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 |
"These two keep coming up in threads so thought it was worth it’s own one. They get quoted together but my understanding is (and v happy to be corrected) The “ten year” rule is an implementation period for an agreed FTA which can’t be implemented in one go. I use quotation marks as really the treaty is to be rolled out in “a reasonable amount of time” often seen to be ten years. The WTO waiver is to waive MFN rules for some reason, say national security. It doesn’t have a time limit. As such the ten year rule has no place in no deal talks. By definition it needs a negotiation to take place. " It’s basically something moggsy tried to trot out to tell people no deal would not mean no deal on the most basic of wto tariffs ..... It’s been debunked Moggsy doesn’t use it anymore ( and neither should certain people here... you know who you are!)  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These two keep coming up in threads so thought it was worth it’s own one. They get quoted together but my understanding is (and v happy to be corrected) The “ten year” rule is an implementation period for an agreed FTA which can’t be implemented in one go. I use quotation marks as really the treaty is to be rolled out in “a reasonable amount of time” often seen to be ten years. The WTO waiver is to waive MFN rules for some reason, say national security. It doesn’t have a time limit. As such the ten year rule has no place in no deal talks. By definition it needs a negotiation to take place. It’s basically something moggsy tried to trot out to tell people no deal would not mean no deal on the most basic of wto tariffs ..... It’s been debunked Moggsy doesn’t use it anymore ( and neither should certain people here... you know who you are!) "Wasn't he quoting GATT rules, which as the organisation doesn't exist anymore, surely a red herring. WTO replaced Gatt in the 90's? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These two keep coming up in threads so thought it was worth it’s own one. They get quoted together but my understanding is (and v happy to be corrected) The “ten year” rule is an implementation period for an agreed FTA which can’t be implemented in one go. I use quotation marks as really the treaty is to be rolled out in “a reasonable amount of time” often seen to be ten years. The WTO waiver is to waive MFN rules for some reason, say national security. It doesn’t have a time limit. As such the ten year rule has no place in no deal talks. By definition it needs a negotiation to take place. It’s basically something moggsy tried to trot out to tell people no deal would not mean no deal on the most basic of wto tariffs ..... It’s been debunked Moggsy doesn’t use it anymore ( and neither should certain people here... you know who you are!)
Wasn't he quoting GATT rules, which as the organisation doesn't exist anymore, surely a red herring. WTO replaced Gatt in the 90's?"WTO is a continuation of GATT so many GATT rules were rolled over into the WTO. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These two keep coming up in threads so thought it was worth it’s own one. They get quoted together but my understanding is (and v happy to be corrected) The “ten year” rule is an implementation period for an agreed FTA which can’t be implemented in one go. I use quotation marks as really the treaty is to be rolled out in “a reasonable amount of time” often seen to be ten years. The WTO waiver is to waive MFN rules for some reason, say national security. It doesn’t have a time limit. As such the ten year rule has no place in no deal talks. By definition it needs a negotiation to take place. " The 10 year exemption on border controls in the WTO can apply in extenuating circumstances (you cite national security). Now considering the UK and Republic of Ireland have an ongoing peace process called the good Friday agreement then I'd consider that extenuating circumstances in the area of national security. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Free movement of people to continue for 10 years, then. You could not make this up. " Not if a free trade deal is agreed and signed before the 10 year deadline. If the free trade deal is done in 4 years then free movement ends in 4 years. The conclusion of a free trade deal will supercede any previous arrangements. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Very hard to understand what UK want " Thought Parliament made it pretty clear the other night they want to get rid of the backstop. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These two keep coming up in threads so thought it was worth it’s own one. They get quoted together but my understanding is (and v happy to be corrected) The “ten year” rule is an implementation period for an agreed FTA which can’t be implemented in one go. I use quotation marks as really the treaty is to be rolled out in “a reasonable amount of time” often seen to be ten years. The WTO waiver is to waive MFN rules for some reason, say national security. It doesn’t have a time limit. As such the ten year rule has no place in no deal talks. By definition it needs a negotiation to take place. The 10 year exemption on border controls in the WTO can apply in extenuating circumstances (you cite national security). Now considering the UK and Republic of Ireland have an ongoing peace process called the good Friday agreement then I'd consider that extenuating circumstances in the area of national security. " As I said my understanding is the ten year rule is for the implementation of a treaty and needs an interim agreement in place as well as a plan and schedule for the the FTA (based on my non legal reading of article 24) Which suggests it’s not a negotiation period. I believe that the WTO need to agree this all by a two thirds majority. A waiver on border controls can be sought under article 21. If national security is used, it may be the waiver applies to N Ireland only as There is no security issue of having a Irish Sea custom border. Before I get pulled up, I’m not an expert. But am showing my layman workings for others to pull apart (expert or not). