Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thing is i believe if we had gone the day after the vote and said thats it were leaving, and were happy to trade under wto rules come and see us when you want an fta we would now have it but hindsight is a wonderful thing" i think if you had done that we would have been 3 years into a recession right now..... and we would still be working under the most basic wto terms.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thing is i believe if we had gone the day after the vote and said thats it were leaving, and were happy to trade under wto rules come and see us when you want an fta we would now have it but hindsight is a wonderful thing" What are WTO rules? What would they mean? Do you know? Do you know what a WTO schedule is? Do you know how we get one? Do you know that we are being blocked from getting one by: Russia, USA, Australia and New Zealand? Not the EU. Why would a larger economic group come and ask us for an FTA? Will China come and ask us for one? Will Japan? Will the USA? Blindfolded hindsight added to genuine ignorance and jingoism is a foolish thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Michael Portillo has said the EU has made a big mistake "humiliating" us in the withdrawal agreement. Wonder what he thinks the US, China & India are going to do?" To use the full quote Portollo also said that looking back through history after you humiliate a country, following events never turn out well. Was a clear reference to Germany being humiliated signing the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WW1. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Michael Portillo has said the EU has made a big mistake "humiliating" us in the withdrawal agreement. Wonder what he thinks the US, China & India are going to do? To use the full quote Portollo also said that looking back through history after you humiliate a country, following events never turn out well. Was a clear reference to Germany being humiliated signing the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WW1. " Who cares about history - fake news - manipulated by elites! Suggest you watch the documentary on the foreign office - and see how the real world works.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Michael Portillo has said the EU has made a big mistake "humiliating" us in the withdrawal agreement. Wonder what he thinks the US, China & India are going to do?" If not getting your own way in a two-way negotiation is the new “humiliation”, we had better get used to lots of it in the future. “We are British and we should always have what we want.” Is not a negotiating technique that will work. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Michael Portillo has said the EU has made a big mistake "humiliating" us in the withdrawal agreement. Wonder what he thinks the US, China & India are going to do? To use the full quote Portollo also said that looking back through history after you humiliate a country, following events never turn out well. Was a clear reference to Germany being humiliated signing the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WW1. Who cares about history - fake news - manipulated by elites! Suggest you watch the documentary on the foreign office - and see how the real world works. "I suggest you watch the bbc This Week programme presented by Andrew Neil, which is where the full Portillo quote came from. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Michael Portillo has said the EU has made a big mistake "humiliating" us in the withdrawal agreement. Wonder what he thinks the US, China & India are going to do? To use the full quote Portollo also said that looking back through history after you humiliate a country, following events never turn out well. Was a clear reference to Germany being humiliated signing the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WW1. " i think you should go back and answer the question... what do you think China, India and the US are going to do.... unless you are the one person who still think trump is going to give the UK a super duper deal when we already have a trade profit with the US..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Michael Portillo has said the EU has made a big mistake "humiliating" us in the withdrawal agreement. Wonder what he thinks the US, China & India are going to do? To use the full quote Portollo also said that looking back through history after you humiliate a country, following events never turn out well. Was a clear reference to Germany being humiliated signing the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WW1. Who cares about history - fake news - manipulated by elites! Suggest you watch the documentary on the foreign office - and see how the real world works.
I suggest you watch the bbc This Week programme presented by Andrew Neil, which is where the full Portillo quote came from. "I am not disputing the full quote - I was emphasizing "his" view "humiliating " - his opinion of the withdrawal agreement - what did he expect? After being 45 years in the EU the UK had 0 negotiators of international level. I know your the "great one" - best at everything - but if you were in a fight against 27 others you wouldn't win! You would get overpowered - which is what has happened! This is a wake up call Great Britain has gone to Little Britain ". We have been losing our influence since the 1st world war. We have even lost our judge on the international court - first time ever - UN next? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Michael Portillo has said the EU has made a big mistake "humiliating" us in the withdrawal agreement. Wonder what he thinks the US, China & India are going to do? To use the full quote Portollo also said that looking back through history after you humiliate a country, following events never turn out well. Was a clear reference to Germany being humiliated signing the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WW1. Who cares about history - fake news - manipulated by elites! Suggest you watch the documentary on the foreign office - and see how the real world works.
I suggest you watch the bbc This Week programme presented by Andrew Neil, which is where the full Portillo quote came from.
I am not disputing the full quote - I was emphasizing "his" view "humiliating " - his opinion of the withdrawal agreement - what did he expect?
After being 45 years in the EU the UK had 0 negotiators of international level. I know your the "great one" - best at everything - but if you were in a fight against 27 others you wouldn't win! You would get overpowered - which is what has happened!
This is a wake up call Great Britain has gone to Little Britain ". We have been losing our influence since the 1st world war. We have even lost our judge on the international court - first time ever - UN next?"You're not quite getting what Portillo was hinting at though are you. After the humiliation of the signing of the treaty of Versailles then Germany re mobilised and knuckled down to work. They turned themselves around to become a great power to the point where they almost conquered the whole of Europe in WW2. Things didn't turn out too good for the ones who were doing the humiliating at the treaty of Versailles. Looking at it in this context Portillo was saying things may not turn out too good for the EU and it can be a turning point for the UK to move onto better things. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Michael Portillo has said the EU has made a big mistake "humiliating" us in the withdrawal agreement. Wonder what he thinks the US, China & India are going to do? To use the full quote Portollo also said that looking back through history after you humiliate a country, following events never turn out well. Was a clear reference to Germany being humiliated signing the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WW1. Who cares about history - fake news - manipulated by elites! Suggest you watch the documentary on the foreign office - and see how the real world works.
I suggest you watch the bbc This Week programme presented by Andrew Neil, which is where the full Portillo quote came from.
I am not disputing the full quote - I was emphasizing "his" view "humiliating " - his opinion of the withdrawal agreement - what did he expect?
After being 45 years in the EU the UK had 0 negotiators of international level. I know your the "great one" - best at everything - but if you were in a fight against 27 others you wouldn't win! You would get overpowered - which is what has happened!
This is a wake up call Great Britain has gone to Little Britain ". We have been losing our influence since the 1st world war. We have even lost our judge on the international court - first time ever - UN next?
You're not quite getting what Portillo was hinting at though are you. After the humiliation of the signing of the treaty of Versailles then Germany re mobilised and knuckled down to work. They turned themselves around to become a great power to the point where they almost conquered the whole of Europe in WW2. Things didn't turn out too good for the ones who were doing the humiliating at the treaty of Versailles. Looking at it in this context Portillo was saying things may not turn out too good for the EU and it can be a turning point for the UK to move onto better things.
"Who the fuck knew that the nazification of Germany Post WW1 was a positive thing with the outcomes we all know happened in the 2nd world war.. 
Yes they got of their arses but look at why and whom was doing the steering, its hardly something to praise or predict.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Michael Portillo has said the EU has made a big mistake "humiliating" us in the withdrawal agreement. Wonder what he thinks the US, China & India are going to do? If not getting your own way in a two-way negotiation is the new “humiliation”, we had better get used to lots of it in the future. “We are British and we should always have what we want.” Is not a negotiating technique that will work. " This.. We went into something with no preparation or planning for what was coming, people need to try and be honest but can't because they lack the objectivity as it doesn't suit their xenophobic agenda.. Because even if we had planned and had set up a department some years previous the current situation would largely be the same, we may not have had handled it quite so pathetically but the outcome was only and will only ever be within the parameters of the systems and agreements we helped to write and are signatories to.. That anyone still thinks it could be any different just because we are the UK is mind boggling.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We went into something with no preparation or planning for what was coming, people need to try and be honest but can't because they lack the objectivity as it doesn't suit their xenophobic agenda.. Because even if we had planned and had set up a department some years previous the current situation would largely be the same, we may not have had handled it quite so pathetically but the outcome was only and will only ever be within the parameters of the systems and agreements we helped to write and are signatories to.. That anyone still thinks it could be any different just because we are the UK is mind boggling.. " Yep. When Cameron won the 2015 General Election with a manifesto that included an EU referendum, he pursued the same tactics he had done with the Scottish referendum a year earlier. Then, UK Government departments were instructed NOT to make contingency plans for a Leave vote in Scotland. He survived that referendum. He did the same in 2015 and 2016 - instructed UK Government departments to make no contingency plans for a Leave vote. He did not survive that. So by the middle of 2016, the UK knew it was leaving the EU but had made absolutely no provision for it. Now, the regime that took over could have said: "The only outcome under control to deliver is a no-deal exit. It is not what we want. But we need to make that the planning assumption - plan for the worst and hope for the best." It seems the new regime, including the Brexit cheerleaders who filled the top jobs, did nothing. They assumed the EU would roll over and the UK could leave the EU while keeping the benefits of membership of the EU. They gambled and they lost. Again. So now the UK finds itself in a position where it is still unprepared for a no-deal exit. The UK Government knows that. So does the EU. Those negotiations might have been different if the UK was able to say it had put the infrastructure, systems and services in place for a no-deal exit, that our businesses all had contingency plans. We'd prefer something else, but if we need to leave without shaking hands we will. It did not, which made our hand in the negotiations very weak. It is a failure of governance on an astonishing scale. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Michael Portillo has said the EU has made a big mistake "humiliating" us in the withdrawal agreement. Wonder what he thinks the US, China & India are going to do? To use the full quote Portollo also said that looking back through history after you humiliate a country, following events never turn out well. Was a clear reference to Germany being humiliated signing the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WW1. " You are a silly man who makes silly points that undermine your own position. You claim that the UK has a strong negotiating position but somehow we've been humiliated. Germany was humiliated in the treaty of Versailles because they had absolutely no power. Germany was allowed to rearm because there was a very strong desire not to go to war again at the scale that had just been experienced. Appeasement came as a result of very recent slaughter on an unimaginable scale. The thirst for revenge came from feeding a narrative that Germany had been betrayed and would have won if not for that. There was also mass unemployment and economic chaos. You claim that there will be no economic chaos. That there is no shortage of jobs. You do, however, insist that everything is always someone else's fault. Will the USA, China Japan and India give us trade terms not favourable to them? Why should they not if the EU has managed to do it with such apparent ease? Are you, essentially, indicating that the UK should militarise and threatend Europe with war? Is that the consequence of the short-term problems that you predict as a consequence of a hard Brexit? