity that awaits should their countries leave the
EU.

Well it might be

But does anybody really see either of these things actually happening?

Post by Altroy1

Post by tim...
they have spent the last 15 years trying to make trade deals with the
other 10 largest counties with which they trade and almost always failing
(Canada being the exception)

Fairly quick compared with countries that have tried and failed to get a
free trade deal with awkward, protectionist, free movement insisting, non
EU member India.

10 years to get to no deal is fairly quick before deciding to give up?

what's the point of that?

tim

[Altroy1]

[....]

Post by tim...

Post by Altroy1
No. It is not just economic interests. It would have been in the UK's
economic interest to allow an independent Scotland full use of the Pound

No it wouldn't
because having done so the BoE would have had to underwrite the Scottish
Banks without having any control over the economy that they operated in.

Wrong. UK to Independent Scotland: Yes you can use the Pound. Here are the
conditions. Sort out your banks. We will help you. All we ask in return is for
some nice cheap oil.....

Post by tim...
You cannot equate our situation with Scotland leaving the UK because
there is no suggestion here that we are expecting the European Bank to
support ours.
That fact that you don't know this just shows how poor your
understanding of the position is here.

No what I disagreed on was the primary reason why the door was firmly shut on
Scotland using the pound. An independent Scotland could have been allowed to use
the pound. With Scottish independence Article 50 type negotiations, the stronger
party would explain to the separatist state what the share of it's debt was. If
Scotland sank under the weight of that debt it could always ask for
re-admittance to the UK. The UK does not have to worry about some other
country's debt merely because it uses the pound as its currency if it negotiates
properly and requires appropriate measures. That would probably limit how really
independent Scotland could become. Pay your debts and UK exit bill, Scotland,
then satisfy us that using the pound will not adversely its international value,
and you can leave and keep using the pound. If your banks fail, that will be
your problem not ours. So sort out your over reliance on banking or you will end
up like Venezuela and don't come crying to us for help.

Post by tim...

Post by Altroy1
and unfettered access to the UK's single market.

I am sure that we would have agreed that - subject to them having their
own currency
Why would we not?

Post by Altroy1
But it would not have been in the political interest, not least
fueling separatism in Wales or elsewhere. Accordingly a tough "walk
away from the UK and you walk away from the Pound" message was delivered.

because that was absolutely necessary
but it was for sound fiscal reasons.
Not because of any threats to the trading position

Post by Altroy1
It is not in the EU's political interest to give the UK the kind of
deal which will allow Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen and such likeminded
to wax lyrical about the prosperity that awaits should their countries
leave the EU.

Well it might be
But does anybody really see either of these things actually happening?

Yes. If the UK exits the EU to trade as much as it wants with the Commonwealth
and Land of the Free without being subject to EU farming, fishing, employment
and other standards it can undercut the EU states domestic industry unless the
EU imposes tariffs.

For example if the UK adopted the Land of the Free's chicken farming standards
(but had a FTA with the Single Market so that it could export willy-nilly the
chlorine chickens to the SM) then it could undercut continental farmers that
being in the EU had to comply with higher standards.

If Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders a see a non EU country with unfettered access
to the Single Market whilst trading tariff free with the Commonwealth then they
just might be finding it a little easier to get hold of more votes and join the
separatist dream. Both countries have former colonies.

Therefore the UK Brexit negotiators can choose a FTA with for example the
Commonwealth or the SM. Unlikely to be offered both.

Post by tim...

Post by Altroy1

Post by tim...
they have spent the last 15 years trying to make trade deals with the
other 10 largest counties with which they trade and almost always
failing (Canada being the exception)

Fairly quick compared with countries that have tried and failed to get
a free trade deal with awkward, protectionist, free movement
insisting, non EU member India.

10 years to get to no deal is fairly quick before deciding to give up?
what's the point of that?

Some blame the EU for the time these deals take. I'm thinking of the PITA
India's been lately. Anyway think of the time NAFTA took. Make America Great
Again doesn't like NAFTA depsite the years taken negotiating and is now
demanding changes. And NAFTA is more or less just between 3 countries. Trade
deals take years of haggling. The idea that exiting the EU means trade deals
after a few weeks of talking is a delusion in my understanding.

Post by tim...
tim

[MM]

Post by tim...

Post by Altroy1

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Altroy1
Imagine how it would go down in the Conservative and Unionist party if
the like of Hannan had written about the wicked EU not accepting an
independent Scotland and you get the picture. It is for these
badmouthers of the EU to come up with a solution. The EU is right to
hold up trade talks until they do.

It isn't, because the two are not linked. Discussions on both could
easily proceed in parallel.

Maybe you have not learned that international relationships are about interests

As we will be the EU largest trading partner outside the block it IS in
their interest to discuss a trade deal with us

But they only sell around 4% of their goods to us? We sell 44% to
them. Why, then, is it *their* interest? Sure, it is ~somewhat~ in
their interest, but it's far more in *our* interest.

MM

[Handsome Jack]

Post by MM

Post by tim...
As we will be the EU largest trading partner outside the block it IS in
their interest to discuss a trade deal with us

But they only sell around 4% of their goods to us?

Rubbish. It is at least 8%, and more like 18% if you include in the
baseline only those EU exports that actually leave the EU, rather than
just going from one EU country to another.

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/

[MM]

Post by Altroy1
Boy have they got a lot to
learn.

300% true.

MM

[tim...]

Post by Altroy1

Post by MM
"Former Irish PM John Bruton accuses British government of being

[...]

Post by MM
"This time-consuming process left a real risk of disaster as a
transition period would also be difficult to negotiate, he said. The
UK would have left the customs union and there could be need for
protracted talks with both the EU and the WTO in order to organise a
new temporary arrangement.
"Bruton further warned that a deal on what EU regulations and
directives would apply in the UK could additionally require
ratification by all the member states, and their parliaments. He said
the UK could find itself out of the EU in April 2019 before the
transition deal has been ratified by all countries, meaning the deal
would be inoperable.. "
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/09/eu-cannot-rely-on-uk-to-stick-to-brexit-deal-because-of-cabinet-divisions

What he's admitting is effectively that the EU is impossible to negotiate
with. It can't be nimble, it can't be quick, and its own Article 50
timetable is hopeless. It's a dinosaur, and the sooner we're divorced
from it the better.

