BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

darkhairedlord

balance of power is not in unionists favour so having a NI veto on rollover every four years looks reasonable.

TheBigBean

KingstonGraham wrote:

How do you square "an all-island regulatory zone" for all goods with not treating NI differently from the rest of the UK?

If you read the explanatory note it talks about GB->NI trade, and the need for regulatory declarations, so there is no pretence that NI is being treated the same; however, it does at least try to have some democratic legitimacy by the involvement of the assembly. Also, trade NI->GB is unaffected which was one of May's ruses.

Ultimately, I suspect the DUP has been persuaded by the New Deal.

It seems quite a big concession from the UK, but it still needs the customs concession from the EU/Ireland.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

How do you square "an all-island regulatory zone" for all goods with not treating NI differently from the rest of the UK?

If you read the explanatory note it talks about GB->NI trade, and the need for regulatory declarations, so there is no pretence that NI is being treated the same; however, it does at least try to have some democratic legitimacy by the involvement of the assembly. Also, trade NI->GB is unaffected which was one of May's ruses.

Ultimately, I suspect the DUP has been persuaded by the New Deal.

It seems quite a big concession from the UK, but it still needs the customs concession from the EU/Ireland.

Can't see the Spartans going for this

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

what is the difference between NI aligning with EU rules and staying in CU?

Regulatory rules, not customs rules. So if I understand it correctly, the non-tariff regulations would be the same but you might need to pay tariffs.

Are you sure? agric tariffs are some of the highest

darkhairedlord

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

what is the difference between NI aligning with EU rules and staying in CU?

Regulatory rules, not customs rules. So if I understand it correctly, the non-tariff regulations would be the same but you might need to pay tariffs.

Are you sure? agric tariffs are some of the highest

incentivises FTA

kingstongraham

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

what is the difference between NI aligning with EU rules and staying in CU?

Regulatory rules, not customs rules. So if I understand it correctly, the non-tariff regulations would be the same but you might need to pay tariffs.

Are you sure? agric tariffs are some of the highest

Specifically says

c. provide for the creation of an all-island regulatory zone on the island of Ireland,
covering not just sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) and agri-food rules but all
goods, thus eliminating regulatory checks for trade in goods between Northern
Ireland and Ireland;
e. ensure that Northern Ireland will be fully part of the UK customs territory, not
the EU customs territory, after the end of the transition period, with all customs
processes necessary to ensure compliance with the UK and EU customs
regimes taking place electronically, and with the small number of physical
checks needed conducted at traders’ premises or other points on the supply
chain. This should be coupled with a firm commitment (by both parties) never
to conduct checks at the border in future.

tailwindhome

darkhairedlord wrote:

balance of power is not in unionists favour so having a NI veto on rollover every four years looks reasonable.

There's a mechanism whereby votes need cross community support
Effectively, as it's a vote to retain this arrangement, unionists can kill it off in 4 years.

tailwindhome

I haven't fully digested this yet but I think it's a poorly disguised attempt to bounce the EU into giving the UK all the benefits of a CU without actually being in a CU in order to make the customs posts unnecessary


But, God does love a trier.

kingstongraham

Lib Dems say that it creates two borders for NI rather than having no border.

tailwindhome

Charlie Cooper
@CharlieCooper8
· 3m
Juncker's response to Johnson's proposals here:
https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_S ... 978_en.htm

- welcomes reg alignment for goods in NI
- governance of backstop "problematic"
- customs plan also a "concern"
- meetings between the EU and UK teams over coming days
- Juncker to speak to Varadkar

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

what is the difference between NI aligning with EU rules and staying in CU?

Regulatory rules, not customs rules. So if I understand it correctly, the non-tariff regulations would be the same but you might need to pay tariffs.

Are you sure? agric tariffs are some of the highest

Specifically says

c. provide for the creation of an all-island regulatory zone on the island of Ireland,
covering not just sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) and agri-food rules but all
goods, thus eliminating regulatory checks for trade in goods between Northern
Ireland and Ireland;
e. ensure that Northern Ireland will be fully part of the UK customs territory, not
the EU customs territory, after the end of the transition period, with all customs
processes necessary to ensure compliance with the UK and EU customs
regimes taking place electronically, and with the small number of physical
checks needed conducted at traders’ premises or other points on the supply
chain. This should be coupled with a firm commitment (by both parties) never
to conduct checks at the border in future.

But surely the high tariffs would wipe out cross border trade?

tailwindhome

TailWindHome wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

balance of power is not in unionists favour so having a NI veto on rollover every four years looks reasonable.

There's a mechanism whereby votes need cross community support
Effectively, as it's a vote to retain this arrangement, unionists can kill it off in 4 years.

In fact - having read the explanatory notes - they can kill it off in the transition period so it never comes into effect.

TheBigBean

TailWindHome wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

balance of power is not in unionists favour so having a NI veto on rollover every four years looks reasonable.