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These two keep coming up in threads so thought it was worth it’s own one. They get quoted together but my understanding is (and v happy to be corrected) The “ten year” rule is an implementation period for an agreed FTA which can’t be implemented in one go. I use quotation marks as really the treaty is to be rolled out in “a reasonable amount of time” often seen to be ten years. The WTO waiver is to waive MFN rules for some reason, say national security. It doesn’t have a time limit. As such the ten year rule has no place in no deal talks. By definition it needs a negotiation to take place. The 10 year exemption on border controls in the WTO can apply in extenuating circumstances (you cite national security). Now considering the UK and Republic of Ireland have an ongoing peace process called the good Friday agreement then I'd consider that extenuating circumstances in the area of national security. As I said my understanding is the ten year rule is for the implementation of a treaty and needs an interim agreement in place as well as a plan and schedule for the the FTA (based on my non legal reading of article 24) Which suggests it’s not a negotiation period. I believe that the WTO need to agree this all by a two thirds majority. A waiver on border controls can be sought under article 21. If national security is used, it may be the waiver applies to N Ireland only as There is no security issue of having a Irish Sea custom border. Before I get pulled up, I’m not an expert. But am showing my layman workings for others to pull apart (expert or not). " Basically you are right and centy is wrong, which is why Jacob Rees mogg doesn’t use this in his rantings anymore... Again it’s spouting unicorns again... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Very hard to understand what UK want Thought Parliament made it pretty clear the other night they want to get rid of the backstop. " They can want whatever they like. They are not able to deliver it. Neither is the government. Rather like Brexit itself. You can promise and demand whatever you like but you cannot deliver. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why does Centy keep being proved wrong disappearing for a week then repeats the same bloody nonsense over and over it's mind boggling "I've not been proved wrong. It's the remoaners on this thread who think they are right who are in the wrong. The former director general of the British Chambers of commerce and now chairman of the Leave means Leave brexit campaign group John Longworth along with Co chair of Leave means Leave Richard Tice had a meeting with representatives of the WTO at the recent Davos economic forum event in January 2019. They agreed at the meeting that it would be perfectly feasible and doable under existing WTO rules. Also bare in mind the same people who keep saying I'm wrong like Fabio, EasyUk and SwinGloscpl are the same people who have been consistently telling me I've been wrong for the last 2 years about new technology solving the Irish border problem. For the last 2 years they've been telling me no new technology exists. Their silly claims were blown out of the water last week when tech giant Fujitsu announced they had been working on a new tech App for the Irish border for the last 2 years, and it will be ready to test before our departure from the EU on March 29th. If you don't believe me then just Google "Fujitsu Irish border app" and have a read about it there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hahahahaha yeah Fujitsus digital solution ready to be "tested" for March 29th Another famously shot down Centaur statement time amd time AGAIN!!!! The first time i caught that was the new year PMQ's that was TM's response to JC when he questioned the backstop "eh oah eh we eh we are working towards technology to help prevent the need for a backstop" you were repeating that guff within hours of it being aired. It's fucking laughable man you're definately delusional." It hasn't been shot down time and time again. Fujitsu hadn't announced it at new year PMQ's, the latest statement from Fujitsu only came out last week where they said it would be ready to test before March 29th. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No "new technology" was mentioned at new year's PMQ's which didn't answer JC's question at the time. Later that day you were shouting down over the backstop claiming TM's new technology was the solution when you didn't even know which company was involved or what the tech actually was. That was ridiculous then and is now don't quote something you don't understand especially in a fucking debate you complete nugget!! " Now you're just making shit up on the spot as I've never claimed Theresa May's new technology was the solution. It's not Theresa May's new technology. It's Fujitsu's new technology. Theresa May didn't invent it. 
I've talked about existing technology on here before like camera recognition technology, GPS parcel tracking and GPS vehicle tracking systems coupled with trusted trader scheme's that can be used together in conjunction to form an invisible border in Ireland to stay in line with the good Friday agreement. The fujitsu border app is additional new technology that can be added to those other measures which addresses tariffs being paid over customs borders in Ireland without the need for physical checks at the border, as the app declares a customs register at departure point from the exporter and signs off a customs declaration at arrival on the other side of the border. It's all done electronically without the need for physical checks checks at the border. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No "new technology" was mentioned at new year's PMQ's which didn't answer JC's question at the time. Later that day you were shouting down over the backstop claiming TM's new technology was the solution when you didn't even know which company was involved or what the tech actually was. That was ridiculous then and is now don't quote something you don't understand especially in a fucking debate you complete nugget!! Now you're just making shit up on the spot as I've never claimed Theresa May's new technology was the solution. It's not Theresa May's new technology. It's Fujitsu's new technology. Theresa May didn't invent it.