The UK may have some legitimate grievances regarding the exit bill. The EU
has obligations to mutually agree the terms and could be using this matter
to apply pressure much as the matter of currency union was once used to
apply pressure to separatists in Scotland.
However the Good Friday agreement is a different matter. The Good Friday
agreement includes a frictionless border. The UK however has decided to
leave the Customs Union. It states that leaving the Customs Union is
essential if the UK is to leave the EU. How Turkey is in the Customs Union
but not the EU is not something to be explained right now.
Anyway, the UK has chosen to LEAVE the Customs Union. It is therefore
incumbent on it to explain to the EU how it is to comply with the Good
Friday agreement at the same time.

so we leave the EU, agree to leave the border open and TELL the EU that it
is their problem to sort out

As I have said before you CANNOT use the GFA as an overriding reason why we
cannot exercise out LAWFUL right to leave the EU, and if they wish to make
it so, that's their problem, not ours.

Post by Altroy1
The EU says that customs checks are required between a CU member and non
CU member state.

but that's their problem

they can't bind a non member by this rule, only their own members.

and as it the THEM that doesn't want there to be an RoI-NI border it is
THEIR problem to solve.

Post by Altroy1
One proposal is to move the customs checks to the Irish sea. That has been
rejected

as is our RIGHT - they cannot impose a solution on us to solve THEIR
problem.

Post by Altroy1
by the party that May depends on to keep her job. It is accordingly for
the Brexiteers to come up with another solution

NO IT IS NOT

Post by Altroy1
or at least have the decency to notify Ireland

We have had the decency to notify Ireland of our plans and told then what
our preferred solution is (a full trade agreement with the EU that makes the
NI border problem go away. But that are refusing to even discuss how this
might work). As they have seemingly rejected our perfectly reasonable
suggestion this is now THEIR problem.

tim

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by tim...

Post by Altroy1

Post by MM
"Former Irish PM John Bruton accuses British government of being

[...]

Post by MM
"This time-consuming process left a real risk of disaster as a
transition period would also be difficult to negotiate, he said. The
UK would have left the customs union and there could be need for
protracted talks with both the EU and the WTO in order to organise a
new temporary arrangement.
"Bruton further warned that a deal on what EU regulations and
directives would apply in the UK could additionally require
ratification by all the member states, and their parliaments. He said
the UK could find itself out of the EU in April 2019 before the
transition deal has been ratified by all countries, meaning the deal
would be inoperable.. "
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/09/eu-cannot-rely-on-uk-to-stick-to-brexit-deal-because-of-cabinet-divisions

What he's admitting is effectively that the EU is impossible to negotiate
with. It can't be nimble, it can't be quick, and its own Article 50
timetable is hopeless. It's a dinosaur, and the sooner we're divorced
from it the better.

The UK may have some legitimate grievances regarding the exit bill. The EU
has obligations to mutually agree the terms and could be using this matter
to apply pressure much as the matter of currency union was once used to
apply pressure to separatists in Scotland.
However the Good Friday agreement is a different matter. The Good Friday
agreement includes a frictionless border. The UK however has decided to
leave the Customs Union. It states that leaving the Customs Union is
essential if the UK is to leave the EU. How Turkey is in the Customs Union
but not the EU is not something to be explained right now.
Anyway, the UK has chosen to LEAVE the Customs Union. It is therefore
incumbent on it to explain to the EU how it is to comply with the Good
Friday agreement at the same time.

so we leave the EU, agree to leave the border open and TELL the EU that it
is their problem to sort out
As I have said before you CANNOT use the GFA as an overriding reason why we
cannot exercise out LAWFUL right to leave the EU, and if they wish to make
it so, that's their problem, not ours.

Post by Altroy1
The EU says that customs checks are required between a CU member and non
CU member state.

but that's their problem
they can't bind a non member by this rule, only their own members.
and as it the THEM that doesn't want there to be an RoI-NI border it is
THEIR problem to solve.

Post by Altroy1
One proposal is to move the customs checks to the Irish sea. That has been
rejected

as is our RIGHT - they cannot impose a solution on us to solve THEIR
problem.

Post by Altroy1
by the party that May depends on to keep her job. It is accordingly for
the Brexiteers to come up with another solution

NO IT IS NOT

Post by Altroy1
or at least have the decency to notify Ireland

We have had the decency to notify Ireland of our plans and told then what
our preferred solution is (a full trade agreement with the EU that makes the
NI border problem go away. But that are refusing to even discuss how this
might work). As they have seemingly rejected our perfectly reasonable
suggestion this is now THEIR problem.
tim

We have a perfectly reasonable working solution to the Irish border. I drove over it back in the 90's and the customs posts were abandoned. It is still working just fine now apart from a bit of smuggling of red diesel.

It is the UK that wants to change how it works - how can this be anyone else's problem?

[tim...]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by tim...

Post by Altroy1

Post by MM
"Former Irish PM John Bruton accuses British government of being

[...]

Post by MM
"This time-consuming process left a real risk of disaster as a
transition period would also be difficult to negotiate, he said. The
UK would have left the customs union and there could be need for
protracted talks with both the EU and the WTO in order to organise a
new temporary arrangement.
"Bruton further warned that a deal on what EU regulations and
directives would apply in the UK could additionally require
ratification by all the member states, and their parliaments. He said
the UK could find itself out of the EU in April 2019 before the
transition deal has been ratified by all countries, meaning the deal
would be inoperable.. "
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/09/eu-cannot-rely-on-uk-to-stick-to-brexit-deal-because-of-cabinet-divisions

What he's admitting is effectively that the EU is impossible to negotiate
with. It can't be nimble, it can't be quick, and its own Article 50
timetable is hopeless. It's a dinosaur, and the sooner we're divorced
from it the better.