There's a mechanism whereby votes need cross community support
Effectively, as it's a vote to retain this arrangement, unionists can kill it off in 4 years.

That's a fairly material point.

tailwindhome

The DUP already coming under fire from their Loyalist right for even going this far.

(Excuse the expression)

tailwindhome

TheBigBean wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

balance of power is not in unionists favour so having a NI veto on rollover every four years looks reasonable.

There's a mechanism whereby votes need cross community support
Effectively, as it's a vote to retain this arrangement, unionists can kill it off in 4 years.

That's a fairly material point.

Consent on a cross community basis is always going to be a problem

Consent required to STAY in arrangement = Unionist veto
Consent required to LEAVE arrangement = Nationalist veto

tailwindhome

Swift delete and repost

It *is* a wise move by the Govt to rebuild some goodwill in the House by insuring the Domestic Abuse Bill survives prorogation

darkhairedlord

TailWindHome wrote:

Swift delete and repost

It *is* a wise move by the Govt to rebuild some goodwill in the House by insuring the Domestic Abuse Bill survives prorogation

I would ammend to
"that if the bill is not completed the session will not be concluded."

darkhairedlord

TailWindHome wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

balance of power is not in unionists favour so having a NI veto on rollover every four years looks reasonable.

There's a mechanism whereby votes need cross community support
Effectively, as it's a vote to retain this arrangement, unionists can kill it off in 4 years.

That's a fairly material point.

Consent on a cross community basis is always going to be a problem

Consent required to STAY in arrangement = Unionist veto
Consent required to LEAVE arrangement = Nationalist veto

you're missing section 13.
"If consent is withheld, the arrangements will not enter into force or will lapse (as the case may be) after one year, and arrangements will default to existing rules"
what are the existing rules? what we have between NI & Eire now or some time in the future?

tailwindhome

darkhairedlord wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

balance of power is not in unionists favour so having a NI veto on rollover every four years looks reasonable.

There's a mechanism whereby votes need cross community support
Effectively, as it's a vote to retain this arrangement, unionists can kill it off in 4 years.

That's a fairly material point.

Consent on a cross community basis is always going to be a problem

Consent required to STAY in arrangement = Unionist veto
Consent required to LEAVE arrangement = Nationalist veto

you're missing section 13.
"If consent is withheld, the arrangements will not enter into force or will lapse (as the case may be) after one year, and arrangements will default to existing rules"
what are the existing rules? what we have between NI & Eire now or some time in the future?

UK rules, whatever they be
I think - I haven't done anything more than glance at the document

darkhairedlord

BJ to prorogue on 8th until 14th.
So BJ will have been PM for 85 days by the time he is supposed to be at the EU summit and will have only faced 1 PMQ.
IS that poor?

darkhairedlord

TailWindHome wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

balance of power is not in unionists favour so having a NI veto on rollover every four years looks reasonable.

There's a mechanism whereby votes need cross community support
Effectively, as it's a vote to retain this arrangement, unionists can kill it off in 4 years.

That's a fairly material point.

Consent on a cross community basis is always going to be a problem

Consent required to STAY in arrangement = Unionist veto
Consent required to LEAVE arrangement = Nationalist veto

you're missing section 13.
"If consent is withheld, the arrangements will not enter into force or will lapse (as the case may be) after one year, and arrangements will default to existing rules"
what are the existing rules? what we have between NI & Eire now or some time in the future?

UK rules, whatever they be
I think - I haven't done anything more than glance at the document

I suppose its only the brochure , not the real deal.

bompington

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But surely the high tariffs would wipe out cross border trade?

On the contrary, there are a whole load of - errrr - entrepreneurs who would find this greatly motivating to trade across the border.

tailwindhome

Some electoral math geekery
https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/sta ... 43296?s=09

orraloon

TailWindHome wrote:

Some electoral math geekery
https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/sta ... 43296?s=09

Yebbut. Dunt fit on the side of a bus, do it?

rjsterry

- I made LDs the larger Remain party purely to wind all the right people up.

Love that.

Jez mon

darkhairedlord wrote:

BJ to prorogue on 8th until 14th.
So BJ will have been PM for 85 days by the time he is supposed to be at the EU summit and will have only faced 1 PMQ.
IS that poor?

It's a slow start.

It will be interesting if/when the EU reject his deal, but will just reinforce existing feelings.

rjsterry

TailWindHome wrote:

Some electoral math geekery
https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/sta ... 43296?s=09

And this morning...

wow 500 follows off that Brexit thread today - I'm giving the centrist dads the content they crave for.

:oops:

rick_chasey

It’s not clear how the proposal is in line with the GFA

Longshot

Marina Hyde's take on the CPC: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -untouched

Worth it for the following line alone: "Yet again, Boris Johnson swears blind he’s going to withdraw on schedule. A promise an unspecified number of single mothers have heard before."

briantrumpet

Rick Chasey wrote:

It’s clear how the proposal is not in line with the GFA

I hope you don't mind my changing the order of your words.