I've talked about existing technology on here before like camera recognition technology, GPS parcel tracking and GPS vehicle tracking systems coupled with trusted trader scheme's that can be used together in conjunction to form an invisible border in Ireland to stay in line with the good Friday agreement. The fujitsu border app is additional new technology that can be added to those other measures which addresses tariffs being paid over customs borders in Ireland without the need for physical checks at the border, as the app declares a customs register at departure point from the exporter and signs off a customs declaration at arrival on the other side of the border. It's all done electronically without the need for physical checks checks at the border. "Okay, so if this is the case are the ERG so keen on not having the backstop as it will never be used? Seems very odd. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why does Centy keep being proved wrong disappearing for a week then repeats the same bloody nonsense over and over it's mind boggling
I've not been proved wrong. It's the remoaners on this thread who think they are right who are in the wrong. The former director general of the British Chambers of commerce and now chairman of the Leave means Leave brexit campaign group John Longworth along with Co chair of Leave means Leave Richard Tice had a meeting with representatives of the WTO at the recent Davos economic forum event in January 2019. They agreed at the meeting that it would be perfectly feasible and doable under existing WTO rules.
Also bare in mind the same people who keep saying I'm wrong like Fabio, EasyUk and SwinGloscpl are the same people who have been consistently telling me I've been wrong for the last 2 years about new technology solving the Irish border problem. For the last 2 years they've been telling me no new technology exists.
Their silly claims were blown out of the water last week when tech giant Fujitsu announced they had been working on a new tech App for the Irish border for the last 2 years, and it will be ready to test before our departure from the EU on March 29th. If you don't believe me then just Google "Fujitsu Irish border app" and have a read about it there. "Quote from someone from the WTO, Lorand Bartels & an Trade Negotiator : I think you have been reading sources that miss the point. "Although there is a clause in the rules that allows for interim agreements, WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell said it also requires the two sides to provide a plan and reasonable time-frame for their deal to take shape: a distant prospect. “This presupposes, of course, that both the UK and the EU agree on the process of negotiating a deal, whatever form that deal may take. It would also require that both parties agree to an interim deal,” he said. Trade lawyers are exasperated that Article 24 keeps resurfacing, despite their attempts to knock it down. “It’s amazing how this awful misinterpretation of Art XXIV GATT won’t die, no matter how many times I point this out,” Lorand Bartels, reader in international law at the University of Cambridge, tweeted in May last year. “It’s utter nonsense,” former Australian trade negotiator Dmitry Grozoubinsky tweeted in December. “It relies on your being too busy to read Article XXIV of the GATT, or too confused by trade legalese to parse it.” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why does Centy keep being proved wrong disappearing for a week then repeats the same bloody nonsense over and over it's mind boggling
I've not been proved wrong. It's the remoaners on this thread who think they are right who are in the wrong. The former director general of the British Chambers of commerce and now chairman of the Leave means Leave brexit campaign group John Longworth along with Co chair of Leave means Leave Richard Tice had a meeting with representatives of the WTO at the recent Davos economic forum event in January 2019. They agreed at the meeting that it would be perfectly feasible and doable under existing WTO rules.
Also bare in mind the same people who keep saying I'm wrong like Fabio, EasyUk and SwinGloscpl are the same people who have been consistently telling me I've been wrong for the last 2 years about new technology solving the Irish border problem. For the last 2 years they've been telling me no new technology exists.
Their silly claims were blown out of the water last week when tech giant Fujitsu announced they had been working on a new tech App for the Irish border for the last 2 years, and it will be ready to test before our departure from the EU on March 29th. If you don't believe me then just Google "Fujitsu Irish border app" and have a read about it there.
Quote from someone from the WTO, Lorand Bartels & an Trade Negotiator : I think you have been reading sources that miss the point.
"Although there is a clause in the rules that allows for interim agreements, WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell said it also requires the two sides to provide a plan and reasonable time-frame for their deal to take shape: a distant prospect.
“This presupposes, of course, that both the UK and the EU agree on the process of negotiating a deal, whatever form that deal may take. It would also require that both parties agree to an interim deal,” he said.
Trade lawyers are exasperated that Article 24 keeps resurfacing, despite their attempts to knock it down.
“It’s amazing how this awful misinterpretation of Art XXIV GATT won’t die, no matter how many times I point this out,” Lorand Bartels, reader in international law at the University of Cambridge, tweeted in May last year.