The UK may have some legitimate grievances regarding the exit bill. The EU
has obligations to mutually agree the terms and could be using this matter
to apply pressure much as the matter of currency union was once used to
apply pressure to separatists in Scotland.
However the Good Friday agreement is a different matter. The Good Friday
agreement includes a frictionless border. The UK however has decided to
leave the Customs Union. It states that leaving the Customs Union is
essential if the UK is to leave the EU. How Turkey is in the Customs Union
but not the EU is not something to be explained right now.
Anyway, the UK has chosen to LEAVE the Customs Union. It is therefore
incumbent on it to explain to the EU how it is to comply with the Good
Friday agreement at the same time.

so we leave the EU, agree to leave the border open and TELL the EU that it
is their problem to sort out
As I have said before you CANNOT use the GFA as an overriding reason why we
cannot exercise out LAWFUL right to leave the EU, and if they wish to make
it so, that's their problem, not ours.

Post by Altroy1
The EU says that customs checks are required between a CU member and non
CU member state.

but that's their problem
they can't bind a non member by this rule, only their own members.
and as it the THEM that doesn't want there to be an RoI-NI border it is
THEIR problem to solve.

Post by Altroy1
One proposal is to move the customs checks to the Irish sea. That has been
rejected

as is our RIGHT - they cannot impose a solution on us to solve THEIR
problem.

Post by Altroy1
by the party that May depends on to keep her job. It is accordingly for
the Brexiteers to come up with another solution

NO IT IS NOT

Post by Altroy1
or at least have the decency to notify Ireland

We have had the decency to notify Ireland of our plans and told then what
our preferred solution is (a full trade agreement with the EU that makes the
NI border problem go away. But that are refusing to even discuss how this
might work). As they have seemingly rejected our perfectly reasonable
suggestion this is now THEIR problem.
tim

We have a perfectly reasonable working solution to the Irish border. I
drove over it back in the 90's and the customs posts were abandoned. It
is still working just fine now apart from a bit of smuggling of red
diesel.
It is the UK that wants to change how it works - how can this be anyone else's problem?

No it's the EU who want to change how it works

I suspect the UK would be quite happy with an "open" border with us outside
of the EU with regulatory checks on goods performed on an "honesty" basis
(which is effectively how it works now)

it's the EU that doesn't like that and wants something different

tim



customes checsk



it is the

[R. Mark Clayton]

SNIP

Post by tim...

Post by R. Mark Clayton
It is the UK that wants to change how it works - how can this be anyone else's problem?

No it's the EU who want to change how it works

From what to what?

It is the UK that is changing / wants to change "how it works", in particular by NOT being in the customs union goods might be imported duty free into the UK and then smuggled into the EU.

Post by tim...
I suspect the UK would be quite happy with an "open" border with us outside
of the EU with regulatory checks on goods performed on an "honesty" basis
(which is effectively how it works now)

I am sure the UK, Ireland and EU would be very happy with it working as it does now, BUT

Post by tim...
it's the EU that doesn't like that and wants something different

WHO wants something different - who gave notice, who says they will also leave the single market and customs union. You can't be simultaneously in a customs union and not in a customs union.

Stop trying to pretend that it is the EU that is seeking to change the relationship.

Post by tim...
tim
customes checsk
it is the

[tim...]

Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP

Post by tim...

Post by R. Mark Clayton
It is the UK that wants to change how it works - how can this be anyone
else's problem?

No it's the EU who want to change how it works

From what to what?
It is the UK that is changing / wants to change "how it works", in
particular by NOT being in the customs union

As is out right when leaving

for the umpteen the time

you cannot use the fact that we have exercised our lawful/contractual right
to leave to make this out fault.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
goods might be imported duty free into the UK and then smuggled into the
EU.

Yes they might

and as this border is to be left open at the EU's request that is a problem
of THEIR making.

It has been caused by them insisting that the border remains open, not by us
leaving.

it is therefore their responsible to make the necessary compromises to find
a solution to the problem that they have created.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by tim...
I suspect the UK would be quite happy with an "open" border with us outside
of the EU with regulatory checks on goods performed on an "honesty" basis
(which is effectively how it works now)

I am sure the UK, Ireland and EU would be very happy with it working as it does now, BUT

Post by tim...
it's the EU that doesn't like that and wants something different

WHO wants something different - who gave notice, who says they will also
leave the single market and customs union.

as is out lawful right

exercising this right does not make this our fault.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Stop trying to pretend that it is the EU that is seeking to change the relationship.

But they are

They are insisting on a solution that would not be the universally accepted
solution to this problem.

Thus it is THEM changing the relationship.

tim

[MM]

Post by tim...
I suspect the UK would be quite happy with an "open" border with us outside
of the EU with regulatory checks on goods performed on an "honesty" basis
(which is effectively how it works now)

Like the way we don't count how many people are entering or leaving
the country?

MM

[Altroy1]

tim... wrote:
[...]

Post by tim...

Post by Altroy1
However the Good Friday agreement is a different matter. The Good
Friday agreement includes a frictionless border. The UK however has
decided to leave the Customs Union. It states that leaving the Customs
Union is essential if the UK is to leave the EU. How Turkey is in the
Customs Union but not the EU is not something to be explained right now.
Anyway, the UK has chosen to LEAVE the Customs Union. It is therefore
incumbent on it to explain to the EU how it is to comply with the Good
Friday agreement at the same time.

so we leave the EU, agree to leave the border open and TELL the EU that
it is their problem to sort out

Leave the CU and the EU can still set up its own customs and tariff barriers and
thus the UK will have to follow suit otherwise the EU would export tariff free
but not vice-versa. So no, such a suggestion won't wash.

Post by tim...
As I have said before you CANNOT use the GFA as an overriding reason why
we cannot exercise out LAWFUL right to leave the EU, and if they wish to
make it so, that's their problem, not ours.