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We went into something with no preparation or planning for what was coming, people need to try and be honest but can't because they lack the objectivity as it doesn't suit their xenophobic agenda.. Because even if we had planned and had set up a department some years previous the current situation would largely be the same, we may not have had handled it quite so pathetically but the outcome was only and will only ever be within the parameters of the systems and agreements we helped to write and are signatories to.. That anyone still thinks it could be any different just because we are the UK is mind boggling.. Yep. When Cameron won the 2015 General Election with a manifesto that included an EU referendum, he pursued the same tactics he had done with the Scottish referendum a year earlier. Then, UK Government departments were instructed NOT to make contingency plans for a Leave vote in Scotland. He survived that referendum. He did the same in 2015 and 2016 - instructed UK Government departments to make no contingency plans for a Leave vote. He did not survive that. So by the middle of 2016, the UK knew it was leaving the EU but had made absolutely no provision for it. Now, the regime that took over could have said: "The only outcome under control to deliver is a no-deal exit. It is not what we want. But we need to make that the planning assumption - plan for the worst and hope for the best." It seems the new regime, including the Brexit cheerleaders who filled the top jobs, did nothing. They assumed the EU would roll over and the UK could leave the EU while keeping the benefits of membership of the EU. They gambled and they lost. Again. So now the UK finds itself in a position where it is still unprepared for a no-deal exit. The UK Government knows that. So does the EU. Those negotiations might have been different if the UK was able to say it had put the infrastructure, systems and services in place for a no-deal exit, that our businesses all had contingency plans. We'd prefer something else, but if we need to leave without shaking hands we will. It did not, which made our hand in the negotiations very weak. It is a failure of governance on an astonishing scale. " All about money! Didn't want to spend any - what's the cheapest way as opposed to what's the best way! Hence hundreds of emails with the same template paragraphs! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Michael Portillo has said the EU has made a big mistake "humiliating" us in the withdrawal agreement. Wonder what he thinks the US, China & India are going to do? If not getting your own way in a two-way negotiation is the new “humiliation”, we had better get used to lots of it in the future. “We are British and we should always have what we want.” Is not a negotiating technique that will work. This.. We went into something with no preparation or planning for what was coming, people need to try and be honest but can't because they lack the objectivity as it doesn't suit their xenophobic agenda.. Because even if we had planned and had set up a department some years previous the current situation would largely be the same, we may not have had handled it quite so pathetically but the outcome was only and will only ever be within the parameters of the systems and agreements we helped to write and are signatories to.. That anyone still thinks it could be any different just because we are the UK is mind boggling.. " 100% right! We were full of bullshit! We were not going to show our hand.....We had no plan. The problem is the Looney extreme right wanted A50 triggered at all costs. Had we set up practical plans who knows what they would have given us deal wise? I don't think it would be that different - single market/CU is what they want to protect. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Portillo may be right, in feeling humiliated. But it is typical of Conservative arrogance to attribute the blame for that to Johnny Foreigner, rather than look inwards at your own ineptitude. The EU knew at the start of this the danger of British jingoism. It has played its hand very shrewdly. Unity across all 27. No divide and rule there. Always asking the May Government to set out what it wanted. Never getting any answer except platitudes - Brexit means Brexit, Red White and Blue Brexit and so on. With the exception perhaps of the deputy negotiator, who last week tried to rub British noses in it, the EU team has never gloated. " The EU has never gloated? Really? What was Donald Tusk doing on his instagram and twitter accounts just after the Saltzberg meeting then? I do agree with you that Theresa May and her chancellor Philip Hammond have handled the whole Brexit process appallingly. They are remainers after all. Real brexiters who believe in Brexit like Nigel Farage were saying 2 years ago that the government should be preparing solidly for a no deal outcome. Theresa May and Philip Hammond didn't listen. I honestly thought they would have learned their lesson from David Cameron's failure to prepare for a leave vote but alas it seems they learned nothing. Theresa May took personal responsibility for the negotiations away from David Davis and Dominic Raab along with her Europhile Brexit advisor Olly Robbins (who was instructing a Europhile civil service) and Philip Hammond refused point blank to release the necessary funds to prepare for a no deal. This is what you get when you have remainers at the head of government running Brexit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Portillo may be right, in feeling humiliated. But it is typical of Conservative arrogance to attribute the blame for that to Johnny Foreigner, rather than look inwards at your own ineptitude. The EU knew at the start of this the danger of British jingoism. It has played its hand very shrewdly. Unity across all 27. No divide and rule there. Always asking the May Government to set out what it wanted. Never getting any answer except platitudes - Brexit means Brexit, Red White and Blue Brexit and so on. With the exception perhaps of the deputy negotiator, who last week tried to rub British noses in it, the EU team has never gloated. The EU has never gloated? Really? What was Donald Tusk doing on his instagram and twitter accounts just after the Saltzberg meeting then? I do agree with you that Theresa May and her chancellor Philip Hammond have handled the whole Brexit process appallingly. They are remainers after all. Real brexiters who believe in Brexit like Nigel Farage were saying 2 years ago that the government should be preparing solidly for a no deal outcome. Theresa May and Philip Hammond didn't listen. I honestly thought they would have learned their lesson from David Cameron's failure to prepare for a leave vote but alas it seems they learned nothing. Theresa May took personal responsibility for the negotiations away from David Davis and Dominic Raab along with her Europhile Brexit advisor Olly Robbins (who was instructing a Europhile civil service) and Philip Hammond refused point blank to release the necessary funds to prepare for a no deal. This is what you get when you have remainers at the head of government running Brexit. " So predictable - as the saying goes "change the record" -we're getting bored! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Portillo may be right, in feeling humiliated. But it is typical of Conservative arrogance to attribute the blame for that to Johnny Foreigner, rather than look inwards at your own ineptitude. The EU knew at the start of this the danger of British jingoism. It has played its hand very shrewdly. Unity across all 27. No divide and rule there. Always asking the May Government to set out what it wanted. Never getting any answer except platitudes - Brexit means Brexit, Red White and Blue Brexit and so on. With the exception perhaps of the deputy negotiator, who last week tried to rub British noses in it, the EU team has never gloated. The EU has never gloated? Really? What was Donald Tusk doing on his instagram and twitter accounts just after the Saltzberg meeting then? I do agree with you that Theresa May and her chancellor Philip Hammond have handled the whole Brexit process appallingly. They are remainers after all. Real brexiters who believe in Brexit like Nigel Farage were saying 2 years ago that the government should be preparing solidly for a no deal outcome. Theresa May and Philip Hammond didn't listen. I honestly thought they would have learned their lesson from David Cameron's failure to prepare for a leave vote but alas it seems they learned nothing. Theresa May took personal responsibility for the negotiations away from David Davis and Dominic Raab along with her Europhile Brexit advisor Olly Robbins (who was instructing a Europhile civil service) and Philip Hammond refused point blank to release the necessary funds to prepare for a no deal. This is what you get when you have remainers at the head of government running Brexit. So predictable - as the saying goes "change the record" -we're getting bored!" The same can be said for the endless remoaning that goes on on here! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Portillo may be right, in feeling humiliated. But it is typical of Conservative arrogance to attribute the blame for that to Johnny Foreigner, rather than look inwards at your own ineptitude. The EU knew at the start of this the danger of British jingoism. It has played its hand very shrewdly. Unity across all 27. No divide and rule there. Always asking the May Government to set out what it wanted. Never getting any answer except platitudes - Brexit means Brexit, Red White and Blue Brexit and so on. With the exception perhaps of the deputy negotiator, who last week tried to rub British noses in it, the EU team has never gloated. The EU has never gloated? Really? What was Donald Tusk doing on his instagram and twitter accounts just after the Saltzberg meeting then? I do agree with you that Theresa May and her chancellor Philip Hammond have handled the whole Brexit process appallingly. They are remainers after all. Real brexiters who believe in Brexit like Nigel Farage were saying 2 years ago that the government should be preparing solidly for a no deal outcome. Theresa May and Philip Hammond didn't listen. I honestly thought they would have learned their lesson from David Cameron's failure to prepare for a leave vote but alas it seems they learned nothing. Theresa May took personal responsibility for the negotiations away from David Davis and Dominic Raab along with her Europhile Brexit advisor Olly Robbins (who was instructing a Europhile civil service) and Philip Hammond refused point blank to release the necessary funds to prepare for a no deal. This is what you get when you have remainers at the head of government running Brexit. " Thinking we were always getting a nondeal and preparing for a no deal suggests this was always the best deal we were going to get. In which case who cares who was leading the negotiations ... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thinking we were always getting a nondeal and preparing for a no deal suggests this was always the best deal we were going to get. In which case who cares who was leading the negotiations ..." for the last couple of years the brexcrement were bitching and wailing like sniveling shits that talk of 'no-deal' was just project fear and that 'no-deal' was impossible ... of course, sensible decent people knew they were lying cunts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Portillo may be right, in feeling humiliated. But it is typical of Conservative arrogance to attribute the blame for that to Johnny Foreigner, rather than look inwards at your own ineptitude. The EU knew at the start of this the danger of British jingoism. It has played its hand very shrewdly. Unity across all 27. No divide and rule there. Always asking the May Government to set out what it wanted. Never getting any answer except platitudes - Brexit means Brexit, Red White and Blue Brexit and so on. With the exception perhaps of the deputy negotiator, who last week tried to rub British noses in it, the EU team has never gloated. The EU has never gloated? Really? What was Donald Tusk doing on his instagram and twitter accounts just after the Saltzberg meeting then? I do agree with you that Theresa May and her chancellor Philip Hammond have handled the whole Brexit process appallingly. They are remainers after all. Real brexiters who believe in Brexit like Nigel Farage were saying 2 years ago that the government should be preparing solidly for a no deal outcome. Theresa May and Philip Hammond didn't listen. I honestly thought they would have learned their lesson from David Cameron's failure to prepare for a leave vote but alas it seems they learned nothing. Theresa May took personal responsibility for the negotiations away from David Davis and Dominic Raab along with her Europhile Brexit advisor Olly Robbins (who was instructing a Europhile civil service) and Philip Hammond refused point blank to release the necessary funds to prepare for a no deal. This is what you get when you have remainers at the head of government running Brexit. " So, bearing in mind that any deal that doesn't include us being in a Customs Union with the EU would require a backstop, what would be the rough details of the deal that some mythical, great BREXITER would have come up with. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want.' Michael Gove, April 2016 Discuss!" Personally I think it was just the same misguided brexit bullshit we've had to endure ever since. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We desperately need a no confidence vote by the Tories against Teresa May, and for her to lose. The likes of JRM or even BoJo would be better suited to shake things up, and get this nation ready for a no deal exit. I have decided not to engage the remoaners in here, as the pissing and moaning is never ending and quite frankly, bores me stupid. So, let’s tell the EU to stick any chance of a deal up their greecey arses. We will get a better chance of reversing this slump without giving those cunts billions of pounds and still having to live by their rules with no say in any of it: Fuck em!" BREXIT fanatic MP's had their chance to run for PM and most shat out , does that tell you anything ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I do agree with you that Theresa May and her chancellor Philip Hammond have handled the whole Brexit process appallingly. They are remainers after all. Real brexiters who believe in Brexit like Nigel Farage were saying 2 years ago that the government should be preparing solidly for a no deal outcome. Theresa May and Philip Hammond didn't listen. I honestly thought they would have learned their lesson from David Cameron's failure to prepare for a leave vote but alas it seems they learned nothing. " You and I are on the same wavelength. Mrs May is not a leader. Neither is Mr Corbyn. The country is devoid of leadership. Where, oh where, please. Step forward someone to lead us out this mess. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Portillo may be right, in feeling humiliated. But it is typical of Conservative arrogance to attribute the blame for that to Johnny Foreigner, rather than look inwards at your own ineptitude. The EU knew at the start of this the danger of British jingoism. It has played its hand very shrewdly. Unity across all 27. No divide and rule there. Always asking the May Government to set out what it wanted. Never getting any answer except platitudes - Brexit means Brexit, Red White and Blue Brexit and so on. With the exception perhaps of the deputy negotiator, who last week tried to rub British noses in it, the EU team has never gloated. The EU has never gloated? Really? What was Donald Tusk doing on his instagram and twitter accounts just after the Saltzberg meeting then? I do agree with you that Theresa May and her chancellor Philip Hammond have handled the whole Brexit process appallingly. They are remainers after all. Real brexiters who believe in Brexit like Nigel Farage were saying 2 years ago that the government should be preparing solidly for a no deal outcome. Theresa May and Philip Hammond didn't listen. I honestly thought they would have learned their lesson from David Cameron's failure to prepare for a leave vote but alas it seems they learned nothing. Theresa May took personal responsibility for the negotiations away from David Davis and Dominic Raab along with her Europhile Brexit advisor Olly Robbins (who was instructing a Europhile civil service) and Philip Hammond refused point blank to release the necessary funds to prepare for a no deal. This is what you get when you have remainers at the head of government running Brexit. So, bearing in mind that any deal that doesn't include us being in a Customs Union with the EU would require a backstop, what would be the rough details of the deal that some mythical, great BREXITER would have come up with." But answer comes there none. Like typical BREXITERS; full of reasons why everyone one else is doing it all wrong but no sensible, workable, plausible solutions of their own. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Portillo may be right, in feeling humiliated. But it is typical of Conservative arrogance to attribute the blame for that to Johnny Foreigner, rather than look inwards at your own ineptitude. The EU knew at the start of this the danger of British jingoism. It has played its hand very shrewdly. Unity across all 27. No divide and rule there. Always asking the May Government to set out what it wanted. Never getting any answer except platitudes - Brexit means Brexit, Red White and Blue Brexit and so on. With the exception perhaps of the deputy negotiator, who last week tried to rub British noses in it, the EU team has never gloated. The EU has never gloated? Really? What was Donald Tusk doing on his instagram and twitter accounts just after the Saltzberg meeting then? I do agree with you that Theresa May and her chancellor Philip Hammond have handled the whole Brexit process appallingly. They are remainers after all. Real brexiters who believe in Brexit like Nigel Farage were saying 2 years ago that the government should be preparing solidly for a no deal outcome. Theresa May and Philip Hammond didn't listen. I honestly thought they would have learned their lesson from David Cameron's failure to prepare for a leave vote but alas it seems they learned nothing. Theresa May took personal responsibility for the negotiations away from David Davis and Dominic Raab along with her Europhile Brexit advisor Olly Robbins (who was instructing a Europhile civil service) and Philip Hammond refused point blank to release the necessary funds to prepare for a no deal. This is what you get when you have remainers at the head of government running Brexit. So, bearing in mind that any deal that doesn't include us being in a Customs Union with the EU would require a backstop, what would be the rough details of the deal that some mythical, great BREXITER would have come up with. But answer comes there none. Like typical BREXITERS; full of reasons why everyone one else is doing it all wrong but no sensible, workable, plausible solutions of their own. " Oh, so sorry I'm not on here 24/7 at your beck and call to answer your posts. I've been out for a few hours, some of us don't live our lives on here and actually go out into the real world. As for your question no real Brexiter would've agreed to a backstop which would require a joint Uk/Eu decision for us to leave it. A real Brexiter would've either said no to a backstop altogether and if the EU don't like it we should have walked away from the table and prepared for no deal. Or a real Brexiter would have insisted on a backstop that we can leave unilaterally on our own. Again if the EU don't like it we walk away from the table and prepare solidly for no deal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Portillo may be right, in feeling humiliated. But it is typical of Conservative arrogance to attribute the blame for that to Johnny Foreigner, rather than look inwards at your own ineptitude. The EU knew at the start of this the danger of British jingoism. It has played its hand very shrewdly. Unity across all 27. No divide and rule there. Always asking the May Government to set out what it wanted. Never getting any answer except platitudes - Brexit means Brexit, Red White and Blue Brexit and so on. With the exception perhaps of the deputy negotiator, who last week tried to rub British noses in it, the EU team has never gloated. The EU has never gloated? Really? What was Donald Tusk doing on his instagram and twitter accounts just after the Saltzberg meeting then? I do agree with you that Theresa May and her chancellor Philip Hammond have handled the whole Brexit process appallingly. They are remainers after all. Real brexiters who believe in Brexit like Nigel Farage were saying 2 years ago that the government should be preparing solidly for a no deal outcome. Theresa May and Philip Hammond didn't listen. I honestly thought they would have learned their lesson from David Cameron's failure to prepare for a leave vote but alas it seems they learned nothing. Theresa May took personal responsibility for the negotiations away from David Davis and Dominic Raab along with her Europhile Brexit advisor Olly Robbins (who was instructing a Europhile civil service) and Philip Hammond refused point blank to release the necessary funds to prepare for a no deal. This is what you get when you have remainers at the head of government running Brexit. So, bearing in mind that any deal that doesn't include us being in a Customs Union with the EU would require a backstop, what would be the rough details of the deal that some mythical, great BREXITER would have come up with. But answer comes there none. Like typical BREXITERS; full of reasons why everyone one else is doing it all wrong but no sensible, workable, plausible solutions of their own. Oh, so sorry I'm not on here 24/7 at your beck and call to answer your posts. I've been out for a few hours, some of us don't live our lives on here and actually go out into the real world. As for your question no real Brexiter would've agreed to a backstop which would require a joint Uk/Eu decision for us to leave it. A real Brexiter would've either said no to a backstop altogether and if the EU don't like it we should have walked away from the table and prepared for no deal. Or a real Brexiter would have insisted on a backstop that we can leave unilaterally on our own. Again if the EU don't like it we walk away from the table and prepare solidly for no deal. " No need to apologise, answering the question is enough. First of all I'm with you on the backstop. A backstop that we can't get out of leaves with less sovereignty and control than we currently have and leaves us with most of the obligations to the EU we currently have but with no say over any new obligations or removal of existing benefits. However, this is the problem, what use is a backstop if one side can unilaterally end the backstop before the problems that actually require the backstop in the first place are resolved. You also seem to be under the false impression that leaving with 'no deal' some how makes the border problem in Ireland go away. It doesn't, it just changes it from a problem we have to sort out with the EU 27 to a problem we have to sort out with the WTO 165. We've already discussed about the legal necessity of a border on the island of Ireland under WTO terms in order to avoid being sued for unfair trading but if we do introduce a manned customs border (and currently no other sort of customs border is available) then we are in violation of the GFA which also leaves us open to legal action being taken against us by the cosignatories (Ireland) or the guarantors (USA & EU). So even 'no deal' doesn't actually solve the problem. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Portillo may be right, in feeling humiliated. But it is typical of Conservative arrogance to attribute the blame for that to Johnny Foreigner, rather than look inwards at your own ineptitude. The EU knew at the start of this the danger of British jingoism. It has played its hand very shrewdly. Unity across all 27. No divide and rule there. Always asking the May Government to set out what it wanted. Never getting any answer except platitudes - Brexit means Brexit, Red White and Blue Brexit and so on. With the exception perhaps of the deputy negotiator, who last week tried to rub British noses in it, the EU team has never gloated. The EU has never gloated? Really? What was Donald Tusk doing on his instagram and twitter accounts just after the Saltzberg meeting then? I do agree with you that Theresa May and her chancellor Philip Hammond have handled the whole Brexit process appallingly. They are remainers after all. Real brexiters who believe in Brexit like Nigel Farage were saying 2 years ago that the government should be preparing solidly for a no deal outcome. Theresa May and Philip Hammond didn't listen. I honestly thought they would have learned their lesson from David Cameron's failure to prepare for a leave vote but alas it seems they learned nothing. Theresa May took personal responsibility for the negotiations away from David Davis and Dominic Raab along with her Europhile Brexit advisor Olly Robbins (who was instructing a Europhile civil service) and Philip Hammond refused point blank to release the necessary funds to prepare for a no deal. This is what you get when you have remainers at the head of government running Brexit. So, bearing in mind that any deal that doesn't include us being in a Customs Union with the EU would require a backstop, what would be the rough details of the deal that some mythical, great BREXITER would have come up with. But answer comes there none. Like typical BREXITERS; full of reasons why everyone one else is doing it all wrong but no sensible, workable, plausible solutions of their own. Oh, so sorry I'm not on here 24/7 at your beck and call to answer your posts. I've been out for a few hours, some of us don't live our lives on here and actually go out into the real world. As for your question no real Brexiter would've agreed to a backstop which would require a joint Uk/Eu decision for us to leave it. A real Brexiter would've either said no to a backstop altogether and if the EU don't like it we should have walked away from the table and prepared for no deal. Or a real Brexiter would have insisted on a backstop that we can leave unilaterally on our own. Again if the EU don't like it we walk away from the table and prepare solidly for no deal. " Except that the Cabinet has been chock full of "real Brexiteers" including the ones responsible for trade and Brexit and Foreign affairs who have all run away from the, now apparently, weak and hopeless Prime Minister whom you wanted us to unconditionally support. This is the Brexit that Brexit means. Stop moaning and get behind it. Stop talking your country down and being so negative. This was the best negotiating position possible. It's a crappy one. May has actually done as well as she could have. Deal with it  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Portillo may be right, in feeling humiliated. But it is typical of Conservative arrogance to attribute the blame for that to Johnny Foreigner, rather than look inwards at your own ineptitude. The EU knew at the start of this the danger of British jingoism. It has played its hand very shrewdly. Unity across all 27. No divide and rule there. Always asking the May Government to set out what it wanted. Never getting any answer except platitudes - Brexit means Brexit, Red White and Blue Brexit and so on. With the exception perhaps of the deputy negotiator, who last week tried to rub British noses in it, the EU team has never gloated. The EU has never gloated? Really? What was Donald Tusk doing on his instagram and twitter accounts just after the Saltzberg meeting then? I do agree with you that Theresa May and her chancellor Philip Hammond have handled the whole Brexit process appallingly. They are remainers after all. Real brexiters who believe in Brexit like Nigel Farage were saying 2 years ago that the government should be preparing solidly for a no deal outcome. Theresa May and Philip Hammond didn't listen. I honestly thought they would have learned their lesson from David Cameron's failure to prepare for a leave vote but alas it seems they learned nothing. Theresa May took personal responsibility for the negotiations away from David Davis and Dominic Raab along with her Europhile Brexit advisor Olly Robbins (who was instructing a Europhile civil service) and Philip Hammond refused point blank to release the necessary