“It’s utter nonsense,” former Australian trade negotiator Dmitry Grozoubinsky tweeted in December.
“It relies on your being too busy to read Article XXIV of the GATT, or too confused by trade legalese to parse it.” "It's always been the case that both the UK and the EU would have to agree to it. I've never claimed otherwise. Why wouldn't the EU agree to it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why does Centy keep being proved wrong disappearing for a week then repeats the same bloody nonsense over and over it's mind boggling
I've not been proved wrong. It's the remoaners on this thread who think they are right who are in the wrong. The former director general of the British Chambers of commerce and now chairman of the Leave means Leave brexit campaign group John Longworth along with Co chair of Leave means Leave Richard Tice had a meeting with representatives of the WTO at the recent Davos economic forum event in January 2019. They agreed at the meeting that it would be perfectly feasible and doable under existing WTO rules.
Also bare in mind the same people who keep saying I'm wrong like Fabio, EasyUk and SwinGloscpl are the same people who have been consistently telling me I've been wrong for the last 2 years about new technology solving the Irish border problem. For the last 2 years they've been telling me no new technology exists.
Their silly claims were blown out of the water last week when tech giant Fujitsu announced they had been working on a new tech App for the Irish border for the last 2 years, and it will be ready to test before our departure from the EU on March 29th. If you don't believe me then just Google "Fujitsu Irish border app" and have a read about it there.
Quote from someone from the WTO, Lorand Bartels & an Trade Negotiator : I think you have been reading sources that miss the point.
"Although there is a clause in the rules that allows for interim agreements, WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell said it also requires the two sides to provide a plan and reasonable time-frame for their deal to take shape: a distant prospect.
“This presupposes, of course, that both the UK and the EU agree on the process of negotiating a deal, whatever form that deal may take. It would also require that both parties agree to an interim deal,” he said.
Trade lawyers are exasperated that Article 24 keeps resurfacing, despite their attempts to knock it down.
“It’s amazing how this awful misinterpretation of Art XXIV GATT won’t die, no matter how many times I point this out,” Lorand Bartels, reader in international law at the University of Cambridge, tweeted in May last year.
“It’s utter nonsense,” former Australian trade negotiator Dmitry Grozoubinsky tweeted in December.
“It relies on your being too busy to read Article XXIV of the GATT, or too confused by trade legalese to parse it.”
It's always been the case that both the UK and the EU would have to agree to it. I've never claimed otherwise. Why wouldn't the EU agree to it? "It’s the details. We need to agree a process of negotiation. Not just agree to implement article 24 and decide after. You need to agree timescales and a structure. All things we are negotiating now and failing. What’s the interim deal ? What does the border look like then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That’s all about article 24 and the so called 10 year rule. Les riff on the waiver We’re thinking the reason for the waiver is national security. Putting aside WTO may scoff at this given we have national security and are taking the decision to do this ourselves. By looking at the waiver it suggests WTO is in itself not safe. Yet this increasingly seems to be the plan. Yet we get triggered when Tusk dares call out those who promoted brexit without a plan that ensures safety. (This line works even if you confuse the waiver with article 24. This was never discussed during the referendum so it seems no one had a safe plan then.). " The plan during the referendum campaign was to have a sensible free trade deal with the EU. As the process to this has been frustrated and undermined pretty much every step of the way by remainers inside Parliament who never accepted the referendum result, and by remainers outside of Parliament like Gina Miller and her court case which was a blatant attempt to block brexit and others like Blair, Clegg, Campbell and Mandelson colluding with the EU to delay, obfuscate, and block the process to try to force a second referendum, as a result of those developing situations it's made it more likely now we leave on WTO rules. Plan A is still to leave with a deal before March 29th but the Leave means Leave campaign has now laid out a plan B for leaving on WTO terms. Also it is a national security issue because it relates to the Northern Ireland border and the good Friday agreement which is about maintaining peace there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That’s all about article 24 and the so called 10 year rule. Les riff on the waiver We’re thinking the reason for the waiver is national security. Putting aside WTO may scoff at this given we have national security and are taking the decision to do this ourselves. By looking at the waiver it suggests WTO is in itself not safe. Yet this increasingly seems to be the plan. Yet we get triggered when Tusk dares call out those who promoted brexit without a plan that ensures safety. (This line works even if you confuse the waiver with article 24. This was never discussed during the referendum so it seems no one had a safe plan then.). The plan during the referendum campaign was to have a sensible free trade deal with the EU. As the process to this has been frustrated and undermined pretty much every step of the way by remainers inside Parliament who never accepted the referendum result, and by remainers outside of Parliament like Gina Miller and her court case which was a blatant attempt to block brexit and others like Blair, Clegg, Campbell and Mandelson colluding with the EU to delay, obfuscate, and block the process to try to force a second referendum, as a result of those developing situations it's made it more likely now we leave on WTO rules. Plan A is still to leave with a deal before March 29th but the Leave means Leave campaign has now laid out a plan B for leaving on WTO terms. Also it is a national security issue because it relates to the Northern Ireland border and the good Friday agreement which is about maintaining peace