Leaving the Customs Union ordinarily entails the setting up customs and
paperwork between the CU and outside states. By default that will entail customs
checks and paperwork aplenty along the 300 mile land frontier between UK and
Ireland. There is a silver lining. Plenty of jobs for pen pushing jobsworths and
busybodies will be on offer turning the Ireland border area, Dover, Harwich etc
into low unemployment paradises. Get off that bicycle right now. Empty your
pockets! Where did you get that watch? If we catch you with anything that you
have not declared, we will confiscate the lot and fine you at least £1,000.

But if your point is really that the UK can unilaterally renege on part of the
GFA I think I would agree with you. However countries planning to join the
Patel/BOJO/Hannan/Moggmentum war on regulations utopia may think twice about
joining up with countries that break their word.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tory-party-conference-boris-johnson-brexiteers-florence-speech-nicky-morgan-undermining-a7975806.html

The UK Government should be focusing on getting the UK out of
the EU in the least damaging way, not debating arbitrary red
lines set down to try to curry favour with those who want a
utopian ultra free trade, low tax, minimal regulation state.
Those who are pushing this agenda have no place in a responsible
government - it is a dereliction of their duty to act in the
national interest. And it has to stop.

Post by tim...

Post by Altroy1
The EU says that customs checks are required between a CU member and
non CU member state.

but that's their problem

It is the problem of the weaker party that is going to learn the hard way that
the ultra protectionist, tariff-imposing Land of the Free is not going going to
admit the UK the day after Brexit into a laissez-faire low regulation free trade
paradise.

Post by tim...
they can't bind a non member by this rule, only their own members.
and as it the THEM that doesn't want there to be an RoI-NI border it is
THEIR problem to solve.

It is not for the stronger party to resolve anything. The EU is not demanding
the GFA and Border issues to be sorted out because it is inherent in the EU's
economics that it needs to be sorted out. It is merely stating that substantive
trade talks will not commence until the matter is resolved. The UK can walk away
from this process at anytime. However rather than walk away and adopt BOJO's
solemnly promised "independence day" a two or more year transition period
following the alleged independence day under full jurisdiction of the CJEU beckons.

Unlike the blond-haired clown, David Davis has some dignity and integrity. He
probably figures that India and the Land of Hope and Glory aren't planning to
join up day-one with the UK to do away with employee and human rights and
institute a free trade bonfire of the regulations Adam Smith free trade
no-tariff utopia.

Post by tim...

Post by Altroy1
One proposal is to move the customs checks to the Irish sea. That has
been rejected

as is our RIGHT - they cannot impose a solution on us to solve THEIR
problem.

So why hasn't the UK walked away? Hint: it isnt just the EU's problem and to
argue otherwise is to play pretend.

Post by tim...

Post by Altroy1
by the party that May depends on to keep her job. It is accordingly
for the Brexiteers to come up with another solution

NO IT IS NOT

Post by Altroy1
or at least have the decency to notify Ireland

We have had the decency to notify Ireland of our plans and told then
what our preferred solution is (a full trade agreement with the EU that
makes the NI border problem go away. But that are refusing to even
discuss how this might work). As they have seemingly rejected our
perfectly reasonable suggestion this is now THEIR problem.

There is nothing at all reasonable about the Patel/Hannan/BOJO/Moggmentum plan
to setup a regulation lite, free trade, laissez-faire capitalist utopia and then
expect the EU to bow down and allow this privatise everything in sight including
the NHS utopia to free-trade export and undercut the EU's higher employment,
agriculture and other standards. That is neither morally nor economically justified.

The UK would not allow Scotland to separate, become a low tax Adam Smith low
wage no rights utopia, yet continue to use Pound Sterling with unfettered access
to the UK market.

Post by tim...
tim

[Handsome Jack]

Post by Altroy1
But if your point is really that the UK can unilaterally renege on part
of the GFA I think I would agree with you.

Where in the Good Friday Agreement does it say that the UK-Eire border
must be open to free movement of goods?

[tim...]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Altroy1
But if your point is really that the UK can unilaterally renege on part of
the GFA I think I would agree with you.

Where in the Good Friday Agreement does it say that the UK-Eire border
must be open to free movement of goods?

I'd like to know that too

but I'm working on the assumption that he is right

But as I have caught him misunderstanding other things twice now, perhaps he
*is* wrong

tim

[Altroy1]

Post by tim...

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Altroy1
But if your point is really that the UK can unilaterally renege on
part of the GFA I think I would agree with you.

Where in the Good Friday Agreement does it say that the UK-Eire border
must be open to free movement of goods?

I'd like to know that too

Just Google for the relevant details and you will know.

Post by tim...
but I'm working on the assumption that he is right
But as I have caught him misunderstanding other things twice now,
perhaps he *is* wrong
tim

[Handsome Jack]

Post by Altroy1

Post by tim...

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Altroy1
But if your point is really that the UK can unilaterally renege on
part of the GFA I think I would agree with you.

Where in the Good Friday Agreement does it say that the UK-Eire
border must be open to free movement of goods?

I'd like to know that too

Just Google for the relevant details and you will know.

Nope. Not an answer.

[Altroy1]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Altroy1
But if your point is really that the UK can unilaterally renege on
part of the GFA I think I would agree with you.

Where in the Good Friday Agreement does it say that the UK-Eire border
must be open to free movement of goods?

Thank you for your question. I am NOT unfortunately a constitutional lawyer nor
party to any of the protocols and agreements set up under the GFA. I would like
to draw your attention to the wording from me above which you quoted. Note the
refence to "part of the GFA".

The GFA is a broad container, that is it is a framework,which relates to the CTA
and other agreements inclusing the Single European Act / Masstricht Treaty & so
on that sets out the constitutional and inter-governmental process for the
implementation of various north-south/east-west protocols. Among those is are
the strand two cross boder bodies and north-south ministerial council:

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/today/good_friday/full_text.html

11. The implementation bodies will have a clear operational remit. They
will implement on an all-island and cross-border basis policies agreed in
the Council.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement#History_of_implementation

During the Troubles in Northern Ireland, there were British military
checkpoints on main border crossings and UK security forces made the
remaining crossings impassable. By about 2005, in phase with
implementation of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, remaining controls were
definitively removed.