funds to prepare for a no deal. This is what you get when you have remainers at the head of government running Brexit. So, bearing in mind that any deal that doesn't include us being in a Customs Union with the EU would require a backstop, what would be the rough details of the deal that some mythical, great BREXITER would have come up with. But answer comes there none. Like typical BREXITERS; full of reasons why everyone one else is doing it all wrong but no sensible, workable, plausible solutions of their own. Oh, so sorry I'm not on here 24/7 at your beck and call to answer your posts. I've been out for a few hours, some of us don't live our lives on here and actually go out into the real world. As for your question no real Brexiter would've agreed to a backstop which would require a joint Uk/Eu decision for us to leave it. A real Brexiter would've either said no to a backstop altogether and if the EU don't like it we should have walked away from the table and prepared for no deal. Or a real Brexiter would have insisted on a backstop that we can leave unilaterally on our own. Again if the EU don't like it we walk away from the table and prepare solidly for no deal. Except that the Cabinet has been chock full of "real Brexiteers" including the ones responsible for trade and Brexit and Foreign affairs who have all run away from the, now apparently, weak and hopeless Prime Minister whom you wanted us to unconditionally support. This is the Brexit that Brexit means. Stop moaning and get behind it. Stop talking your country down and being so negative. This was the best negotiating position possible. It's a crappy one. May has actually done as well as she could have. Deal with it "That's the big difference between remainers & leavers arguments Remainers arguments are based on facts as to what is actually possible to achieve but leavers simply brand it as project fear and giving in / rolling over. Leavers base their arguments on ideology & sound bites while totally ignoring facts on how the world works but act as though if they say something incorrect & impossible enough times will make it possible and for it to happen and happen now! BREXIT is the biggest war between fact & fiction I've ever known. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again if the EU don't like it we walk away from the table and prepare solidly for no deal. " Four months in which to do four years' work to get this country ready. Good luck. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again if the EU don't like it we walk away from the table and prepare solidly for no deal. Four months in which to do four years' work to get this country ready. Good luck. " Quite a lot of work has already gone into preparing for no deal already, in terms of planning and other measures, which the government laid out in the no deal papers released over the last couple of months. So we wouldn't exactly be starting from a base point of 4 months. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again if the EU don't like it we walk away from the table and prepare solidly for no deal. Four months in which to do four years' work to get this country ready. Good luck. Quite a lot of work has already gone into preparing for no deal already, in terms of planning and other measures, which the government laid out in the no deal papers released over the last couple of months. So we wouldn't exactly be starting from a base point of 4 months." I honestly think a No Deal scenario is so far from a possibility, BREXIT as a whole has far more chance of been scrapped than crashing out with no deal at all. My guess is either.. 1. May's deal gets through Parliament or 2. MP's vote the deal down, May then scrap's BREXIT citing there is no other way. From what I know there's far more remain MP's than leave MP's in Parliament. The MP's from leave area's won't publicly support remain for obvious reasons but by voting against May's deal if they know doing so will kill of BREXIT then they can collectively scrap BREXIT while saving face by the PM declaring BREXIT is over & not them personally. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again if the EU don't like it we walk away from the table and prepare solidly for no deal. Four months in which to do four years' work to get this country ready. Good luck. Quite a lot of work has already gone into preparing for no deal already, in terms of planning and other measures, which the government laid out in the no deal papers released over the last couple of months. So we wouldn't exactly be starting from a base point of 4 months." Published some papers yes. Needs a bit more than paper this. Unless its cracks you are papering. Infrastructure, systems, services, resources. What about all the producers who must redesign their packaging by March 29? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again if the EU don't like it we walk away from the table and prepare solidly for no deal. Four months in which to do four years' work to get this country ready. Good luck. Quite a lot of work has already gone into preparing for no deal already, in terms of planning and other measures, which the government laid out in the no deal papers released over the last couple of months. So we wouldn't exactly be starting from a base point of 4 months." the point is two thing... 1) the EU have had the same technical notices going out for their people for the last 12-18 months (remember you saying you were not interested in what the EU were telling their people about what would happen because it didn't come from from the UK government).... well guess what? a lot of people did because the notices in essence were telling you the same things! 2) your beloved ERG group were actually trying to stop the UK government from publishing the technical notices for fear of "scaring people".... and when they were released you still get accused of project fear!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again if the EU don't like it we walk away from the table and prepare solidly for no deal. Four months in which to do four years' work to get this country ready. Good luck. Quite a lot of work has already gone into preparing for no deal already, in terms of planning and other measures, which the government laid out in the no deal papers released over the last couple of months. So we wouldn't exactly be starting from a base point of 4 months. the point is two thing... 1) the EU have had the same technical notices going out for their people for the last 12-18 months (remember you saying you were not interested in what the EU were telling their people about what would happen because it didn't come from from the UK government).... well guess what? a lot of people did because the notices in essence were telling you the same things! 2) your beloved ERG group were actually trying to stop the UK government from publishing the technical notices for fear of "scaring people".... and when they were released you still get accused of project fear!!" I think it was you Fabio who said the release of the no deal papers would be Project Fact and not Project fear. Then when the papers came out you dismissed some of what the papers had to say as they put to bed a lot of the ridiculous scaremongering remainers had been putting about on here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Portillo may be right, in feeling humiliated. But it is typical of Conservative arrogance to attribute the blame for that to Johnny Foreigner, rather than look inwards at your own ineptitude. The EU knew at the start of this the danger of British jingoism. It has played its hand very shrewdly. Unity across all 27. No divide and rule there. Always asking the May Government to set out what it wanted. Never getting any answer except platitudes - Brexit means Brexit, Red White and Blue Brexit and so on. With the exception perhaps of the deputy negotiator, who last week tried to rub British noses in it, the EU team has never gloated. The EU has never gloated? Really? What was Donald Tusk doing on his instagram and twitter accounts just after the Saltzberg meeting then? I do agree with you that Theresa May and her chancellor Philip Hammond have handled the whole Brexit process appallingly. They are remainers after all. Real brexiters who believe in Brexit like Nigel Farage were saying 2 years ago that the government should be preparing solidly for a no deal outcome. Theresa May and Philip Hammond didn't listen. I honestly thought they would have learned their lesson from David Cameron's failure to prepare for a leave vote but alas it seems they learned nothing. Theresa May took personal responsibility for the negotiations away from David Davis and Dominic Raab along with her Europhile Brexit advisor Olly Robbins (who was instructing a Europhile civil service) and Philip Hammond refused point blank to release the necessary funds to prepare for a no deal. This is what you get when you have remainers at the head of government running Brexit. So, bearing in mind that any deal that doesn't include us being in a Customs Union with the EU would require a backstop, what would be the rough details of the deal that some mythical, great BREXITER would have come up with. But answer comes there none. Like typical BREXITERS; full of reasons why everyone one else is doing it all wrong but no sensible, workable, plausible solutions of their own. Oh, so sorry I'm not on here 24/7 at your beck and call to answer your posts. I've been out for a few hours, some of us don't live our lives on here and actually go out into the real world. As for your question no real Brexiter would've agreed to a backstop which would require a joint Uk/Eu decision for us to leave it. A real Brexiter would've either said no to a backstop altogether and if the EU don't like it we should have walked away from the table and prepared for no deal. Or a real Brexiter would have insisted on a backstop that we can leave unilaterally on our own. Again if the EU don't like it we walk away from the table and prepare solidly for no deal. No need to apologise, answering the question is enough. First of all I'm with you on the backstop. A backstop that we can't get out of leaves with less sovereignty and control than we currently have and leaves us with most of the obligations to the EU we currently have but with no say over any new obligations or removal of existing benefits. However, this is the problem, what use is a backstop if one side can unilaterally end the backstop before the problems that actually require the backstop in the first place are resolved. You also seem to be under the false impression that leaving with 'no deal' some how makes the border problem in Ireland go away. It doesn't, it just changes it from a problem we have to sort out with the EU 27 to a problem we have to sort out with the WTO 165. We've already discussed about the legal necessity of a border on the island of Ireland under WTO terms in order to avoid being sued for unfair trading but if we do introduce a manned customs border (and currently no other sort of customs border is available) then we are in violation of the GFA which also leaves us open to legal action being taken against us by the cosignatories (Ireland) or the guarantors (USA & EU). So even 'no deal' doesn't actually solve the problem. " What you've failed to mention though is under WTO rules there are exemptions. As Jacob Rees Mogg pointed out earlier this year, "There are exemptions under WTO rules for your immediate neighbour with whom you have a border. And there are exemptions under WTO when you are in the process of negotiating a free trade deal, which is a 10 year exemption". So as Jacob Rees Mogg points out, if we leave on no deal and go straight to WTO rules, we'd have a 10 year exemption to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again if the EU don't like it we walk away from the table and prepare solidly for no deal. Four months in which to do four years' work to get this country ready. Good luck. Quite a lot of work has already gone into preparing for no deal already, in terms of planning and other measures, which the government laid out in the no deal papers released over the last couple of months. So we wouldn't exactly be starting from a base point of 4 months. Published some papers yes. Needs a bit more than paper this. Unless its cracks you are papering. Infrastructure, systems, services, resources. What about all the producers who must redesign their packaging by March 29? " I think you're being incredibly nonchalant about the work that has already been done. Planning takes a lot of time and effort...that work has already been done. All we have to do now is put the planning into practice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about the parts for the new nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point and Sizewell? They are being manufactured in France. It will be illegal to export them to the UK without an agreement between the European Atomic Energy Community and the UK. Same goes for the nuclear fuel used in the existing power stations. Without an agreement, none of that can cross the border into the UK. " EUROTOM "for now" is actually maintained as part of this divorce deal/transitional agreement... so that would remain in place till december 2020.... after that.... who knows??? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think it was you Fabio who said the release of the no deal papers would be Project Fact and not Project fear. Then when the papers came out you dismissed some of what the papers had to say as they put to bed a lot of the ridiculous scaremongering remainers had been putting about on here. " i have never dismissed any of the stuff released in the technical notices.... if you can find an example of that then please quote it and cite it..... thank you! otherwise please retract it........... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thing is i believe if we had gone the day after the vote and said thats it were leaving, and were happy to trade under wto rules come and see us when you want an fta we would now have it but hindsight is a wonderful thing" You'd have been within a struggling marketplace for the supply of goods and services within hours. Your words were easily said but you provided no practical measures for ensuring the continuity of modern life as it is now. Civil unrest would have quickly taken hold as stores shelves emptied and prices rose. Holiday flights in 2016 \largely gtounded, so holidaymakers unhappy etc. An illustration of why it's government that should do joined up thinking, not the masses | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Portillo may be right, in feeling humiliated. But it is typical of Conservative arrogance to attribute the blame for that to Johnny Foreigner, rather than look inwards at your own ineptitude. The EU knew at the start of this the danger of British jingoism. It has played its hand very shrewdly. Unity across all 27. No divide and rule there. Always asking the May Government to set out what it wanted. Never getting any answer except platitudes - Brexit means Brexit, Red White and Blue Brexit and so on. With the exception perhaps of the deputy negotiator, who last week tried to rub British noses in it, the EU team has never gloated. The EU has never gloated? Really? What was Donald Tusk doing on his instagram and twitter accounts just after the Saltzberg meeting then? I do agree with you that Theresa May and her chancellor Philip Hammond have handled the whole Brexit process appallingly. They are remainers after all. Real brexiters who believe in Brexit like Nigel Farage were saying 2 years ago that the government should be preparing solidly for a no deal outcome. Theresa May and Philip Hammond didn't listen. I honestly thought they would have learned their lesson from David Cameron's failure to prepare for a leave vote but alas it seems they learned nothing. Theresa May took personal responsibility for the negotiations away from David Davis and Dominic Raab along with her Europhile Brexit advisor Olly Robbins (who was instructing a Europhile civil service) and Philip Hammond refused point blank to release the necessary funds to prepare for a no deal. This is what you get when you have remainers at the head of government running Brexit. So, bearing in mind that any deal that doesn't include us being in a Customs Union with the EU would require a backstop, what would be the rough details of the deal that some mythical, great BREXITER would have come up with. But answer comes there none. Like typical BREXITERS; full of reasons why everyone one else is doing it all wrong but no sensible, workable, plausible solutions of their own. Oh, so sorry I'm not on here 24/7 at your beck and call to answer your posts. I've been out for a few hours, some of us don't live our lives on here and actually go out into the real world. As for your question no real Brexiter would've agreed to a backstop which would require a joint Uk/Eu decision for us to leave it. A real Brexiter would've either said no to a backstop altogether and if the EU don't like it we should have walked away from the table and prepared for no deal. Or a real Brexiter would have insisted on a backstop that we can leave unilaterally on our own. Again if the EU don't like it we walk away from the table and prepare solidly for no deal. No need to apologise, answering the question is enough. First of all I'm with you on the backstop. A backstop that we can't get out of leaves with less sovereignty and control than we currently have and leaves us with most of the obligations to the EU we currently have but with no say over any new obligations or removal of existing benefits. However, this is the problem, what use is a backstop if one side can unilaterally end the backstop before the problems that actually require the backstop in the first place are resolved. You also seem to be under the false impression that leaving with 'no deal' some how makes the border problem in Ireland go away. It doesn't, it just changes it from a problem we have to sort out with the EU 27 to a problem we have to sort out with the WTO 165. We've already discussed about the legal necessity of a border on the island of Ireland under WTO terms in order to avoid being sued for unfair trading but if we do introduce a manned customs border (and currently no other sort of customs border is available) then we are in violation of the GFA which also leaves us open to legal action being taken against us by the cosignatories (Ireland) or the guarantors (USA & EU). So even 'no deal' doesn't actually solve the problem. What you've failed to mention though is under WTO rules there are exemptions. As Jacob Rees Mogg pointed out earlier this year, "There are exemptions under WTO rules for your immediate neighbour with whom you have a border. And there are exemptions under WTO when you are in the process of negotiating a free trade deal, which is a 10 year exemption". So as Jacob Rees Mogg points out, if we leave on no deal and go straight to WTO rules, we'd have a 10 year exemption to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU. " As ever JRM makes a statement and it becomes fact. I’m sceptical when one MP has a sound bite solution which is ignored by the others. In this case it seems the 10 years is likely to be the transition period INTO (not out of) a trade agreement. And only if the Final position (and plan) is in place. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" EUROTOM "for now" is actually maintained as part of this divorce deal/transitional agreement... so that would remain in place till december 2020.... after that.... who knows???" Yes, IF the May proposal goes through. It is part of the draft withdrawal agreement. If the UK ditches the May proposal and heads for the exit, there is no agreement, construction will cease and the French/Chinese developers will bill the UK Government for billions of £s. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think you're being incredibly nonchalant about the work that has already been done. Planning takes a lot of time and effort...that work has already been done. All we have to do now is put the planning into practice. " How many producers have made provision to change their labels and product information from March 29, since the existing labelling and product certification will be illegal from that date. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Portillo may be right, in feeling humiliated. But it is typical of Conservative arrogance to attribute the blame for that to Johnny Foreigner, rather than look inwards at your own ineptitude. The EU knew at the start of this the danger of British jingoism. It has played its hand very shrewdly. Unity across all 27. No divide and rule there. Always asking the May Government to set out what it wanted. Never getting any answer except platitudes - Brexit means Brexit, Red White and Blue Brexit and so on. With the exception perhaps of the deputy negotiator, who last week tried to rub British noses in it, the EU team has never gloated. The EU has never gloated? Really? What was Donald Tusk doing on his instagram and twitter accounts just after the Saltzberg meeting then? I do agree with you that Theresa May and her chancellor Philip Hammond have handled the whole Brexit process appallingly. They are remainers after all. Real brexiters who believe in Brexit like Nigel Farage were saying 2 years ago that the government should be preparing solidly for a no deal outcome. Theresa May and Philip Hammond didn't listen. I honestly thought they would have learned their lesson from David Cameron's failure to prepare for a leave vote but alas it seems they learned nothing. Theresa May took personal responsibility for the negotiations away from David Davis and Dominic Raab along with her Europhile Brexit advisor Olly Robbins (who was instructing a Europhile civil service) and Philip Hammond refused point blank to release the necessary funds to prepare for a no deal. This is what you get when you have remainers at the head of government running Brexit. So, bearing in mind that any deal that doesn't include us being in a Customs Union with the EU would require a backstop, what would be the rough details of the deal that some mythical, great BREXITER would have come up with. But answer comes there none. Like typical BREXITERS; full of reasons why everyone one else is doing it all wrong but no sensible, workable, plausible solutions of their own. Oh, so sorry I'm not on here 24/7 at your beck and call to answer your posts. I've been out for a few hours, some of us don't live our lives on here and actually go out into the real world. As for your question no real Brexiter would've agreed to a backstop which would require a joint Uk/Eu decision for us to leave it. A real Brexiter would've either said no to a backstop altogether and if the EU don't like it we should have walked away from the table and prepared for no deal. Or a real Brexiter would have insisted on a backstop that we can leave unilaterally on our own. Again if the EU don't like it we walk away from the table and prepare solidly for no deal. No need to apologise, answering the question is enough. First of all I'm with you on the backstop. A backstop that we can't get out of leaves with less sovereignty and control than we currently have and leaves us with most of the obligations to the EU we currently have but with no say over any new obligations or removal of existing benefits. However, this is the problem, what use is a backstop if one side can unilaterally end the backstop before the problems that actually require the backstop in the first place are resolved. You also seem to be under the false impression that leaving with 'no deal' some how makes the border problem in Ireland go away. It doesn't, it just changes it from a problem we have to sort out with the EU 27 to a problem we have to sort out with the WTO 165. We've already discussed about the legal necessity of a border on the island of Ireland under WTO terms in order to avoid being sued for unfair trading but if we do introduce a manned customs border (and currently no other sort of customs border is available) then we are in violation of the GFA which also leaves us open to legal action being taken against us by the cosignatories (Ireland) or the guarantors (USA & EU). So even 'no deal' doesn't actually solve the problem. What you've failed to mention though is under WTO rules there are exemptions. As Jacob Rees Mogg pointed out earlier this year, "There are exemptions under WTO rules for your immediate neighbour with whom you have a border. And there are exemptions under WTO when you are in the process of negotiating a free trade deal, which is a 10 year exemption". So as Jacob Rees Mogg points out, if we leave on no deal and go straight to WTO rules, we'd have a 10 year exemption to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU. As ever JRM makes a statement and it becomes fact. I’m sceptical when one MP has a sound bite solution which is ignored by the others. In this case it seems the 10 years is likely to be the transition period INTO (not out of) a trade agreement. And only if the Final position (and plan) is in place. " swinglos..... I address the JRM "10 yr claim" in the WTO plus plus thread.... but here is a quick spoiler for you... its not true...  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Portillo may be right, in feeling humiliated. But it is typical of Conservative arrogance to attribute the blame for that to Johnny Foreigner, rather than look inwards at your own ineptitude. The EU knew at the start of this the danger of British jingoism. It has played its hand very shrewdly. Unity across all 27. No divide and rule there. Always asking the May Government to set out what it wanted. Never getting any answer except platitudes - Brexit means Brexit, Red White and Blue Brexit and so on. With the exception perhaps of the deputy negotiator, who last week tried to rub British noses in it, the EU team has never gloated. The EU has never gloated? Really? What was Donald Tusk doing on his instagram and twitter accounts just after the Saltzberg meeting then? I do agree with you that Theresa May and her chancellor Philip Hammond have handled the whole Brexit process appallingly. They are remainers after all. Real brexiters who believe in Brexit like Nigel Farage were saying 2 years ago that the government should be preparing solidly for a no deal outcome. Theresa May and Philip Hammond didn't listen. I honestly thought they would have learned their lesson from David Cameron's failure to prepare for a leave vote but alas it seems they learned nothing. Theresa May took personal responsibility for the negotiations away from David Davis and Dominic Raab along with her Europhile Brexit advisor Olly Robbins (who was instructing a Europhile civil service) and Philip Hammond refused point blank to release the necessary funds to prepare for a no deal. This is what you get when you have remainers at the head of government running Brexit. So, bearing in mind that any deal that doesn't include us being in a Customs Union with the EU would require a backstop, what would be the rough details of the deal that some mythical, great BREXITER would have come up with. But answer comes there none. Like typical BREXITERS; full of reasons why everyone one else is doing it all wrong but no sensible, workable, plausible solutions of their own. Oh, so sorry I'm not on here 24/7 at your beck and call to answer your posts. I've been out for a few hours, some of us don't live our lives on here and actually go out into the real world. As for your question no real Brexiter would've agreed to a backstop which would require a joint Uk/Eu decision for us to leave it. A real Brexiter would've either said no to a backstop altogether and if the EU don't like it we should have walked away from the table and prepared for no deal. Or a real Brexiter would have insisted on a backstop that we can leave unilaterally on our own. Again if the EU don't like it we walk away from the table and prepare solidly for no deal. No need to apologise, answering the question is enough. First of all I'm with you on the backstop. A backstop that we can't get out of leaves with less sovereignty and control than we currently have and leaves us with most of the obligations to the EU we currently have but with no say over any new obligations or removal of existing benefits. However, this is the problem, what use is a backstop if one side can unilaterally end the backstop before the problems that actually require the backstop in the first place are resolved. You also seem to be under the false impression that leaving with 'no deal' some how makes the border problem in Ireland go away. It doesn't, it just changes it from a problem we have to sort out with the EU 27 to a problem we have to sort out with the WTO 165. We've already