there. " The Irish’s border isn’t really about FTA. It’s about customs. What was the plan for the border ? And how much do we care about national security if we’re willing to walk away from the rule that enable it ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That’s all about article 24 and the so called 10 year rule. Les riff on the waiver We’re thinking the reason for the waiver is national security. Putting aside WTO may scoff at this given we have national security and are taking the decision to do this ourselves. By looking at the waiver it suggests WTO is in itself not safe. Yet this increasingly seems to be the plan. Yet we get triggered when Tusk dares call out those who promoted brexit without a plan that ensures safety. (This line works even if you confuse the waiver with article 24. This was never discussed during the referendum so it seems no one had a safe plan then.). The plan during the referendum campaign was to have a sensible free trade deal with the EU. As the process to this has been frustrated and undermined pretty much every step of the way by remainers inside Parliament who never accepted the referendum result, and by remainers outside of Parliament like Gina Miller and her court case which was a blatant attempt to block brexit and others like Blair, Clegg, Campbell and Mandelson colluding with the EU to delay, obfuscate, and block the process to try to force a second referendum, as a result of those developing situations it's made it more likely now we leave on WTO rules. Plan A is still to leave with a deal before March 29th but the Leave means Leave campaign has now laid out a plan B for leaving on WTO terms. Also it is a national security issue because it relates to the Northern Ireland border and the good Friday agreement which is about maintaining peace there. The Irish’s border isn’t really about FTA. It’s about customs. What was the plan for the border ? And how much do we care about national security if we’re willing to walk away from the rule that enable it ? " You could say in response to that how much do we care about democracy if we're not willing to implement the referendum result? The plan for the border has been clearly laid out by the ERG wing of the Conservative party. They did a live press conference about it on national television and laid out all the technology solutions to create an invisible border there. They said new technology would also come into play. Remsiners have swore blind no new technology exists or was being developed. Remainers are wrong. Fujitsu has now confirmed they were working on and developing new technology for the border for the last 2 years and they say it'll be ready before March 29th. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That’s all about article 24 and the so called 10 year rule. Les riff on the waiver We’re thinking the reason for the waiver is national security. Putting aside WTO may scoff at this given we have national security and are taking the decision to do this ourselves. By looking at the waiver it suggests WTO is in itself not safe. Yet this increasingly seems to be the plan. Yet we get triggered when Tusk dares call out those who promoted brexit without a plan that ensures safety. (This line works even if you confuse the waiver with article 24. This was never discussed during the referendum so it seems no one had a safe plan then.). The plan during the referendum campaign was to have a sensible free trade deal with the EU. As the process to this has been frustrated and undermined pretty much every step of the way by remainers inside Parliament who never accepted the referendum result, and by remainers outside of Parliament like Gina Miller and her court case which was a blatant attempt to block brexit and others like Blair, Clegg, Campbell and Mandelson colluding with the EU to delay, obfuscate, and block the process to try to force a second referendum, as a result of those developing situations it's made it more likely now we leave on WTO rules. Plan A is still to leave with a deal before March 29th but the Leave means Leave campaign has now laid out a plan B for leaving on WTO terms. Also it is a national security issue because it relates to the Northern Ireland border and the good Friday agreement which is about maintaining peace there. The Irish’s border isn’t really about FTA. It’s about customs. What was the plan for the border ? And how much do we care about national security if we’re willing to walk away from the rule that enable it ? You could say in response to that how much do we care about democracy if we're not willing to implement the referendum result? The plan for the border has been clearly laid out by the ERG wing of the Conservative party. They did a live press conference about it on national television and laid out all the technology solutions to create an invisible border there. They said new technology would also come into play. Remsiners have swore blind no new technology exists or was being developed. Remainers are wrong. Fujitsu has now confirmed they were working on and developing new technology for the border for the last 2 years and they say it'll be ready before March 29th. " There’s a thread on Fujitsu. The vote said exit the EU. Mays deal exits the EU. And on terms both sides agree are safe. Democracy has failed by those who voted against the deal. On both sides. At least those who want to remain can say their reasons don’t put peace at risk. Those who are happy with WTO are saying the will choose the unsafe route, and hope we can get a waiver. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That’s all about article 24 and the so called 10 year rule. Les riff on the waiver We’re thinking the reason for the waiver is national security. Putting aside WTO may scoff at this given we have national security and are taking the decision to do this ourselves. By looking at the waiver it suggests WTO is in itself not safe. Yet this increasingly seems to be the plan. Yet we get triggered when Tusk dares call out those who promoted brexit without a plan that ensures safety. (This line works even if you confuse the waiver with article 24. This was never discussed during the referendum so it seems no one had a safe plan then.). The plan during the referendum campaign was to have a sensible free trade deal with the EU. As the process to this has been frustrated and undermined pretty much every step of the way by remainers inside Parliament who never accepted the referendum result, and by remainers outside of Parliament like Gina Miller and her court case which was a blatant attempt to block brexit and others like Blair, Clegg, Campbell and Mandelson colluding with the EU to delay, obfuscate, and block the process to try to force a second referendum, as a result of those developing situations it's made it more likely now we leave on WTO rules. Plan A is still to leave with a deal before March 29th but the Leave means Leave campaign has now laid out a plan B for leaving on WTO terms. Also it is a national security issue because it relates to the Northern Ireland border and the good Friday agreement which is about maintaining peace there. The Irish’s border isn’t really about FTA. It’s about customs. What was the plan for the border ? And how much do we care about national security if we’re willing to walk away from the rule that enable it ? You could say in response to that how much do we care about democracy if we're not willing to implement the referendum result? The plan for the border has been clearly laid out by the ERG wing of the Conservative party. They did a live press conference about it on national television and laid out all the technology solutions to create an invisible border there. They said new technology would also come into play. Remsiners have swore blind no new technology exists or was being developed. Remainers are wrong. Fujitsu has now confirmed they were working on and developing new technology for the border for the last 2 years and they say it'll be ready before March 29th. " So therefore by default - the backstop is moot. Why then are the ERG so publically against the backstop if they (or Fujitsu) have the technological means to ever prevent it happening? To claim that technology exists that would make the backstop unnecessary contradicts the argument that the backstop should not be in the agreement. Either there is faith in the technology, or there isn’t. No one objects to a mortgage agreement having the backstop arrangement that the mortgage company can repossess your home if you do not fulfil your obligations. Most people protect from that eventuality by taking out mortgage protection / income protection insurance, but they still then can't ask the mortgage company to remove their right to repossess. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That’s all about article 24 and the so called 10 year rule. Les riff on the waiver We’re thinking the reason for the waiver is national security. Putting aside WTO may scoff at this given we have national security and are taking the decision to do this ourselves. By looking at the waiver it suggests WTO is in itself not safe. Yet this increasingly seems to be the plan. Yet we get triggered when Tusk dares call out those who promoted brexit without a plan that ensures safety. (This line works even if you confuse the waiver with article 24. This was never discussed during the referendum so it seems no one had a safe plan then.). The plan during the referendum campaign was to have a sensible free trade deal with the EU. As the process to this has been frustrated and undermined pretty much every step of the way by remainers inside Parliament who never accepted the referendum result, and by remainers outside of Parliament like Gina Miller and her court case which was a blatant attempt to block brexit and others like Blair, Clegg, Campbell and Mandelson colluding with the EU to delay, obfuscate, and block the process to try to force a second referendum, as a result of those developing situations it's made it more likely now we leave on WTO rules. Plan A is still to leave with a deal before March 29th but the Leave means Leave campaign has now laid out a plan B for leaving on WTO terms. Also it is a national security issue because it relates to the Northern Ireland border and the good Friday agreement which is about maintaining peace there. The Irish’s border isn’t really about FTA. It’s about customs. What was the plan for the border ? And how much do we care about national security if we’re willing to walk away from the rule that enable it ? You could say in response to that how much do we care about democracy if we're not willing to implement the referendum result? The plan for the border has been clearly laid out by the ERG wing of the Conservative party. They did a live press conference about it on national television and laid out all the technology solutions to create an invisible border there. They said new technology would also come into play. Remsiners have swore blind no new technology exists or was being developed. Remainers are wrong. Fujitsu has now confirmed they were working on and developing new technology for the border for the last 2 years and they say it'll be ready before March 29th. So therefore by default - the backstop is moot. Why then are the ERG so publically against the backstop if they (or Fujitsu) have the technological means to ever prevent it happening? To claim that technology exists that would make the backstop unnecessary contradicts the argument that the backstop should not be in the agreement. Either there is faith in the technology, or there isn’t. No one objects to a mortgage agreement having the backstop arrangement that the mortgage company can repossess your home if you do not fulfil your obligations. Most people protect from that eventuality by taking out mortgage protection / income protection insurance, but they still then can't ask the mortgage company to remove their right to repossess. " I think you are missing the point ,the point is that we cannot get out of it without the eu,s say so theoretically they could keep us in forever even if there was a solution.No morgage company could repossess your home if you had the money to pay them so your comparison is pointless. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No "new technology" was mentioned at new year's PMQ's which didn't answer JC's question at the time. Later that day you were shouting down over the backstop claiming TM's new technology was the solution when you didn't even know which company was involved or what the tech actually was. That was ridiculous then and is now don't quote something you don't understand especially in a fucking debate you complete nugget!! Now you're just making shit up on the spot as I've never claimed Theresa May's new technology was the solution. It's not Theresa May's new technology. It's Fujitsu's new technology. Theresa May didn't invent it.