As stated I am not party to and have not read the various agreements and
protocols. I'm sure you could spend more time than I and find out more. No need
to bother as it is clear from the statements of David Davis, the PM, and others
that it is accepted the GFA in its totality includes the customless border:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/latest-no-uk-clarity-on-brexit-responsibilities-for-ireland-says-michel-barnier-806974.html

The British Prime Minister said: "The UK government, the Irish government
and the EU as a whole have been clear that through the process of our
withdrawal we will protect progress made in Northern Ireland over recent
years - and the lives and livelihoods that depend on this progress.

"As part of this, we and the EU have committed to protecting the Belfast
Agreement and the Common Travel Area and, looking ahead, we have both
stated explicitly that we will not accept any physical infrastructure at
the border.

"We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland - and indeed to everyone on
the island of Ireland - to see through these commitments."

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/eu-affairs/20170925STO84610/brexit-the-impact-on-ireland

So the frictionless border appears to have arisen from mutual commitments
connected to the GFA.

[Handsome Jack]

Post by Altroy1

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Altroy1
But if your point is really that the UK can unilaterally renege on
part of the GFA I think I would agree with you.

Where in the Good Friday Agreement does it say that the UK-Eire
border must be open to free movement of goods?

Thank you for your question. I am NOT unfortunately a constitutional
lawyer nor party to any of the protocols and agreements set up under
the GFA. I would like to draw your attention to the wording from me
above which you quoted. Note the refence to "part of the GFA".
The GFA is a broad container, that is it is a framework,which relates
to the CTA and other agreements inclusing the Single European Act /
Masstricht Treaty & so on that sets out the constitutional and
inter-governmental process for the implementation of various
north-south/east-west protocols. Among those is are the strand two
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/today/good_friday/full_text.html
11. The implementation bodies will have a clear operational remit. They
will implement on an all-island and cross-border basis policies agreed in
the Council.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement#History_of_implementation
During the Troubles in Northern Ireland, there were British military
checkpoints on main border crossings and UK security forces made the
remaining crossings impassable. By about 2005, in phase with
implementation of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, remaining controls were
definitively removed.
As stated I am not party to and have not read the various agreements
and protocols. I'm sure you could spend more time than I and find out
more. No need to bother as it is clear from the statements of David
Davis, the PM, and others that it is accepted the GFA in its totality

That's a long way of saying you don't know.

[Altroy1]

Handsome Jack wrote:

[...]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Altroy1

Post by Handsome Jack
Where in the Good Friday Agreement does it say that the UK-Eire border
must be open to free movement of goods?

[...]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Altroy1
As stated I am not party to and have not read the various agreements
and protocols. I'm sure you could spend more time than I and find out
more. No need to bother as it is clear from the statements of David
Davis, the PM, and others that it is accepted the GFA in its totality

That's a long way of saying you don't know.

Indeed, but as these talks progress then it may be clearer what the sticking
points are regarding the three main heads of discussion (or perhaps two if there
is now more or less agreement on the rights of EU and UK citizens after Brexit).

Perhaps a transcript or minutes of these discussions exist and these will be
published at a later date. Then, I could issue a better answer. Meanwhile it
does appear that all the parties accept a return to customs checks on the border
affects the GFA. By the way as both customs checks between GB and island of
Ireland and on the border don't seem to be too palatible to one or other
parties, obviously one solution would be for the UK to remain in the Customs
Union with a status similar to Turkey. Enough softer Brexit people may be
willing to accept taking back control of immigration but not to take back
control of bilateral trade deals e.g. with the USA once it becomes clearer that
any bilateral trade with MAGA is just changing one master for another anyway.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/latest-no-uk-clarity-on-brexit-responsibilities-for-ireland-says-michel-barnier-806974.html

The British Prime Minister said: "The UK government, the Irish government
and the EU as a whole have been clear that through the process of our
withdrawal we will protect progress made in Northern Ireland over recent
years - and the lives and livelihoods that depend on this progress.

"As part of this, we and the EU have committed to protecting the Belfast
Agreement and the Common Travel Area and, looking ahead, we have both
stated explicitly that we will not accept any physical infrastructure at
the border.

"We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland - and indeed to everyone on
the island of Ireland - to see through these commitments."

[tim...]

Post by Altroy1
[...]

Post by tim...

Post by Altroy1
However the Good Friday agreement is a different matter. The Good Friday
agreement includes a frictionless border. The UK however has decided to
leave the Customs Union. It states that leaving the Customs Union is
essential if the UK is to leave the EU. How Turkey is in the Customs
Union but not the EU is not something to be explained right now.
Anyway, the UK has chosen to LEAVE the Customs Union. It is therefore
incumbent on it to explain to the EU how it is to comply with the Good
Friday agreement at the same time.

so we leave the EU, agree to leave the border open and TELL the EU that
it is their problem to sort out

Leave the CU and the EU can still set up its own customs and tariff
barriers and thus the UK will have to follow suit otherwise the EU would
export tariff free but not vice-versa.

That is understood (though I don't accept it's a *must*)

Post by Altroy1
So no, such a suggestion won't wash.

But it is irrelevant to my suggestion (not that I actually made a
suggestion)

Post by Altroy1

Post by tim...
As I have said before you CANNOT use the GFA as an overriding reason why
we cannot exercise out LAWFUL right to leave the EU, and if they wish to
make it so, that's their problem, not ours.