discussed about the legal necessity of a border on the island of Ireland under WTO terms in order to avoid being sued for unfair trading but if we do introduce a manned customs border (and currently no other sort of customs border is available) then we are in violation of the GFA which also leaves us open to legal action being taken against us by the cosignatories (Ireland) or the guarantors (USA & EU). So even 'no deal' doesn't actually solve the problem. What you've failed to mention though is under WTO rules there are exemptions. As Jacob Rees Mogg pointed out earlier this year, "There are exemptions under WTO rules for your immediate neighbour with whom you have a border. And there are exemptions under WTO when you are in the process of negotiating a free trade deal, which is a 10 year exemption". So as Jacob Rees Mogg points out, if we leave on no deal and go straight to WTO rules, we'd have a 10 year exemption to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU. " I didn't fail to mention. I didn't mention it because the exemptions that the WTO would allow simply don't apply in this situation. There are a number of reasons why they wouldn't apply and another reason, which I'll come back to later, why it would be even worse than May's BREXIT deal. The exemptions, with the exception of the exemptions for RTAs, FTAs and Customs Unions, cover the situation were a member wants to restrict trade from a third nation but not where a country wants to do the opposite; that is covered by the exemptions for RTAs, FTAs and Customs Unions. So to get an exemption to allow free trade across a border in Ireland we would need an agreed RTA, FTA or Customs Union between the UK and Ireland, which means an RTA, FTA or Customs Union with the EU. Here is what the WTO general rules on tariffs and trade actually says. " WTO Members are subject to several general obligations set out in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994). The Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) principle requires Members not to discriminate among imported products from other Members. The national treatment principle requires Members not to discriminate against imported products as opposed to domestic products. In regard to market access for goods, Members are required to act in accordance with their scheduled commitments on tariffs and not to apply tariffs beyond the bound levels unless these are renegotiated. In addition, Members are not generally allowed to impose quantitative restrictions (QRs) on market access for goods. Furthermore, Members are required to ensure that their non-tariff barriers (NTBs) (such as customs formalities) do not constitute unnecessary obstacles to trade. Nevertheless, in certain circumstances, WTO Members may derogate from these obligations, provided that they comply with certain conditions. These exceptions are:- 1 General exceptions - Right to take measures, for example, necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health, which may restrict trade in goods (GATT 1994). Such measures cannot constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on international trade. Similar general exceptions also apply to trade in services (General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), whereas there are no general exceptions as such under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement); 2 Security exceptions - Right to take measures to protect essential national security interests, which may RESTRICT trade in goods (GATT 1994). Similar security exceptions are allowed under the GATS and the TRIPS; 3 Exceptions for Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) - Right to depart from the MFN principle in order to grant preferential treatment to goods (GATT 1994) or service suppliers (GATS) from trading partners within a customs union or a free trade area without extending such treatment to all WTO Members; 4 Balance-of-payments (BOP) – Right to take measures to safeguard a Member's external financial position and its BOPs; 5 Waivers - Temporary waivers granted with the authorization of the other Members, in exceptional circumstances. " Now of those 5 possible exemptions the only 1 that could potentially be used is 5, Waivers. So here are the rules for a Waiver, there quite long and complex:- " Article 9. ... ... 3 In exceptional circumstances, the Ministerial Conference may decide to waive an obligation imposed on a Member by this Agreement or any of the Multilateral Trade Agreements, provided that any such decision shall be taken by three fourths(4) of the Members unless otherwise provided for in this paragraph. (a) A request for a waiver concerning this Agreement shall be submitted to the Ministerial Conference for consideration pursuant to the practice of decision-making by consensus. The Ministerial Conference shall establish a time-period, which shall not exceed 90 days, to consider the request. If consensus is not reached during the time-period, any decision to grant a waiver shall be taken by three fourths(4) of the Members. (b) A request for a waiver concerning the Multilateral Trade Agreements in Annexes 1A or 1B or 1C and their annexes shall be submitted initially to the Council for Trade in Goods, the Council for Trade in Services or the Council for TRIPS, respectively, for consideration during a time-period which shall not exceed 90 days. At the end of the time-period, the relevant Council shall submit a report to the Ministerial Conference. 4. A decision by the Ministerial Conference granting a waiver shall state the exceptional circumstances justifying the decision, the terms and conditions governing the application of the waiver, and the date on which the waiver shall terminate. Any waiver granted for a period of more than one year shall be reviewed by the Ministerial Conference not later than one year after it is granted, and thereafter annually until the waiver terminates. In each review, the Ministerial Conference shall examine whether the exceptional circumstances justifying the waiver still exist and whether the terms and conditions attached to the waiver have been met. The Ministerial Conference, on the basis of the annual review, may extend, modify or terminate the waiver. " So, under WTO terms, any waiver we got to exceptionality allow free trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic would be totally under the control of the WTO's Ministerial Conference and NOT the UK Government's. It's also extremely unlikely that the WTO would grant an exemption to allow free trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic without an agreed RTA, FTA or Customs Union as the only exemptions it normally gives outside of RTAs, FTAs and Customs Unions are exemptions to restrict trade that would normally be allowed but, for some extraordinary reason, should not be. In short exemptions exist under WTO terms but not any exemptions that would prevent a border on the island of Ireland without an agreed RTA, FTA or Customs Union between Northern Ireland and the Republic, which means an agreed RTA, FTA or Customs Union between the UK and the EU. Like I said, 'no deal' does not solve the the border in Ireland problem it simply moves the problem from one to be solved between the UK and the EU 27 to one to be solved between the UK and the WTO 165. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can not negotiate with a tiger when your head is in it's mouth. " And you can't negotiate with anyone when your head is up your own arse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think you're being incredibly nonchalant about the work that has already been done. Planning takes a lot of time and effort...that work has already been done. All we have to do now is put the planning into practice. How many producers have made provision to change their labels and product information from March 29, since the existing labelling and product certification will be illegal from that date. " Presume you're referring to food? I'm not sure where you are getting this from? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can not negotiate with a tiger when your head is in it's mouth. And you can't negotiate with anyone when your head is up your own arse. " Good point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can not negotiate with a tiger when your head is in it's mouth. And you can't negotiate with anyone when your head is up your own arse. " Who's arse would you prefer we had our head up? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Portillo may be right, in feeling humiliated. But it is typical of Conservative arrogance to attribute the blame for that to Johnny Foreigner, rather than look inwards at your own ineptitude. The EU knew at the start of this the danger of British jingoism. It has played its hand very shrewdly. Unity across all 27. No divide and rule there. Always asking the May Government to set out what it wanted. Never getting any answer except platitudes - Brexit means Brexit, Red White and Blue Brexit and so on. With the exception perhaps of the deputy negotiator, who last week tried to rub British noses in it, the EU team has never gloated. The EU has never gloated? Really? What was Donald Tusk doing on his instagram and twitter accounts just after the Saltzberg meeting then? I do agree with you that Theresa May and her chancellor Philip Hammond have handled the whole Brexit process appallingly. They are remainers after all. Real brexiters who believe in Brexit like Nigel Farage were saying 2 years ago that the government should be preparing solidly for a no deal outcome. Theresa May and Philip Hammond didn't listen. I honestly thought they would have learned their lesson from David Cameron's failure to prepare for a leave vote but alas it seems they learned nothing. Theresa May took personal responsibility for the negotiations away from David Davis and Dominic Raab along with her Europhile Brexit advisor Olly Robbins (who was instructing a Europhile civil service) and Philip Hammond refused point blank to release the necessary funds to prepare for a no deal. This is what you get when you have remainers at the head of government running Brexit. So, bearing in mind that any deal that doesn't include us being in a Customs Union with the EU would require a backstop, what would be the rough details of the deal that some mythical, great BREXITER would have come up with. But answer comes there none. Like typical BREXITERS; full of reasons why everyone one else is doing it all wrong but no sensible, workable, plausible solutions of their own. Oh, so sorry I'm not on here 24/7 at your beck and call to answer your posts. I've been out for a few hours, some of us don't live our lives on here and actually go out into the real world. As for your question no real Brexiter would've agreed to a backstop which would require a joint Uk/Eu decision for us to leave it. A real Brexiter would've either said no to a backstop altogether and if the EU don't like it we should have walked away from the table and prepared for no deal. Or a real Brexiter would have insisted on a backstop that we can leave unilaterally on our own. Again if the EU don't like it we walk away from the table and prepare solidly for no deal. No need to apologise, answering the question is enough. First of all I'm with you on the backstop. A backstop that we can't get out of leaves with less sovereignty and control than we currently have and leaves us with most of the obligations to the EU we currently have but with no say over any new obligations or removal of existing benefits. However, this is the problem, what use is a backstop if one side can unilaterally end the backstop before the problems that actually require the backstop in the first place are resolved. You also seem to be under the false impression that leaving with 'no deal' some how makes the border problem in Ireland go away. It doesn't, it just changes it from a problem we have to sort out with the EU 27 to a problem we have to sort out with the WTO 165. We've already discussed about the legal necessity of a border on the island of Ireland under WTO terms in order to avoid being sued for unfair trading but if we do introduce a manned customs border (and currently no other sort of customs border is available) then we are in violation of the GFA which also leaves us open to legal action being taken against us by the cosignatories (Ireland) or the guarantors (USA & EU). So even 'no deal' doesn't actually solve the problem. What you've failed to mention though is under WTO rules there are exemptions. As Jacob Rees Mogg pointed out earlier this year, "There are exemptions under WTO rules for your immediate neighbour with whom you have a border. And there are exemptions under WTO when you are in the process of negotiating a free trade deal, which is a 10 year exemption". So as Jacob Rees Mogg points out, if we leave on no deal and go straight to WTO rules, we'd have a 10 year exemption to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU. As ever JRM makes a statement and it becomes fact. I’m sceptical when one MP has a sound bite solution which is ignored by the others. In this case it seems the 10 years is likely to be the transition period INTO (not out of) a trade agreement. And only if the Final position (and plan) is in place. swinglos..... I address the JRM "10 yr claim" in the WTO plus plus thread.... but here is a quick spoiler for you... its not true... "No Fabio that's 'your' interpretation of it. As I said on the other thread, Rees Mogg was quizzed about this on television by an expert in WTO rules, after debate both Rees Mogg and the WTO expert agreed Mogg's position was the correct one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can not negotiate with a tiger when your head is in it's mouth. And you can't negotiate with anyone when your head is up your own arse. Who's arse would you prefer we had our head up?" TBH, until recently I thought most arseholes were only big enough to stick my dick or tongue up but, in the last 2 years, I've discovered there are some really big arseholes on here, some big enough not just for my head but my whole damb body; and they're not all BREXITERS either. So there's plenty of choice and I'm sure for some I'm one of them too.   