I've talked about existing technology on here before like camera recognition technology, GPS parcel tracking and GPS vehicle tracking systems coupled with trusted trader scheme's that can be used together in conjunction to form an invisible border in Ireland to stay in line with the good Friday agreement. The fujitsu border app is additional new technology that can be added to those other measures which addresses tariffs being paid over customs borders in Ireland without the need for physical checks at the border, as the app declares a customs register at departure point from the exporter and signs off a customs declaration at arrival on the other side of the border. It's all done electronically without the need for physical checks checks at the border.
Okay, so if this is the case are the ERG so keen on not having the backstop as it will never be used? Seems very odd."I think this says it all. If any solution existed, or was likely to exist within the next 5 yeats, to a possible customs and regulatory border on the island of Ireland then the backstop would never be implemented. The fact that ERG don't want the backstop and the EU insists on it is because both sides know that no solution actually exists now or is likely to exist within the next 5 years (if ever) to the border problem. The problem is quite simply this, with the backstop we will probably end up in the EU's custom union indefinitely and without the backstop there will be a hard border in Ireland. The one thing both sides know is that a technological solution to the border problem simply doesn't exist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That’s all about article 24 and the so called 10 year rule. Les riff on the waiver We’re thinking the reason for the waiver is national security. Putting aside WTO may scoff at this given we have national security and are taking the decision to do this ourselves. By looking at the waiver it suggests WTO is in itself not safe. Yet this increasingly seems to be the plan. Yet we get triggered when Tusk dares call out those who promoted brexit without a plan that ensures safety. (This line works even if you confuse the waiver with article 24. This was never discussed during the referendum so it seems no one had a safe plan then.). The plan during the referendum campaign was to have a sensible free trade deal with the EU. As the process to this has been frustrated and undermined pretty much every step of the way by remainers inside Parliament who never accepted the referendum result, and by remainers outside of Parliament like Gina Miller and her court case which was a blatant attempt to block brexit and others like Blair, Clegg, Campbell and Mandelson colluding with the EU to delay, obfuscate, and block the process to try to force a second referendum, as a result of those developing situations it's made it more likely now we leave on WTO rules. Plan A is still to leave with a deal before March 29th but the Leave means Leave campaign has now laid out a plan B for leaving on WTO terms. Also it is a national security issue because it relates to the Northern Ireland border and the good Friday agreement which is about maintaining peace there. The Irish’s border isn’t really about FTA. It’s about customs. What was the plan for the border ? And how much do we care about national security if we’re willing to walk away from the rule that enable it ? You could say in response to that how much do we care about democracy if we're not willing to implement the referendum result? The plan for the border has been clearly laid out by the ERG wing of the Conservative party. They did a live press conference about it on national television and laid out all the technology solutions to create an invisible border there. They said new technology would also come into play. Remsiners have swore blind no new technology exists or was being developed. Remainers are wrong. Fujitsu has now confirmed they were working on and developing new technology for the border for the last 2 years and they say it'll be ready before March 29th. So therefore by default - the backstop is moot. Why then are the ERG so publically against the backstop if they (or Fujitsu) have the technological means to ever prevent it happening? To claim that technology exists that would make the backstop unnecessary contradicts the argument that the backstop should not be in the agreement. Either there is faith in the technology, or there isn’t. No one objects to a mortgage agreement having the backstop arrangement that the mortgage company can repossess your home if you do not fulfil your obligations. Most people protect from that eventuality by taking out mortgage protection / income protection insurance, but they still then can't ask the mortgage company to remove their right to repossess. I think you are missing the point ,the point is that we cannot get out of it without the eu,s say so theoretically they could keep us in forever even if there was a solution.No morgage company could repossess your home if you had the money to pay them so your comparison is pointless." 