Leaving the Customs Union ordinarily entails the setting up customs and
paperwork between the CU and outside states. By default that will entail
customs checks and paperwork aplenty along the 300 mile land frontier
between UK and Ireland. There is a silver lining. Plenty of jobs for pen
pushing jobsworths and busybodies will be on offer turning the Ireland
border area, Dover, Harwich etc into low unemployment paradises. Get off
that bicycle right now. Empty your pockets! Where did you get that watch?
If we catch you with anything that you have not declared, we will
confiscate the lot and fine you at least £1,000.
But if your point is really that the UK can unilaterally renege on part of
the GFA I think I would agree with you.

Well of course it can (if it is indeed reneging)

No Parliament can bind its successor, if a future Parliament wants to tear
up the GFA and take the consequences, it is perfectly entitled to do so.

Post by Altroy1
However countries planning to join the Patel/BOJO/Hannan/Moggmentum war on
regulations utopia may think twice about joining up with countries that
break their word.

Treaties change all over the world, all the time.

No long term harm is done.

Post by Altroy1
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tory-party-conference-boris-johnson-brexiteers-florence-speech-nicky-morgan-undermining-a7975806.html
The UK Government should be focusing on getting the UK out of
the EU in the least damaging way, not debating arbitrary red
lines set down to try to curry favour with those who want a
utopian ultra free trade, low tax, minimal regulation state.
Those who are pushing this agenda have no place in a responsible
government - it is a dereliction of their duty to act in the
national interest. And it has to stop.

Post by tim...

Post by Altroy1
The EU says that customs checks are required between a CU member and non
CU member state.

but that's their problem

It is the problem of the weaker party that is going to learn the hard way
that the ultra protectionist, tariff-imposing Land of the Free is not
going going to admit the UK the day after Brexit into a laissez-faire low
regulation free trade paradise.

Assuming you are talking about the US, what's that got to do with anything
here?

Post by Altroy1

Post by tim...
they can't bind a non member by this rule, only their own members.
and as it the THEM that doesn't want there to be an RoI-NI border it is
THEIR problem to solve.

It is not for the stronger party to resolve anything. The EU is not
demanding the GFA and Border issues to be sorted out because it is
inherent in the EU's economics that it needs to be sorted out. It is
merely stating that substantive trade talks will not commence until the
matter is resolved.

But how can they be

The viability of an open board depends upon whether or not there is a
meaningful trade deal

the idea that one can be agreed before the other is balderdash and nonsense
(nonsense deliberately put in place to ensure NO Deal, IMHO)

Post by Altroy1
The UK can walk away from this process at anytime. However rather than
walk away and adopt BOJO's solemnly promised "independence day" a two or
more year transition period following the alleged independence day under
full jurisdiction of the CJEU beckons.
Unlike the blond-haired clown, David Davis has some dignity and integrity.
He probably figures that India and the Land of Hope and Glory aren't
planning to join up day-one with the UK to do away with employee and human
rights and institute a free trade bonfire of the regulations Adam Smith
free trade no-tariff utopia.

Post by tim...

Post by Altroy1
One proposal is to move the customs checks to the Irish sea. That has
been rejected

as is our RIGHT - they cannot impose a solution on us to solve THEIR
problem.

So why hasn't the UK walked away? Hint: it isnt just the EU's problem and
to argue otherwise is to play pretend.

Post by tim...

Post by Altroy1
by the party that May depends on to keep her job. It is accordingly for
the Brexiteers to come up with another solution

NO IT IS NOT

Post by Altroy1
or at least have the decency to notify Ireland

We have had the decency to notify Ireland of our plans and told then what
our preferred solution is (a full trade agreement with the EU that makes
the NI border problem go away. But that are refusing to even discuss how
this might work). As they have seemingly rejected our perfectly
reasonable suggestion this is now THEIR problem.

There is nothing at all reasonable about the Patel/Hannan/BOJO/Moggmentum
plan to setup a regulation lite, free trade, laissez-faire capitalist
utopia and then

I agree

I don't believe for one minute it will happen

Not the least because, for a country the size of the UK, it wont work

It works for Singapore precisely because it is tiny (and has almost none of
its land given over to agriculture).

It doesn't scale up to the size of the UK

It's a not going to happen event

tim

[Altroy1]

[...]

Post by tim...

Post by Altroy1
Leave the CU and the EU can still set up its own customs and tariff
barriers and thus the UK will have to follow suit otherwise the EU
would export tariff free but not vice-versa.

That is understood (though I don't accept it's a *must*)

Almost a must. I'm sure the EU would LOVE to be able to export willy nilly
anything they like into the UK customs checkless whilst strict tariffs and miles
long queues the other way would keep french farmers happy as larry.

Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders would see what was going on and drop their plans
for regulation-lite take back control utopias in their respective countries.

Champagne corks popping aplenty in Brussels and Strasbourg.

Post by tim...

Post by Altroy1
So no, such a suggestion won't wash.

But it is irrelevant to my suggestion (not that I actually made a
suggestion)

Post by Altroy1

Post by tim...
As I have said before you CANNOT use the GFA as an overriding reason
why we cannot exercise out LAWFUL right to leave the EU, and if they
wish to make it so, that's their problem, not ours.

Leaving the Customs Union ordinarily entails the setting up customs
and paperwork between the CU and outside states. By default that will
entail customs checks and paperwork aplenty along the 300 mile land
frontier between UK and Ireland. There is a silver lining. Plenty of
jobs for pen pushing jobsworths and busybodies will be on offer
turning the Ireland border area, Dover, Harwich etc into low
unemployment paradises. Get off that bicycle right now. Empty your
pockets! Where did you get that watch? If we catch you with anything
that you have not declared, we will confiscate the lot and fine you at
least £1,000.
But if your point is really that the UK can unilaterally renege on
part of the GFA I think I would agree with you.

Well of course it can (if it is indeed reneging)
No Parliament can bind its successor, if a future Parliament wants to
tear up the GFA and take the consequences, it is perfectly entitled to
do so.

Yes. But the Land of Hope and Glory reneging on the Paris climate and Iran
nuclear deal appears not to be going down too well, even Mrs May apparently
makes that clear. When the Land of the Free unilaterally imposed a 300% tariff
on Bombardier, even the like of Daniel J Hannan is on YouTube criticising it.