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Portillo may be right, in feeling humiliated. But it is typical of Conservative arrogance to attribute the blame for that to Johnny Foreigner, rather than look inwards at your own ineptitude. The EU knew at the start of this the danger of British jingoism. It has played its hand very shrewdly. Unity across all 27. No divide and rule there. Always asking the May Government to set out what it wanted. Never getting any answer except platitudes - Brexit means Brexit, Red White and Blue Brexit and so on. With the exception perhaps of the deputy negotiator, who last week tried to rub British noses in it, the EU team has never gloated. The EU has never gloated? Really? What was Donald Tusk doing on his instagram and twitter accounts just after the Saltzberg meeting then? I do agree with you that Theresa May and her chancellor Philip Hammond have handled the whole Brexit process appallingly. They are remainers after all. Real brexiters who believe in Brexit like Nigel Farage were saying 2 years ago that the government should be preparing solidly for a no deal outcome. Theresa May and Philip Hammond didn't listen. I honestly thought they would have learned their lesson from David Cameron's failure to prepare for a leave vote but alas it seems they learned nothing. Theresa May took personal responsibility for the negotiations away from David Davis and Dominic Raab along with her Europhile Brexit advisor Olly Robbins (who was instructing a Europhile civil service) and Philip Hammond refused point blank to release the necessary funds to prepare for a no deal. This is what you get when you have remainers at the head of government running Brexit. So, bearing in mind that any deal that doesn't include us being in a Customs Union with the EU would require a backstop, what would be the rough details of the deal that some mythical, great BREXITER would have come up with. But answer comes there none. Like typical BREXITERS; full of reasons why everyone one else is doing it all wrong but no sensible, workable, plausible solutions of their own. Oh, so sorry I'm not on here 24/7 at your beck and call to answer your posts. I've been out for a few hours, some of us don't live our lives on here and actually go out into the real world. As for your question no real Brexiter would've agreed to a backstop which would require a joint Uk/Eu decision for us to leave it. A real Brexiter would've either said no to a backstop altogether and if the EU don't like it we should have walked away from the table and prepared for no deal. Or a real Brexiter would have insisted on a backstop that we can leave unilaterally on our own. Again if the EU don't like it we walk away from the table and prepare solidly for no deal. No need to apologise, answering the question is enough. First of all I'm with you on the backstop. A backstop that we can't get out of leaves with less sovereignty and control than we currently have and leaves us with most of the obligations to the EU we currently have but with no say over any new obligations or removal of existing benefits. However, this is the problem, what use is a backstop if one side can unilaterally end the backstop before the problems that actually require the backstop in the first place are resolved. You also seem to be under the false impression that leaving with 'no deal' some how makes the border problem in Ireland go away. It doesn't, it just changes it from a problem we have to sort out with the EU 27 to a problem we have to sort out with the WTO 165. We've already discussed about the legal necessity of a border on the island of Ireland under WTO terms in order to avoid being sued for unfair trading but if we do introduce a manned customs border (and currently no other sort of customs border is available) then we are in violation of the GFA which also leaves us open to legal action being taken against us by the cosignatories (Ireland) or the guarantors (USA & EU). So even 'no deal' doesn't actually solve the problem. What you've failed to mention though is under WTO rules there are exemptions. As Jacob Rees Mogg pointed out earlier this year, "There are exemptions under WTO rules for your immediate neighbour with whom you have a border. And there are exemptions under WTO when you are in the process of negotiating a free trade deal, which is a 10 year exemption". So as Jacob Rees Mogg points out, if we leave on no deal and go straight to WTO rules, we'd have a 10 year exemption to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU. I didn't fail to mention. I didn't mention it because the exemptions that the WTO would allow simply don't apply in this situation. There are a number of reasons why they wouldn't apply and another reason, which I'll come back to later, why it would be even worse than May's BREXIT deal. The exemptions, with the exception of the exemptions for RTAs, FTAs and Customs Unions, cover the situation were a member wants to restrict trade from a third nation but not where a country wants to do the opposite; that is covered by the exemptions for RTAs, FTAs and Customs Unions. So to get an exemption to allow free trade across a border in Ireland we would need an agreed RTA, FTA or Customs Union between the UK and Ireland, which means an RTA, FTA or Customs Union with the EU. Here is what the WTO general rules on tariffs and trade actually says. WTO Members are subject to several general obligations set out in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994). The Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) principle requires Members not to discriminate among imported products from other Members. The national treatment principle requires Members not to discriminate against imported products as opposed to domestic products. In regard to market access for goods, Members are required to act in accordance with their scheduled commitments on tariffs and not to apply tariffs beyond the bound levels unless these are renegotiated. In addition, Members are not generally allowed to impose quantitative restrictions (QRs) on market access for goods. Furthermore, Members are required to ensure that their non-tariff barriers (NTBs) (such as customs formalities) do not constitute unnecessary obstacles to trade. Nevertheless, in certain circumstances, WTO Members may derogate from these obligations, provided that they comply with certain conditions. These exceptions are:- 1 General exceptions - Right to take measures, for example, necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health, which may restrict trade in goods (GATT 1994). Such measures cannot constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on international trade. Similar general exceptions also apply to trade in services (General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), whereas there are no general exceptions as such under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement); 2 Security exceptions - Right to take measures to protect essential national security interests, which may RESTRICT trade in goods (GATT 1994). Similar security exceptions are allowed under the GATS and the TRIPS; 3 Exceptions for Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) - Right to depart from the MFN principle in order to grant preferential treatment to goods (GATT 1994) or service suppliers (GATS) from trading partners within a customs union or a free trade area without extending such treatment to all WTO Members; 4 Balance-of-payments (BOP) – Right to take measures to safeguard a Member's external financial position and its BOPs; 5 Waivers - Temporary waivers granted with the authorization of the other Members, in exceptional circumstances. Now of those 5 possible exemptions the only 1 that could potentially be used is 5, Waivers. So here are the rules for a Waiver, there quite long and complex:- Article 9. ... ... 3 In exceptional circumstances, the Ministerial Conference may decide to waive an obligation imposed on a Member by this Agreement or any of the Multilateral Trade Agreements, provided that any such decision shall be taken by three fourths(4) of the Members unless otherwise provided for in this paragraph. (a) A request for a waiver concerning this Agreement shall be submitted to the Ministerial Conference for consideration pursuant to the practice of decision-making by consensus. The Ministerial Conference shall establish a time-period, which shall not exceed 90 days, to consider the request. If consensus is not reached during the time-period, any decision to grant a waiver shall be taken by three fourths(4) of the Members. (b) A request for a waiver concerning the Multilateral Trade Agreements in Annexes 1A or 1B or 1C and their annexes shall be submitted initially to the Council for Trade in Goods, the Council for Trade in Services or the Council for TRIPS, respectively, for consideration during a time-period which shall not exceed 90 days. At the end of the time-period, the relevant Council shall submit a report to the Ministerial Conference. 4. A decision by the Ministerial Conference granting a waiver shall state the exceptional circumstances justifying the decision, the terms and conditions governing the application of the waiver, and the date on which the waiver shall terminate. Any waiver granted for a period of more than one year shall be reviewed by the Ministerial Conference not later than one year after it is granted, and thereafter annually until the waiver terminates. In each review, the Ministerial Conference shall examine whether the exceptional circumstances justifying the waiver still exist and whether the terms and conditions attached to the waiver have been met. The Ministerial Conference, on the basis of the annual review, may extend, modify or terminate the waiver. So, under WTO terms, any waiver we got to exceptionality allow free trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic would be totally under the control of the WTO's Ministerial Conference and NOT the UK Government's. It's also extremely unlikely that the WTO would grant an exemption to allow free trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic without an agreed RTA, FTA or Customs Union as the only exemptions it normally gives outside of RTAs, FTAs and Customs Unions are exemptions to restrict trade that would normally be allowed but, for some extraordinary reason, should not be. In short exemptions exist under WTO terms but not any exemptions that would prevent a border on the island of Ireland without an agreed RTA, FTA or Customs Union between Northern Ireland and the Republic, which means an agreed RTA, FTA or Customs Union between the UK and the EU. Like I said, 'no deal' does not solve the the border in Ireland problem it simply moves the problem from one to be solved between the UK and the EU 27 to one to be solved between the UK and the WTO 165. " You're putting your own remain biased view interpretation on it......Other interpretations are available. As you openly admit in that post it would be under the discretion of the WTO ministerial conference to decide if there were exceptional circumstances to grant a waiver for exemption. If the Good Friday agreement and peace in Northern Ireland are not considered 'exceptional circumstances' then I don't know what is. What would you consider an exceptional circumstance if not the Good Friday agreement and peace in Northern Ireland? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think you're being incredibly nonchalant about the work that has already been done. Planning takes a lot of time and effort...that work has already been done. All we have to do now is put the planning into practice. How many producers have made provision to change their labels and product information from March 29, since the existing labelling and product certification will be illegal from that date. " When we leave the EU in March on day 1 of Brexit all of our rules, regulations and laws will exactly mirror the EU's. That is what the EU Withdrawal bill was all about (transferring all existing EU law into UK law). If we then want to diverge away from the EU in any way that will require acts a parliament to put into effect taking time and votes in Parliament. Yet again you're scaremongering and using the politics of fear. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think you're being incredibly nonchalant about the work that has already been done. Planning takes a lot of time and effort...that work has already been done. All we have to do now is put the planning into practice. How many producers have made provision to change their labels and product information from March 29, since the existing labelling and product certification will be illegal from that date. When we leave the EU in March on day 1 of Brexit all of our rules, regulations and laws will exactly mirror the EU's. That is what the EU Withdrawal bill was all about (transferring all existing EU law into UK law). If we then want to diverge away from the EU in any way that will require acts a parliament to put into effect taking time and votes in Parliament. Yet again you're scaremongering and using the politics of fear. " All those laws people hated......nobody seemed to care when we enshrined them all at once. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can not negotiate with a tiger when your head is in it's mouth. " 
He who mounts a tiger can never get off | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think you're being incredibly nonchalant about the work that has already been done. Planning takes a lot of time and effort...that work has already been done. All we have to do now is put the planning into practice. How many producers have made provision to change their labels and product information from March 29, since the existing labelling and product certification will be illegal from that date. When we leave the EU in March on day 1 of Brexit all of our rules, regulations and laws will exactly mirror the EU's. That is what the EU Withdrawal bill was all about (transferring all existing EU law into UK law). If we then want to diverge away from the EU in any way that will require acts a parliament to put into effect taking time and votes in Parliament. Yet again you're scaremongering and using the politics of fear. All those laws people hated......nobody seemed to care when we enshrined them all at once. " Unfortunately it had to be done to ensure a smooth exit from the EU. Once we're out though then we can start to remove some of those pointless EU rules, regulations and red tape that we don't like. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can not negotiate with a tiger when your head is in it's mouth.