As the EU is so utterly desperate to keep the UK in by any means they would just dismiss any new legitimate and workable technology solutions for the Irish border as not sufficient as an excuse to keep the UK tied in the customs union through the mechanism of the backstop and we wouldn't be able to legally get out of it unless the EU gave it's approval.
It was the Europhile remainer and UK Brexit negotiator Olly Robbins who came up with this idea of a backstop for the Irish border, which the EU of course jumped on. As Olly Robbins was reportedly overheard shooting his mouth off in a hotel bar in recent days talking about the backstop he said the backstop was designed to form the future basis of the UK/EU's ongoing future relationship. So there you have it from the horses mouth, he purposefully designed it to keep the UK locked in a customs union with the EU indefinitely. It's not acceptable and surely now Theresa May must realise that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That’s all about article 24 and the so called 10 year rule. Les riff on the waiver We’re thinking the reason for the waiver is national security. Putting aside WTO may scoff at this given we have national security and are taking the decision to do this ourselves. By looking at the waiver it suggests WTO is in itself not safe. Yet this increasingly seems to be the plan. Yet we get triggered when Tusk dares call out those who promoted brexit without a plan that ensures safety. (This line works even if you confuse the waiver with article 24. This was never discussed during the referendum so it seems no one had a safe plan then.). The plan during the referendum campaign was to have a sensible free trade deal with the EU. As the process to this has been frustrated and undermined pretty much every step of the way by remainers inside Parliament who never accepted the referendum result, and by remainers outside of Parliament like Gina Miller and her court case which was a blatant attempt to block brexit and others like Blair, Clegg, Campbell and Mandelson colluding with the EU to delay, obfuscate, and block the process to try to force a second referendum, as a result of those developing situations it's made it more likely now we leave on WTO rules. Plan A is still to leave with a deal before March 29th but the Leave means Leave campaign has now laid out a plan B for leaving on WTO terms. Also it is a national security issue because it relates to the Northern Ireland border and the good Friday agreement which is about maintaining peace there. The Irish’s border isn’t really about FTA. It’s about customs. What was the plan for the border ? And how much do we care about national security if we’re willing to walk away from the rule that enable it ? You could say in response to that how much do we care about democracy if we're not willing to implement the referendum result? The plan for the border has been clearly laid out by the ERG wing of the Conservative party. They did a live press conference about it on national television and laid out all the technology solutions to create an invisible border there. They said new technology would also come into play. Remsiners have swore blind no new technology exists or was being developed. Remainers are wrong. Fujitsu has now confirmed they were working on and developing new technology for the border for the last 2 years and they say it'll be ready before March 29th. So therefore by default - the backstop is moot. Why then are the ERG so publically against the backstop if they (or Fujitsu) have the technological means to ever prevent it happening? To claim that technology exists that would make the backstop unnecessary contradicts the argument that the backstop should not be in the agreement. Either there is faith in the technology, or there isn’t. No one objects to a mortgage agreement having the backstop arrangement that the mortgage company can repossess your home if you do not fulfil your obligations. Most people protect from that eventuality by taking out mortgage protection / income protection insurance, but they still then can't ask the mortgage company to remove their right to repossess. I think you are missing the point ,the point is that we cannot get out of it without the eu,s say so theoretically they could keep us in forever even if there was a solution.No morgage company could repossess your home if you had the money to pay them so your comparison is pointless.
As the EU is so utterly desperate to keep the UK in by any means they would just dismiss any new legitimate and workable technology solutions for the Irish border as not sufficient as an excuse to keep the UK tied in the customs union through the mechanism of the backstop and we wouldn't be able to legally get out of it unless the EU gave it's approval.
It was the Europhile remainer and UK Brexit negotiator Olly Robbins who came up with this idea of a backstop for the Irish border, which the EU of course jumped on. As Olly Robbins was reportedly overheard shooting his mouth off in a hotel bar in recent days talking about the backstop he said the backstop was designed to form the future basis of the UK/EU's ongoing future relationship. So there you have it from the horses mouth, he purposefully designed it to keep the UK locked in a customs union with the EU indefinitely. It's not acceptable and surely now Theresa May must realise that. "Not acceptable to who? The backstop is perfectly acceptable to me; it's perfectly acceptable to the Irish, in fact it's perfectly acceptable to almost everyone except ERG and DUP. That being said, whilst I and pretty much everyone except ERG and DUP have no problem with the backstop, there are many other things about May's deal I and many others do have a problem with, not least just what type of BREXIT will we actually have when\if we finally leave. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