So countries acting unilaterally may not be the most popular.

Post by tim...

Post by Altroy1
However countries planning to join the Patel/BOJO/Hannan/Moggmentum
war on regulations utopia may think twice about joining up with
countries that break their word.

Treaties change all over the world, all the time.
No long term harm is done.

And pigs can fly. High. Right up into the sky and beyond.

Post by tim...

Post by Altroy1
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tory-party-conference-boris-johnson-brexiteers-florence-speech-nicky-morgan-undermining-a7975806.html
The UK Government should be focusing on getting the UK out of
the EU in the least damaging way, not debating arbitrary red
lines set down to try to curry favour with those who want a
utopian ultra free trade, low tax, minimal regulation state.
Those who are pushing this agenda have no place in a responsible
government - it is a dereliction of their duty to act in the
national interest. And it has to stop.

Post by tim...

Post by Altroy1
The EU says that customs checks are required between a CU member and
non CU member state.

but that's their problem

It is the problem of the weaker party that is going to learn the hard
way that the ultra protectionist, tariff-imposing Land of the Free is
not going going to admit the UK the day after Brexit into a
laissez-faire low regulation free trade paradise.

Assuming you are talking about the US, what's that got to do with
anything here?

You (I think it was you, Havent tried to search) posted about the Land of the
Free's readiness for bilateral deals as alternate to EU membership and I pointed
out why Make America Great Again wants bilateral deals. Multilateral deals allow
weaker countries to line up and balance the power of the strong country a little
better. It is the Brexit case that a wonderful new world is out there away from
the shackles of the hated EU. And to replace the Single Market of 500 million
consumers bilaterals will have to be negotiated with big markets such as India
and the Land of the Free. And yes those countries will flog anything and
everything to the UK market but forget about vice-versa. When Boeing took
umbrage at an alleged subsidy to a contract to which it didn't even bid, it ran
crying to the USITC and now there's a 300% tariff. Think the Land of the Free's
going to put Make America Great Again's domestic jobs on the line in any
bilateral trade deal? Believe in the tooth fairy first, its more credible.

Post by tim...

Post by Altroy1

Post by tim...
they can't bind a non member by this rule, only their own members.
and as it the THEM that doesn't want there to be an RoI-NI border it
is THEIR problem to solve.

It is not for the stronger party to resolve anything. The EU is not
demanding the GFA and Border issues to be sorted out because it is
inherent in the EU's economics that it needs to be sorted out. It is
merely stating that substantive trade talks will not commence until
the matter is resolved.

But how can they be
The viability of an open board depends upon whether or not there is a
meaningful trade deal
the idea that one can be agreed before the other is balderdash and
nonsense (nonsense deliberately put in place to ensure NO Deal, IMHO)

Are you not reading the press releases carefully? The requirement is not that
the matter is completely or even substantially resolved, the term is "sufficient
progress". My understanding from the Barnier press releases is the UK hasn't
come near to something credible to explain how they can exit the Customs Union
yet preserve the CTA and GFA. Customs checks will have to be put somewhere but
the UK's negotiators aren't saying definitively where. The UK are agreeing no to
infrastructure on the border. The DUP , Nick J Timothy et al are saying no to
any internal UK customs border. So the EU are asking where are these customs
checks going to be? They are having to go somewhere. Tell us where and that will
enhance progress to substantive trade and customs talks which will settle how
much and to which goods will be subject to customs checks and tariffs.

[....]

Post by tim...

Post by Altroy1

Post by tim...

Post by Altroy1
or at least have the decency to notify Ireland

We have had the decency to notify Ireland of our plans and told then
what our preferred solution is (a full trade agreement with the EU
that makes the NI border problem go away. But that are refusing to
even discuss how this might work). As they have seemingly rejected
our perfectly reasonable suggestion this is now THEIR problem.

There is nothing at all reasonable about the
Patel/Hannan/BOJO/Moggmentum plan to setup a regulation lite, free
trade, laissez-faire capitalist utopia and then

I agree
I don't believe for one minute it will happen
Not the least because, for a country the size of the UK, it wont work

What you or I think doesn't count(unless as I have mentioned you are some kind
of high ranking polician or negotiator and aren't telling).

BOJO/Moggmentum/Hannan/Patel are thinking along these lines. John Major, a man
who has shared a cabinet table with people like this pointed out what their true
agenda was.

Post by tim...
It works for Singapore precisely because it is tiny (and has almost none
of its land given over to agriculture).

And because its neighbours buy goods which allows Singapore to pay and import
much of its food.

Post by tim...
It doesn't scale up to the size of the UK
It's a not going to happen event
tim

[MM]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by MM
"Former Irish PM John Bruton accuses British government of being
hopelessly divided and says timetable for talks is too tight
"The EU is refusing to address issues relating to a future trading
relationship with the UK until sufficient progress is made on the
issues of citizens rights, the Irish border and, perhaps most
problematically, the UK’s financial settlement.

Yes, '*the EU* is refusing to address issues'.

You left out the bit "until sufficient progress has been made... etc
etc".

Post by Norman Wells
Not the UK's fault, is it?

The bit you left out: "until sufficient progress has been made... etc
etc" is. The onus is on us to make sufficient progress.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by MM
"Asked about the absence of the Brexit secretary, David Davis, from
the first day of the fifth round of negotiations starting on Monday,
the spokesman added: 'The European commission article 50 team is
available 24/7. The timing of talks depends on the availability of our
UK partners. We are always here and we are ready.'

But not to discuss what needs to be discussed apparently.

Not to discuss future trading arrangements until sufficient progress
has been made on the first three principles. The EU *keeps* repeating
that simple truth, but the Brits still refuse to believe it.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by MM
"The comments suggest there is little hope in Brussels that there will
be progress in the negotiations this week. In Bruton’s address on
Monday, the former Irish prime minister said he feared that the
time-scale allowed under article 50 was simply too severe to allow for
the negotiations to prosper. The EU, he said, was necessarily
inflexible in its approach to the talks as it needed to determine its
position by agreement in 27 European capitals.