He who mounts a tiger can never get off"Welcome to the hotel European community, you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Portillo may be right, in feeling humiliated. But it is typical of Conservative arrogance to attribute the blame for that to Johnny Foreigner, rather than look inwards at your own ineptitude. The EU knew at the start of this the danger of British jingoism. It has played its hand very shrewdly. Unity across all 27. No divide and rule there. Always asking the May Government to set out what it wanted. Never getting any answer except platitudes - Brexit means Brexit, Red White and Blue Brexit and so on. With the exception perhaps of the deputy negotiator, who last week tried to rub British noses in it, the EU team has never gloated. The EU has never gloated? Really? What was Donald Tusk doing on his instagram and twitter accounts just after the Saltzberg meeting then? I do agree with you that Theresa May and her chancellor Philip Hammond have handled the whole Brexit process appallingly. They are remainers after all. Real brexiters who believe in Brexit like Nigel Farage were saying 2 years ago that the government should be preparing solidly for a no deal outcome. Theresa May and Philip Hammond didn't listen. I honestly thought they would have learned their lesson from David Cameron's failure to prepare for a leave vote but alas it seems they learned nothing. Theresa May took personal responsibility for the negotiations away from David Davis and Dominic Raab along with her Europhile Brexit advisor Olly Robbins (who was instructing a Europhile civil service) and Philip Hammond refused point blank to release the necessary funds to prepare for a no deal. This is what you get when you have remainers at the head of government running Brexit. So, bearing in mind that any deal that doesn't include us being in a Customs Union with the EU would require a backstop, what would be the rough details of the deal that some mythical, great BREXITER would have come up with. But answer comes there none. Like typical BREXITERS; full of reasons why everyone one else is doing it all wrong but no sensible, workable, plausible solutions of their own. Oh, so sorry I'm not on here 24/7 at your beck and call to answer your posts. I've been out for a few hours, some of us don't live our lives on here and actually go out into the real world. As for your question no real Brexiter would've agreed to a backstop which would require a joint Uk/Eu decision for us to leave it. A real Brexiter would've either said no to a backstop altogether and if the EU don't like it we should have walked away from the table and prepared for no deal. Or a real Brexiter would have insisted on a backstop that we can leave unilaterally on our own. Again if the EU don't like it we walk away from the table and prepare solidly for no deal. No need to apologise, answering the question is enough. First of all I'm with you on the backstop. A backstop that we can't get out of leaves with less sovereignty and control than we currently have and leaves us with most of the obligations to the EU we currently have but with no say over any new obligations or removal of existing benefits. However, this is the problem, what use is a backstop if one side can unilaterally end the backstop before the problems that actually require the backstop in the first place are resolved. You also seem to be under the false impression that leaving with 'no deal' some how makes the border problem in Ireland go away. It doesn't, it just changes it from a problem we have to sort out with the EU 27 to a problem we have to sort out with the WTO 165. We've already discussed about the legal necessity of a border on the island of Ireland under WTO terms in order to avoid being sued for unfair trading but if we do introduce a manned customs border (and currently no other sort of customs border is available) then we are in violation of the GFA which also leaves us open to legal action being taken against us by the cosignatories (Ireland) or the guarantors (USA & EU). So even 'no deal' doesn't actually solve the problem. What you've failed to mention though is under WTO rules there are exemptions. As Jacob Rees Mogg pointed out earlier this year, "There are exemptions under WTO rules for your immediate neighbour with whom you have a border. And there are exemptions under WTO when you are in the process of negotiating a free trade deal, which is a 10 year exemption". So as Jacob Rees Mogg points out, if we leave on no deal and go straight to WTO rules, we'd have a 10 year exemption to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU. I didn't fail to mention. I didn't mention it because the exemptions that the WTO would allow simply don't apply in this situation. There are a number of reasons why they wouldn't apply and another reason, which I'll come back to later, why it would be even worse than May's BREXIT deal. The exemptions, with the exception of the exemptions for RTAs, FTAs and Customs Unions, cover the situation were a member wants to restrict trade from a third nation but not where a country wants to do the opposite; that is covered by the exemptions for RTAs, FTAs and Customs Unions. So to get an exemption to allow free trade across a border in Ireland we would need an agreed RTA, FTA or Customs Union between the UK and Ireland, which means an RTA, FTA or Customs Union with the EU. Here is what the WTO general rules on tariffs and trade actually says. WTO Members are subject to several general obligations set out in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994). The Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) principle requires Members not to discriminate among imported products from other Members. The national treatment principle requires Members not to discriminate against imported products as opposed to domestic products. In regard to market access for goods, Members are required to act in accordance with their scheduled commitments on tariffs and not to apply tariffs beyond the bound levels unless these are renegotiated. In addition, Members are not generally allowed to impose quantitative restrictions (QRs) on market access for goods. Furthermore, Members are required to ensure that their non-tariff barriers (NTBs) (such as customs formalities) do not constitute unnecessary obstacles to trade. Nevertheless, in certain circumstances, WTO Members may derogate from these obligations, provided that they comply with certain conditions. These exceptions are:- 1 General exceptions - Right to take measures, for example, necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health, which may restrict trade in goods (GATT 1994). Such measures cannot constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on international trade. Similar general exceptions also apply to trade in services (General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), whereas there are no general exceptions as such under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement); 2 Security exceptions - Right to take measures to protect essential national security interests, which may RESTRICT trade in goods (GATT 1994). Similar security exceptions are allowed under the GATS and the TRIPS; 3 Exceptions for Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) - Right to depart from the MFN principle in order to grant preferential treatment to goods (GATT 1994) or service suppliers (GATS) from trading partners within a customs union or a free trade area without extending such treatment to all WTO Members; 4 Balance-of-payments (BOP) – Right to take measures to safeguard a Member's external financial position and its BOPs; 5 Waivers - Temporary waivers granted with the authorization of the other Members, in exceptional circumstances. Now of those 5 possible exemptions the only 1 that could potentially be used is 5, Waivers. So here are the rules for a Waiver, there quite long and complex:- Article 9. ... ... 3 In exceptional circumstances, the Ministerial Conference may decide to waive an obligation imposed on a Member by this Agreement or any of the Multilateral Trade Agreements, provided that any such decision shall be taken by three fourths(4) of the Members unless otherwise provided for in this paragraph. (a) A request for a waiver concerning this Agreement shall be submitted to the Ministerial Conference for consideration pursuant to the practice of decision-making by consensus. The Ministerial Conference shall establish a time-period, which shall not exceed 90 days, to consider the request. If consensus is not reached during the time-period, any decision to grant a waiver shall be taken by three fourths(4) of the Members. (b) A request for a waiver concerning the Multilateral Trade Agreements in Annexes 1A or 1B or 1C and their annexes shall be submitted initially to the Council for Trade in Goods, the Council for Trade in Services or the Council for TRIPS, respectively, for consideration during a time-period which shall not exceed 90 days. At the end of the time-period, the relevant Council shall submit a report to the Ministerial Conference. 4. A decision by the Ministerial Conference granting a waiver shall state the exceptional circumstances justifying the decision, the terms and conditions governing the application of the waiver, and the date on which the waiver shall terminate. Any waiver granted for a period of more than one year shall be reviewed by the Ministerial Conference not later than one year after it is granted, and thereafter annually until the waiver terminates. In each review, the Ministerial Conference shall examine whether the exceptional circumstances justifying the waiver still exist and whether the terms and conditions attached to the waiver have been met. The Ministerial Conference, on the basis of the annual review, may extend, modify or terminate the waiver. So, under WTO terms, any waiver we got to exceptionality allow free trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic would be totally under the control of the WTO's Ministerial Conference and NOT the UK Government's. It's also extremely unlikely that the WTO would grant an exemption to allow free trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic without an agreed RTA, FTA or Customs Union as the only exemptions it normally gives outside of RTAs, FTAs and Customs Unions are exemptions to restrict trade that would normally be allowed but, for some extraordinary reason, should not be. In short exemptions exist under WTO terms but not any exemptions that would prevent a border on the island of Ireland without an agreed RTA, FTA or Customs Union between Northern Ireland and the Republic, which means an agreed RTA, FTA or Customs Union between the UK and the EU. Like I said, 'no deal' does not solve the the border in Ireland problem it simply moves the problem from one to be solved between the UK and the EU 27 to one to be solved between the UK and the WTO 165. You're putting your own remain biased view interpretation on it......Other interpretations are available. As you openly admit in that post it would be under the discretion of the WTO ministerial conference to decide if there were exceptional circumstances to grant a waiver for exemption. If the Good Friday agreement and peace in Northern Ireland are not considered 'exceptional circumstances' then I don't know what is. What would you consider an exceptional circumstance if not the Good Friday agreement and peace in Northern Ireland? " I think it's you who is putting your own BREXIT fairyland interpretation on the rules. Next you'll be telling us all that negotiating a special exemption with the WTO 165 will be the easiest exemption negotiation in history, that it will be done in an afternoon over tea, because we hold all the cards. We've not been able to cherry pick the 'easiest trade negotiation in history' with the EU 27, what makes you think we'll be able to with the WTO 165? And make no mistake, cherry picking is what you're asking for from the WTO. You want the benefits of RTA, FTA, Customs Union between Northern Ireland and the Republic whilst not actually having an RTA, FTA or Customs Union. It didn't work with the EU, it won't work with the WTO. If there was no other way around the border in Ireland problem you might have a chance, although I still think not much, but there are. There's EFTA, there's EEA, there's May's deal and there's staying in the EU, all of which could help or completely solve the problem. If Europe won't bend the rules for the UK why do you think the rest of the world will? And why are you happy to put our future trading terms in the hands of the WTO's totally unelected and unaccountable Ministerial Conference where we'd have less say and control than we do now or even under TM's deal. I really think the way thinks are going with all the BREXIT solutions we've seen or heard so far, they should change their slogan to "Let's just surrender and give up Control instead". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think you're being incredibly nonchalant about the work that has already been done. Planning takes a lot of time and effort...that work has already been done. All we have to do now is put the planning into practice. How many producers have made provision to change their labels and product information from March 29, since the existing labelling and product certification will be illegal from that date. When we leave the EU in March on day 1 of Brexit all of our rules, regulations and laws will exactly mirror the EU's. That is what the EU Withdrawal bill was all about (transferring all existing EU law into UK law). If we then want to diverge away from the EU in any way that will require acts a parliament to put into effect taking time and votes in Parliament. Yet again you're scaremongering and using the politics of fear. All those laws people hated......nobody seemed to care when we enshrined them all at once. Unfortunately it had to be done to ensure a smooth exit from the EU. Once we're out though then we can start to remove some of those pointless EU rules, regulations and red tape that we don't like. " And replace them with even more rules, regulations, red tape and a whole new bureaucracy all of our own. Jobs for the boys I guess. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can not negotiate with a tiger when your head is in it's mouth.
He who mounts a tiger can never get off
Welcome to the hotel European community, you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. "Of course you can - you can leave at anytime by triggering A50. If your refering to the UK leaving - as the first nation to do so we are the guinea pig. Our attempt is a good example of how not to do it! Firstly is there any silly treaty with any existing member which could hamper things? Secondly have your plan agreed by all and in place before you trigger A50! Thirdly remember "you reap what you sow" - don't slag off the other party your going to negotiate with before negotiations. Fourth - don't make promises you can't keep. "If it sounds too good to be true," it usually is not going to work out. Fifth have no expectations of anything - walk away and take control of the WTO, UN, etc #Britanniarulestheworld | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can not negotiate with a tiger when your head is in it's mouth.
He who mounts a tiger can never get off
Welcome to the hotel European community, you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
Of course you can - you can leave at anytime by triggering A50.
If your refering to the UK leaving - as the first nation to do so we are the guinea pig. Our attempt is a good example of how not to do it! Firstly is there any silly treaty with any existing member which could hamper things?
Secondly have your plan agreed by all and in place before you trigger A50!
Thirdly remember "you reap what you sow" - don't slag off the other party your going to negotiate with before negotiations.
Fourth - don't make promises you can't keep. "If it sounds too good to be true," it usually is not going to work out.
Fifth have no expectations of anything - walk away and take control of the WTO, UN, etc #Britanniarulestheworld "Sixth. Don’t sign any treaties which are based on the Eu model and are therefore difficult to extract yourself out of. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can not negotiate with a tiger when your head is in it's mouth.
He who mounts a tiger can never get off
Welcome to the hotel European community, you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
Of course you can - you can leave at anytime by triggering A50.
If your refering to the UK leaving - as the first nation to do so we are the guinea pig. Our attempt is a good example of how not to do it! Firstly is there any silly treaty with any existing member which could hamper things?
Secondly have your plan agreed by all and in place before you trigger A50!
Thirdly remember "you reap what you sow" - don't slag off the other party your going to negotiate with before negotiations.
Fourth - don't make promises you can't keep. "If it sounds too good to be true," it usually is not going to work out.
Fifth have no expectations of anything - walk away and take control of the WTO, UN, etc #Britanniarulestheworld
Sixth. Don’t sign any treaties which are based on the Eu model and are therefore difficult to extract yourself out of. "In fairness we can withdraw from the GFA - but we are not Trump, we do care what the rest of the world thinks ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