Then it needs to get on with it, not make excuses.
The UK is ready and able to negotiate.

So why are we keeping the EU guessing on the first three principles,
on which sufficient progress must be made before talks on future trade
agreements can start? I always thought trade agreements were vital to
Brexiters instead of piddling nit-picking over allowing EU citizens
resident in the UK the right to refer issues at contention to the
European Court of Justice. It's not as if we are asking such a
dispensation to apply to *British* citizens, too.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by MM
"This time-consuming process left a real risk of disaster as a
transition period would also be difficult to negotiate, he said. The
UK would have left the customs union and there could be need for
protracted talks with both the EU and the WTO in order to organise a
new temporary arrangement.
"Bruton further warned that a deal on what EU regulations and
directives would apply in the UK could additionally require
ratification by all the member states, and their parliaments. He said
the UK could find itself out of the EU in April 2019 before the
transition deal has been ratified by all countries, meaning the deal
would be inoperable.. "
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/09/eu-cannot-rely-on-uk-to-stick-to-brexit-deal-because-of-cabinet-divisions

What he's admitting is effectively that the EU is impossible to
negotiate with. It can't be nimble, it can't be quick, and its own
Article 50 timetable is hopeless. It's a dinosaur, and the sooner we're
divorced from it the better.

It took seven years for the deal with Canada to be negotiated. These
issues take time if they are to be done properly. We are trying to
rush the negotiations because Theresa May invoked Article 50 too soon.

MM

[Norman Wells]

Post by MM

Post by Norman Wells

Post by MM
"Former Irish PM John Bruton accuses British government of being
hopelessly divided and says timetable for talks is too tight
"The EU is refusing to address issues relating to a future trading
relationship with the UK until sufficient progress is made on the
issues of citizens rights, the Irish border and, perhaps most
problematically, the UK’s financial settlement.

Yes, '*the EU* is refusing to address issues'.

You left out the bit "until sufficient progress has been made... etc
etc".

Post by Norman Wells
Not the UK's fault, is it?

The bit you left out: "until sufficient progress has been made... etc
etc" is. The onus is on us to make sufficient progress.

No, it's on both sides. The EU is obliged to negotiate and conclude a
leaving agreement, according to its own Article 50. As long as they
keep mindlessly repeating the 'It is not sufficient' mantra when we
propose anything but not properly discussing it, they are not doing that.

It makes me think they will never consider sufficient progress to have
been made, and they will blame the UK for that when in fact it's their
intransigence and unwillingness to negotiate properly that is the problem.

Given the evident attitude of the EU, I think they do not want any
orderly exit at all

And that's very childish.

Post by MM

Post by Norman Wells

Post by MM
"Asked about the absence of the Brexit secretary, David Davis, from
the first day of the fifth round of negotiations starting on Monday,
the spokesman added: 'The European commission article 50 team is
available 24/7. The timing of talks depends on the availability of our
UK partners. We are always here and we are ready.'

But not to discuss what needs to be discussed apparently.

Not to discuss future trading arrangements until sufficient progress
has been made on the first three principles. The EU *keeps* repeating
that simple truth, but the Brits still refuse to believe it.

Silly concocted rules don't deserve to be followed. There is no reason
at all in fact why trade talks should not proceed in parallel.

Post by MM

Post by Norman Wells

Post by MM
"The comments suggest there is little hope in Brussels that there will
be progress in the negotiations this week. In Bruton’s address on
Monday, the former Irish prime minister said he feared that the
time-scale allowed under article 50 was simply too severe to allow for
the negotiations to prosper. The EU, he said, was necessarily
inflexible in its approach to the talks as it needed to determine its
position by agreement in 27 European capitals.

Then it needs to get on with it, not make excuses.
The UK is ready and able to negotiate.

So why are we keeping the EU guessing on the first three principles,
on which sufficient progress must be made before talks on future trade
agreements can start? I always thought trade agreements were vital to
Brexiters instead of piddling nit-picking over allowing EU citizens
resident in the UK the right to refer issues at contention to the
European Court of Justice. It's not as if we are asking such a
dispensation to apply to *British* citizens, too.

That is merely an example of an unrelated issue that should not be
delaying trade talks.

But the issue of the ECJ is not nit-picking. As that nice Mr Rees-Mogg
says, if we are still subject to the ECJ we haven't left the EU. It's a
matter of the sovereignty we voted for in the referendum.

Post by MM

Post by Norman Wells

Post by MM
"This time-consuming process left a real risk of disaster as a
transition period would also be difficult to negotiate, he said. The
UK would have left the customs union and there could be need for
protracted talks with both the EU and the WTO in order to organise a
new temporary arrangement.
"Bruton further warned that a deal on what EU regulations and
directives would apply in the UK could additionally require
ratification by all the member states, and their parliaments. He said
the UK could find itself out of the EU in April 2019 before the
transition deal has been ratified by all countries, meaning the deal
would be inoperable.. "
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/09/eu-cannot-rely-on-uk-to-stick-to-brexit-deal-because-of-cabinet-divisions

What he's admitting is effectively that the EU is impossible to
negotiate with. It can't be nimble, it can't be quick, and its own
Article 50 timetable is hopeless. It's a dinosaur, and the sooner we're
divorced from it the better.

It took seven years for the deal with Canada to be negotiated. These
issues take time if they are to be done properly. We are trying to
rush the negotiations because Theresa May invoked Article 50 too soon.

Parliament had to vote on it. Parliament did vote on it. By 498 to 114
it agreed to trigger Article 50. Mrs May could hardly ignore the will
of parliament so forcefully expressed, could she?

[Handsome Jack]

Post by MM
Not to discuss future trading arrangements until sufficient progress
has been made on the first three principles. The EU *keeps* repeating
that simple truth, but the Brits still refuse to believe it.

Why is that a "truth" rather than simply something the EU negotiators
have stated?